Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Transportation

Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners 146

Posted by Soulskill
from the raise-your-hand-if-you're-surprised dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from UC San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins say they've found security vulnerabilities in full-body backscatter X-ray machines deployed to U.S. airports between 2009 and 2013. In lab tests, the researchers were able to conceal firearms and plastic explosive simulants from the Rapiscan Secure 1000 scanner, plus modify the scanner software so it presents an "all-clear" image to the operator even when contraband was detected. "Frankly, we were shocked by what we found," said lead researcher J. Alex Halderman. "A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I am shocked

    • Re:Frankly (Score:5, Funny)

      by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:38PM (#47714727)

      No, that's just the X-ray scanner malfunctioning.

      • by pkinetics (549289)
        Hmm.. I wonder what would happen if this company developed teleporters
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "I teleported home one night,
          With Ron and Sid and Meg.
          Rons stole Meggie's heart away,
          And I got Sydney's leg."

        • Minion 1: His head!
          Minion 2: It`s on backward!
          Scroob: Why didn`t anybody tell me my ass was so big?!?!

    • I hate to be an advocate for security through obscurity, but I figured these things would be ultra super restricted, and "laboratory tests" would be irrelevant because they had access to a device that attackers do not have access to.

      The systemâ(TM)s designers seem to have assumed that attackers would not have access to a Secure 1000 to test and refine their attacks,â said Hovav Shacham, a professor of computer science at UC San Diego.

      That's actually kind of reasonable, given the amount of spendin

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        I hate to be an advocate for security through obscurity, but I figured these things would be ultra super restricted, and "laboratory tests" would be irrelevant because they had access to a device that attackers do not have access to.

        "The system's designers seem to have assumed that attackers would not have access to a Secure 1000 to test and refine their attacks'"said Hovav Shacham, a professor of computer science at UC San Diego.

        And yet these machines are in public places. If the attacks involve wifi, they're available for pen testing by bad guys. For the low tech smuggling techniques, they're not just available for testing; they're foisted upon anyone with a ticket. If you have more manpower and money than scruples, you can send tester after tester through with items and figure out the ways to get through.

    • by dgatwood (11270)

      I am shocked

      Me, too. I'm shocked that the researchers didn't know this. I knew this, I suspect that you knew this, and anybody who has ever read even a single Slashdot article about these machines knows this. The security holes in these things are so obvious that you should be able to think of at least a couple of ways around them without even trying.

      Next thing you know, atmospheric researchers will discover that the sky is, in fact, predominantly blue.

  • and yet (Score:4, Informative)

    by halfEvilTech (1171369) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @01:59PM (#47714363)

    Nothing will change most likely.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, and yet we allow our government to violate people's fourth amendment rights in broad fucking daylight every single day just because people want to get on a plane. Land of the free? Home of the brave? I think not. Disgusting.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by NatasRevol (731260)

      I'm not sure voluntarily going on a plane is the government violating your right to privacy.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:11PM (#47714495)

        I'm not sure voluntarily going on a plane is the government violating your right to privacy.

        Well then, what about a government restricting your freedom of movement by forcing you to give up your right to privacy if you desire to travel? I am not saying it is not a nuanced issue — it is, and needs to be debated — but typing a flippant comment as you have done does not end the discussion.

        • by TWX (665546) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:20PM (#47714579)
          Unfortunately for your position, the courts have always provided interpretation to the Constitution, and many instances of limits on the defined words of the Constitution are found in law.

          If you want to get all strict-constructionist on this matter though, planes, cars, buses, and rail didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, so one could argue that there's no Constitutional protection when travelling by anything beyond horseback, carriage, or walking.

          Then there's the other side, where airlines were allowed to be in charge of their own security, letting "the market" set the balance, but then nineteen men decided to kill about 3500 men, women, and children one day, and our society realized that it wasn't gonna work to let the airlines be in charge of security.
          • by danbert8 (1024253) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:34PM (#47714695)

            It wasn't a failure of security that caused 9/11, it was a failure of policy. The by the book way to deal with a hijacking was to comply with the terrorists with the idea that they just wanted the passengers and plane for ransom, not to use the plane itself as a weapon. Today the pilots would intentionally crash the plane before they would allow the hijackers control over the aircraft.

            • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:58PM (#47714931)

              Today the pilots would intentionally crash the plane before they would allow the hijackers control over the aircraft.

              Passengers had also been conditioned to just stay in their seats and be calm. That would never happen today. Even on 9/11, the passengers on Flight 93 figured out that it was fight back or die trying.

              One of the reasons that AQ did all four hijackings simultaneously, is that they knew they would never be able to exploit the same vulnerabilities again.

            • This.

              9/11 was much like the trojan horse stunt Odysseus pulled. Worked great back then. Won't work again, ever.

              The reason 9/11 worked out was because people were used to other kinds of plane hijackings. Hijackers that steal a plane, fly it somewhere, then demand something to be fulfilled before returning plane and passengers. That was the standard of plane hijackings before 2001. That's why it worked. Everyone expected just that. That's why the pilots opened the cockpit doors, that's why the passengers stay

              • by kimvette (919543)

                > The reason 9/11 worked out was because people were used to other kinds of plane hijackings. Hijackers that steal a plane, fly it somewhere, then demand something to be fulfilled before returning plane and passengers.

                Exactly. It has always been an opportunity to visit places Americans are prohibited from traveling to, such as Cuba. 9/11 was a game-changer which results in passengers subduing would-be hijackers. Hell, I'd love to see passengers permanently maim and disfigure one of those fuckers and mayb

            • Even if one accepts a failure of security, the only "tightening of security" that would have made any difference today versus on 9/11 are the locked, reinforced cockpit doors. Had the planes had those on 9/11, the hijackers could have threatened or even killed all of the passengers/crew (except for the pilots), but the plane would have landed safely without crashing into any buildings.

              We could roll back the "enhanced security" to pre-911 levels, keeping only those cockpit door improvements, and we'd be jus

          • by GlennC (96879) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:35PM (#47714697)

            Let's look it up....http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html [archives.gov]

                    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

            Since there is no "Right to Travel" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.

            Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.

            Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.

            That we have come to this point is a sad commentary on the United States. That many others not only accept this but actively defend it is even more disappointing.

            • by mythosaz (572040)

              The argument here is that denying efficient travel subverts freedom of assembly as well as the right to (effectively) petition my government for redress of grievances.

            • Article four, clause 1 includes the text:

              the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise;

              This is the basis for the conclusion that we have a specifically protected right to travel.

            • That we have come to this point is a sad commentary on the United States. That many others not only accept this but actively defend it is even more disappointing.

              It is sad. As an American, I have to admit defeat in a war that I did not know was being fought, despite endless, constant mention of it.

              I guess we could start practicing things like forgiveness and piety any time we want though.

            • by sjames (1099)

              Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.

              THIS! A million times over.

              I specifically remember my social studies teacher in elementary school telling us the U.S. is good and Russia is bad and then explaining why. One reason is because in Russia you had to show your papers just to travel. Another was that in Russia the KGB listened to your phone calls.

              The commies didn't die out, they just took over the U.S.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            The constitution is not a 'whitelist'!

            9th Amendment:

                    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            10th Amendment

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

            • Or, more specifically, it's a "white list" of what the government is allowed to do. If the government wants to do X and X isn't white listed in the Constitution, they can either not do X or try to amend the Constitution to allow X. (Or, in the real world, do X anyway as secretive as possible and hope the courts don't order them to stop.)

              • The US Constitution is both. It is a "white list" of powers assigned explicitly to the Federal government, with the remainder falling under "state's rights". It also contains a "black list", in the form of the Bill of Rights, which enumerates certain areas as being explicitly off-limits to both the Federal and State governments.
              • Or, in the real world, do X anyway as secretive as possible and hope the courts don't order them to stop.

                The courts don't mean much to these people - the FISA court's own statements about being misled by the NSA proves that. The only thing within the law guaranteed to stop them is to start jailing those responsible or cutting off their funding.
          • Our society? Citation needed...

          • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @03:29PM (#47715275) Homepage Journal

            If you want to get all strict-constructionist on this matter though, planes, cars, buses, and rail didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, so one could argue that there's no Constitutional protection when travelling by anything beyond horseback, carriage, or walking.

            No you cannot argue that. The Constitution says nothing about technology and everything about how humans behave.

            Then there's the other side, where airlines were allowed to be in charge of their own security, letting "the market" set the balance, but then nineteen men decided to kill about 3500 men, women, and children one day, and our society realized that it wasn't gonna work to let the airlines be in charge of security.

            That strategy ceased to be effective at 9:03AM on 9/11/2001 over a field in Shanksville, PA. And you know who figured that out? Ordinary Americans, doing the security calculus themselves, where the government had completely failed to protect them, despite having many opportunities to do so.

            To be double-sure the airlines all secured their cockpit doors. That risk no longer exists, which is why the TSA has never caught a terrorist. They do violate the human rights of Americans all day, every day. In an effort to stop the terrorists, they have become the terrorists, all because they consciously choose to violate the highest law of the land.

            • by Agripa (139780)

              That strategy ceased to be effective at 9:03AM on 9/11/2001 over a field in Shanksville, PA. And you know who figured that out? Ordinary Americans, doing the security calculus themselves, where the government had completely failed to protect them, despite having many opportunities to do so.

              And not only did the government fail to protect them and others, it did so while enforcing policies to prevent them from protecting themselves and others.

              I think they got the government they deserve and continue to do so.

          • by _Sharp'r_ (649297)

            If you want to get all strict-constructionist on this matter though, planes, cars, buses, and rail didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, so one could argue that there's no Constitutional protection when travelling by anything beyond horseback, carriage, or walking.

            This argument doesn't make any sense, and certainly wouldn't to a strict-constructionist.

            Either the Constitution was intended to cover any type of travel when originally written, or it wasn't.

            If it was, then any type of travel is protected, because nothing in the Constitution authorizes the government to restrict travel.

            If (as you argue) it wasn't intended to cover, say, flying, because it didn't exist at that time yet (silly, no one really argues that but let's go with it...), then still, nothing in the Co

          • Unfortunately for your position, the courts have always provided interpretation to the Constitution, and many instances of limits on the defined words of the Constitution are found in law.

            This is true.

            If you want to get all strict-constructionist on this matter though, planes, cars, buses, and rail didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, so one could argue that there's no Constitutional protection when travelling by anything beyond horseback, carriage, or walking.

            WHAAA??!! Where did this non sequitur come from??

            Look -- I'm all for the "technology sometimes might change the way we need to interpret rights thing" -- I don't think the Framers meant that we get to have our own personal nuclear warheads just because we have "the right to bear arms," for example.

            But you've made a complete non sequitur here. The Fourth Amendment, which is what's at issue here, says the following:

            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

            I don't see ANYTHING there that mentions a mode of travel. It says you get

          • by sjames (1099)

            It is a constructive violation of our rights and is only continuing because the courts practically break their necks looking the other way.

            Some argue you weren't forced to make a right turn, you were just prohibited from going forward, backing up, turning left or staying where you were. Constructively though, you were forced to turn right.

            A strict constructionist wouldn't be bothered in the least if automobiles existed or not back then. They would only be concerned with the freedom of movement and point out

      • by redeIm (3779401) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:11PM (#47714501) Homepage

        I'm not sure voluntarily living in a certain city is the government violating your right to privacy.

        Using this ridiculous, draconian logic of "You voluntarily decided to do X, so you implicitly surrendered right Y to the government." is just stupid. The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something. Of course, people who want the government to have unlimited power and to be able to violate your liberties whenever they please would disagree.

        • by TWX (665546)
          Any branch of government has all of the power that another branch of government allows it to have. As long as two branches agree then the third branch can be worked-around even if they object.
          • by redeIm (3779401)

            The government has no constitutional authority to force people to implicitly surrender their rights in exchange for being able to do something completely innocuous. They might be traitors who claim they do and just ignore the constitution, but that's a different matter.

            • by TWX (665546)
              It may not have constitutional authority, but might makes right.

              Andrew Jackson force-marched indigenous people thousands of miles from the ancestral lands that they'd continuously occupied for longer than this nation had existed to open that land up to settlers of European ancestry, even against court-order, because Congress didn't join with the Supreme Court and force his hand.

              Andrew Jackson is featured on our money, despite falling into your definition of a traitor.
        • by Obfuscant (592200)

          The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something.

          It's not implicit, it is pretty explicit. There are signs in every security checkpoint line I've been through that clearly say that by entering this line your person and property are subject to search. I've also seen those signs at the exit of the checkpoint telling people that by being in the secured area they are subject to search. Right or wrong, it isn't implicit.

          I don't know about you, but I am not upset that those who "wish to do something", when "something" means "enter a jail or prison to visit a

          • by redeIm (3779401)

            No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous. If you feel the government should have unlimited power, then try to amend the constitution. Otherwise, screw off.

            The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to. Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.

            • by Obfuscant (592200)

              No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous.

              You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it. Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.

              If you feel the government should have unlimited power,

              I don't believe any rational person could read what I wrote and come away with the idea I think the government should have unlimited power. I pointed out that the claim that rights were being waived "implicitly" was wrong, and even went so far as to specifically say I was not talking about "right or wrong".

              The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to.

              It is quite e

              • by redeIm (3779401)

                You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it.

                General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.

                Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.

                Oh, screw off. You know that I'm talking about the many innocents who have their rights violated by the TSA.

                It is quite explicit, if you can read simple English when you pass by the sign. They've said "they want to" search you before you ever reach a point where they actually search you.

                I'm not talking about *them*, I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know th

                • by redeIm (3779401)

                  Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.

                  Or are you saying that because some people are bad, nobody should have rights? I doubt it, but who the fuck knows. Either way, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, violating everyone's rights and privacy merely because some people are Bad Guys is unacceptable.

                • by AK Marc (707885)

                  General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.

                  They aren't searching people for criminal reasons. You aren't under suspicion of a crime, and nothing found will be used to investigate that crime. Theoretically, if they found evidence of smuggling, they are required to pass you through security unmolested (provided you meet all the other requirements). It's for that reason that they are "legal".

                  I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.

                  You aren't implicitly consenting by getting in a plane I've flown a number of times with no search at all. You are explicitly complying when you walk past the

                  • by redeIm (3779401)

                    That's explicitly doing it.

                    Well, the government doesn't have the power to force you to do that in order for you to be able to get in a plane, either. But that won't stop TSA apologists from using one of these arguments.

                    • by AK Marc (707885)
                      What's "TSA apologist"? Anyone who doesn't share your ideals?
                    • by redeIm (3779401)

                      Someone who thinks it's okay that we violate people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in exchange for safety (dubious safety, at that). In other words, morons. I would think freedom-minded individuals would agree that they are nothing more than poison to a free society.

                      So, yes, I'm fundamentally opposed to their thinking, and yes, I will insult such people.

                    • by AK Marc (707885)

                      Someone who thinks it's okay that we violate people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in exchange for safety (dubious safety, at that). In other words, morons. I would think freedom-minded individuals would agree that they are nothing more than poison to a free society.

                      Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people. People who explain the law, as enforced, to you aren't "defending" it or asserting they think it's ok.

                      You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.

                    • by redeIm (3779401)

                      Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people.

                      I never said they were here, in this article, specifically. But I've seen many of them, and that's where I heard such ridiculous arguments to begin with.

                      The only one I can think of who comes close is this guy. [slashdot.org] He claimed that he himself thinks that the TSA search is reasonable and made an effort to defend it. If that's not what he was doing, then people who explain the law, as it is enforced, don't do a very good job of distinguishing themselves from individuals who think the law, as it is enforced, is good

              • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

                Nineteen people taking out 3500...

                ...out of some 5+ billion that have walked through US airport security checkpoints since. Out of (pessimistically) 50,000 people with the will or propensity to inflict ill will via items contained on their person or in their luggage on others. (And arguably 5 that could be successful on a given trip.) ...At a cost of countless millions of wasted hours, billions of wasted dollars, and fundamentally liberty lost.

                Pretty good for the contractors though...

      • by JohnFen (1641097)

        If flying were always voluntarily, I'd never fly again. As it is, I fly about twice a year, involuntarily. Regardless of that, though, it absolutely is the government violating my privacy. That I technically "consent" to it doesn't make it any less of a privacy invasion.

        • by TWX (665546)
          You fly involuntarily? Someone kidnaps you and forces you on to a plane and it takes off before your objection to being there is realized by the cabin crew?

          Or do you mean, "work requires me to fly even though I don't want to, but I want to keep my job so I do it anyway"?
          • Yes. That's what he said. He didn't volunteer to go. It was a requirement. I really wish idiots would stop arguing for totalitarianism with stupid son sequiters and a complete lack of understanding of the English language.
      • by Anon-Admin (443764) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:23PM (#47714601) Homepage Journal

        Yes, it is. The 4th amendment says

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        They are not getting warrants, there is no probable cause unless getting on a plane is probable cause to believe you are going to destroy it. There is no Oath or affirmation and no description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

        People do not seem to realize that your rights are given to you by your creator and the constitution only reaffirms that and states that the government can not violate those rights. It does not give you the rights and does not say anything about permission to violate because you enter a store, airport, car, train station, or the bathroom of your own house.

        There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, if they wanted it to be Constitutional they could have created an amendment that allowed the acceptation, voted on it, ratified it amongst the states, and then enforced it. Instead they ignored the Constitution, threw the existing law of the land out the window and the government did as they pleased. It is wrong, it is a violation of law, and a violation of the Constitution!

        BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport. The second they put Government Security Agents (TSA) in place it became unconstitutional.

        And now I bet I am on the no-fly list for this post. Another unconstitutional action the government takes.

        • by Obfuscant (592200)

          BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport.

          So it is perfectly acceptable to you if a large corporation wants to search you and your effects prior to letting you buy their product (which you need to buy to be able to exercise other rights you have), but is not acceptable if a government does it for the very same reasons?

          I pointed out the "need to buy" part because so much of the argument about TSA searches includes the idea that travel by air is an essential part of the freedom to travel and that taking other modes is not sufficient to provide "cho

          • by apraetor (248989)
            This argument is a bit disingenuous. The 4th Amendment prevents searches when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As you are in public in an airport/on an airplane, and there is an overriding public interest in preventing weapons from being brought on-board an aircraft, it is legal to require consensual searches before boarding to look specifically for weapons -- because an aircraft en route is very isolated and in an emergency there would be no way to get help on board, short of landing -- which
            • So your argument is that if you are in public you do not have an "expectation of privacy"? There is no such statement in the 4th amendment and no exception for public interest. I find it funny that you said "require consensual searches" If it is required it is not consensual!

              You are wrong, you can refuse to be searched when walking down the street, you can refuse to allow a cop to search your car when you are pulled over. Your right is to be secure in your PERSONS, PAPERS, and EFFECTS. That includes your sh

              • by apraetor (248989)
                Huh? It's perfectly legal to require a person to consent to a search in order to enter a private business. Plenty of stores have signs saying that they reserve the right to search your backpack/purse upon entering. Most rarely do, but they COULD do it to every person. You are correct, you can refuse the search -- and the business has the right to refuse you permission to enter if you decline. You have every right to fly without being searched, in your own airplane. Airlines have an interest in protecting th
          • My argument is that they are government agents bound by the restrictions of the constitution. The reason that it is not an issue with private security is because it can be a contractual stipulation of purchase.

            Just like being searched on the way out of a store is voluntary and you can simply decline, where as being searched on the way out of Sam's or Cosco is a stipulation of the contract and can not be declined without giving up your purchase and membership.

      • What activity would the TSA need to install body scanners at to cross the line for you? The train? Subway? City bus? Terrorists have blown up far more cafes than airplanes, so logically you should need to be scanned to buy coffee. And it wouldn't be an imposition, since you're there voluntarily!

      • Well then allow me to assist you in getting a clue. Suppose government agents surround your house with scanners. At some point you might choose to go to the store. Of course, they didn't violate the 4th amendment. You chose to go to the store. You chose to excercise your right to unfettered travel as guaranteed by the constitution. You chose to be searched!
      • I'm not sure voluntarily going on a plane is the government violating your right to privacy.

        Be sure.

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

        Your houses have privacy, and so do your papers, and so do your effects, and so does your person. You do not need to keep all your things, including your body, in your house to keep your privacy. Traveling is *expected* behavior of people - it does not remove y

    • by alen (225700)

      we have had metal detectors for years if not decades. this is just a better metal detector

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Even more evidence those things aren't worth the paper they were drafted on. They're garbage, shitcan them already.
  • by maxrate (886773) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:02PM (#47714397)
    What if you have an enormous gut? If it hung over your waste/belt line you could probably fit a small weapon in the fold.
    • by TWX (665546)
      I believe that exact flaw in the tech was demonstrated some years ago.
    • As demonstrated here [photobucket.com] using a small dog?
      Gary Larsen ahead of his time as usual.
      • Indeed, the puppy is very well hidden... but not in belly folds but in buggy html or miguided deep link protection. Anybody has a URL of this picture which accepts to be viewed from Slashdot?
  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:02PM (#47714405) Homepage

    They're successful when you consider that the point was to move tax revenue to crony pockets:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

  • Rapiscan (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by fnj (64210)

    Rape-a-scan?

  • hehe (Score:5, Funny)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:08PM (#47714471)

    "A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques."

    Please, God, Tell me it's tinfoil... plz plz plz plz

    • by Minwee (522556)

      "A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques."

      Please, God, Tell me it's tinfoil... plz plz plz plz

      Didn't you ever wonder why every time you go to the store to buy tinfoil, The Government has replaced it with aluminum?

    • Jon Corbett was reporting on this at least 2 years ago. Video here [youtube.com] and articles in numerous locations. If I remember correctly, he was threatened by the DOJ and put on a no fly list for his trouble, in addition to being ignored by MSM.

  • by RobinH (124750) on Wednesday August 20, 2014 @02:18PM (#47714561) Homepage
    At this point nobody's going to be surprised if any device tested has blatant security flaws. The only interesting story would be if someone found a device with no actual flaws. That would be news.
    • What's worse about this is that the government buys into these security technologies as if they were magic, both financially and from a security perspective, treating them as if they were prima facie proof of guilt/innocence.

      Yet at the same time they classify the technologies, prohibiting anyone from gaining any information about them or validating whether they work. The cynic of course knows this is just to hide their failings for political and commercial reasons "to prevent terrorists" from exploiting th

    • by bobbied (2522392)

      At this point nobody's going to be surprised if any device tested has blatant security flaws. The only interesting story would be if someone found a device with no actual flaws. That would be news.

      A machine without flaws? No, that just means it wasn't tested well enough.

  • I remember people successfully demonstrating tricking those things since they were first released.

  • Probably a rhetorical question

    Has any technology that was rushed / pushed after 9/11 actually worked as promised?

    Or has it been the usual over hyped marketing pitch "We can solve your problems! And even ones you don't even have!"

    • by bobbied (2522392)
      Rushing any new technology pretty much makes it a given that it won't work as advertised. This is even more true when the buyer is the government and they are trying to calm fear.
  • Can we now get a reliable measurement of the amount of energy output and absorption rates as well as which tissues and locations take the heaviest dose?

  • Nothing to be afraid of. They're just "back-scatter x-rays."

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. -- Elbert Hubbard

Working...