Paparazzi's wet dream... I mean, if the LAPD can't keep pictures of a battered Rihanna from TMZ[1], wait until Paris Hilton decides to fly commercial through LAX. (Celebrities can't always afford charter, can they?)
The conspiracy side of me says these lower resolution images were purposely released to try and calm the public backlash. I remember seeing much higher resolutions images when these machines first came out.
The scariest thing about this, to me, was seeing how people not even in the scanner were picked up.
I suppose it's to be expected, since it isn't exactly shielded in the way you'd expect it to be, but if this thing is just spewing radiation all over the place, I can't imagine what's going to become of the people that actually work near it all day long.
My privacy is one thing, and I do a good deal to avoid the Backscatters, but this is potentially an actual life and death situation that people may not have even considered, or worse, that is drowned out by all the discussion about our freedoms.
In another post, I made the comment that anyone that opts out of going through these machines should use this fact to plant fear in the minds of TSA agents.
Every one of them should at least be a little concerned about this and it would be great to see them oppose these machines for their own safety, if nothing else.
You act like TSA agents came up with the idea to grope and body scan everyone in the airport. This is a huge pain the in ass for them, and they know that it poses a health risk for themselves. However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors. So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.
> However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors.
I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong.
> So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.
Saying this as you out opt isn't snide: "I'm a little concerned about the radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this machine all day. It must be worrying".
I would argue that many of these people are told that the machines are perfectly safe and don't even consider that they are being exposed while standing outside.
Exactly. Personally I wish that, legally, using the Nuremberg ("just doing my job") Defense would get you a much more severe sentence. If no one were willing to do evil things because "it's their job" most of the biggest atrocities we can think of couldn't have been committed and we would have never heard of many of the most evil people in history. None of them could have accomplished anything all by themselves.
While this opinion is clearly unpopular, to a certain extend I agree with the johnglasgow. I hope that I would quit if I were in a similar situation as the TSA employees, but I'm fortunate to have finished college and actually have an interest in a relatively lucrative field (computer programming, natch).
While, technically, they might use the Nuremberg defense, I think bringing that up is a little harsh. Some of the TSA workers probably do disagree, but some of them also have been working in this job since before the scanners were introduced, or before other less controversial practices were introduced. If you have a stable job and not too many other prospects, it is particularly difficult to leave, due to human inertia etc... I know how this can be as I'd like to find a new job right now too, because I really hate using CVS where I work now :)
In addition, if they are less educated, they might genuinely believe that what they are doing is helping prevent terrorism. I'm sure there is plenty of mild to heavy indoctrination done during training, and I doubt that many of the TSA agents at the gate are reading Bruce Schneier.
I think it would behoove HNers to have a little more compassion for these people, it is highly likely that they are less fortunate than most of HN.
Needless to say, I disagree with the TSA policies. And actually I think "snide" remarks about the possible health dangers, and educating other passengers similar to a story posted yesterday, is great. Unfortunately, I think comments about the safety of the machines are probably pretty infrequent, and that the agents probably get a lot more incoherent flak than that about all the inane procedures.
>This is a good point. I bet the level of radiation is an OSHA violation. Nothing like one government agency fighting another.
You sir, are a mad genius. But really, how long before a class action lawsuit thrown against the government for exposing many to this type of thing? On one hand, I hope it takes a long time for people to feel the ill effects, buton the other...
I would be disappointed if these machines were eventually decommissioned because of radiation safety issues. That's not why they're wrong, and it won't help us avoid these sorts of crimes against liberty in the future. They'll just come up with some new, safer way of violating our rights.
I would argue that it's one of many reasons they are wrong.
I'm equally as concerned about the privacy and civil rights violations. But it's still a problem that the machines pose a physical risk to passengers and TSA employees.
Yes, ask them why they aren't wearing dosimeter badges like health care workers who are potentially exposed to radiation. Ask them how can they be sure the machines are functioning properly.
I don't think it's a good idea to spread FUD based on irrational fears of 'radiation'. That has done enough damage to our lives already. These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones or regular flying.
Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.
I Am A Physicist and well aware of that. My arguments is based on the safety ratings of these machines and the research supporting those ratings. I'm not arguing that the safety of microwaves carries over to these machines: I'm arguing the same methods of judging the safety carries over. I also didn't include regular flying for nothing. Finally, we used to be sitting behind CRT monitors all the time...
People are worried about the x-ray machines, not the microwave ones. The x-ray are by far the majority and that radiation damage is cumulative. That means that it doesn't matter how much we're getting elsewhere, we are adding to the damage unnecessarily, and the TSA workers at an even larger rate.
Yes, X-ray machines, whose dosage is lower than the amount of X-rays you receive during a reasonable flight or when sitting behind a CRT monitor for a while. You're just repeating FUD, without having actually looked at the numbers.
we are adding to the damage unnecessarily
That's a value judgment, based on what is 'necessary'. If these machines aren't necessary, then the argument against them shouldn't be based on some fringe notion of a health risk, but should directly focus on the fact that they are not necessary to improve safety.
The concern is that these doses, which target the skin by design, may in fact be far more damaging to that tissue than the overall radiation dose would imply.
And you're just spewing out the FDA report, which has already been debunked for making false comparisons (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines).
>without having actually looked at the numbers
It doesn't sound like you're very well versed on this stuff either, yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in so far.
>If these machines aren't necessary
It's been stated by several security experts (including airport security personnel) that existing techniques can detect more threats then these silly backscatter machines. These machines are only in airports because a form TSA head works for the company that produces them now.
yet you have no trouble running around defending what is
likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in
This is exactly why you and many others fail to accept this simple factual point. I'm not defending the TSA. I'm arguing against a single, silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, argument against them. Arguing against an argument against something, does not make someone a proponent of that thing.
And you're just spewing out the FDA report
From my study I have experience with medical applications involving these kinds of radiation. I know effects and dosages. Even if there are false comparisons, they are irrelevant: the numbers are the numbers and they are clear. Dosage: minimal. Even an additional factor 100 due to focusing on the skin is not noteworthy. The different energy might, but there are many reasons to believe it doesn't matter. Finally, the entire point is irrelevant. That it is thought the TSA needs these things in the first place, that is the problem. Focusing on this possibly associated problem does more damage to the general opinion about 'radiation', then it serves the cause of banning these machines.
(e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while
flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines)
Sigh. Doctors also comfort patients by telling them the dosage of an X-ray photograph provides a similar dosage to flying to Australia. Yes, there are some caveats. Those caveats on that comparison do not debunk the FDA report. The general point of that comparison is valid. These doctors aren't lying to their patients about the risks involved.
>I'm arguing against a single, silly, unnecessary and counterproductive, argument against them.
It's absolutely not counterproductive. At the end of the day, people don't give a shit about their rights being violated. Look at what american citizens have already given up. Sure, they'll bitch about it around the watercooler, might even make a facebook group but that's as far as it will ever go. I bet you could go as far as doing full on rectal examinations and so long as accepting that was faster than not people would still do it without protest because convenience trumps almost all.
Almost. If the people think there is a chance that these things cause cancer then it becomes a life and death situation that they will do something about. A poster elsewhere has had some success with this issue with TSA workers.
I'm certainly not going to advocate making things up to get our way but real experts have come out on this requesting a more thorough study. TSA wont release various figures about the radiation. X-ray damage is cumulative. Taken all these things together I really believe there is a chance these things aren't safe and if there's even a chance of it that should be enough to block their usage. The burden of proof lies with the people who want to bring these things in, not with people who need to fly but don't want the added cancer risk.
And, as bizarre as it may seem, Apple and RIM reportedly warn users to hold the phone 5/8" and 1" away from your body, respectively, in other words not against your ear or in your pocket -
This is a poor tact to take. The fact is that experts in the field have said, unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these things. Since this is something forced on us the burden of proof should be on TSA, not customers trying to use airport services. Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines, they should not be used. Full stop.
Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines
It's impossible to prove such a thing, just like it's impossible to prove the sun will rise tomorrow.
The fact is that experts in the field have said,
unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these
things
Yes, and other 'experts' have deemed these machines safe and noted the amount of radiation is far less than involved in frequent flying. That's why I'm referring to the majority opinion. You can always find an 'expert' with a different opinion. There are thousands of people that can call themselves experts on this subject. There are Nobel-prize laureates promoting the strangest parapsychological theories. It doesn't mean a bloody thing to invoke 'some expert'. The dosage facts are crystal clear.
What majority? Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling and/or using the machine. Are you calling into question the credentials of all the experts that spoke out claiming more research needs to be done on this? Are you qualified to do so?
Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling
and/or using the machine
If they honestly believed those 'answers', they wouldn't have sold or used those machines. These answers are just intended to cover their asses, so they can have it both ways: sell the machines as safe on the one hand; publicly claim they 'have some reservations' on the other hand. The only thing that matters is: who certified the machines and what methods did they use. If the machines are certified for regular use on humans, why is that.
It's a wonder we are still allowed to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging, renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging to get rid of the scary 'nuclear'. Now any notion of 'radiation' is again being ostracized. Everyone just repeats some thing they think they understood, without actually knowing anything of what is actually involved. If you feel X-rays are that scary, stop flying.
I'm spewing anti-anti-radiation facts. Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place. As for [1]: yes, fine, the effective dosage may be larger than suggested. Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter. Secondly, the 'letter of concern' mainly asks questions about some possible risks. Thirdly, it does not support the claims in this thread in any way. The OP was worried about it 'spewing radiation all over the place'. The dosage of people working there is completely negligible compared to what people inside the machine receive.
You've ignored every counter that was already provided to your "facts". That doesn't strike me as arguing in good faith.
>Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place.
Nonsense. If you care about people's rights, why would you want to bring the discussion to a place of utter irrelevance? The american people accepted The PATRIOT act for God's sake. Do you think they're going to give a shit about being scanned naked, so long as it's fast?
>Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter.
The damage is cumulative. How can it possibly not matter. Damage done by the X-ray doesn't "go away" right? So every little extra dosage you get is just making things worse for you. You can say it's less than taking a cross Atlantic flight but I have to take the flight. Trust me, if there were another way I wouldn't go near a plane.
I still fly. I get X-rays when I think I've broken something. I love bananas. These are all sources of radiation that I'm going to be exposed to for some benefit to me (sometimes the risk of not doing it is worse than the radiation risk) and am willing to take the risks. These scanners don't help me in any way. This is radiation I'm enduring for no benefit to me what so ever. Even if I did buy the party line about terrorists, dying in a car accident would be vastly more likely than being killed by a terrorist so I'd rather take my chances with them than with this machine.
This scanner is not an x-ray scanner like the ones deployed to scan air travelers. X-rays are ionizing radiation, the kind which can cause cancer. The machine in the picture uses millimeter waves which are not ionizing, and produces a much fuzzier image.
Although the TSA claims the x-ray dose given to air travelers is safe, there are reasons for concern. For one, they refuse to disclose the x-ray flux. Also, the comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they compare to the absorbed x-ray dose and average it over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume.
Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are likely to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts.
what's your point? bribery isn't a one-sided thing. if there are government officials that'll sell out for $10, we all very much need to find that out before someone offers them more than $10 for something more valuable than a nudie pic.
heh, this 'leak' probably was on purpose and from a machine that is so old/blocky/pixilated to make the public see this as a non-issue. The images leaked look NOTHING like the ones at http://dontscan.us/ .... If the general public see this as what is being fought against, they'll probably think it isn't even worth a fight.
Nevermind that this is proof that the government broke a promise to never store/transit the information from these machines. That won't raise enough of a fuss because people are used to being lied to. That and we have a bunch of spineless politicians backed by spineless scared populace who would trade every liberty for just a little more 'security'.
Nothing makes me more angry than people who don't want to be responsible for their own actions.
The conspiracy theorist in me agrees with you. The quality of these images are shit, and the first thing that came to my mind was "well these aren't so bad."
To be clear: these images came from the US Marshals Service scanning people entering a courthouse in Florida, not from the TSA. The TSA maintains that their machines are unable to store images: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/tsa-response-to-feds-admit-stori...
These images were not leaked or snuck out by an employee or anything, they were acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request.
I think the TSA's scanners are an unjustifiable invasion of privacy, but I think that people should make their arguments with the facts. This article is shamelessly caching in on people's outrage without really adding much to the discussion.
>The TSA maintains that their machines are unable to store images
They may maintain that but they've done one lie after another about these machines. An actual TSA screener seems to indicate here [1] that they do indeed store the images, they just choose to delete them if they aren't pertinent. This sounds much more likely, if they find something they will probably need the photos for any court case that comes later. Note that this would also mean that the images can be retrieved from the machines and possibly in a very convenient manner.
These images are from a different type of scanner that produces much fuzzier images than the x-ray based scanners being used on air travelers.
It would be naive to think the government responded to the freedom of information request and released these images now during the controversy about the TSA pat downs and x-ray scanners by chance, as it will give those not paying attention the impression the images are not very detailed.
TSA is lying about storage. The machine's specs REQUIRE storage of images in a "Test Mode", and even allow export of the images through a USB thumb-drive. Check out pages 10 and 16.
> This article is shamelessly caching in on people's outrage without really adding much to the discussion.
Not only that - by showing the wrong kind of image taken at places different than the TSA with a different technology, it may mislead people into believing this is the kind of image the TSA generates. It's shameful.
It's been a long time since Wired ceased to be a relevant news source. I remember their "long boom" issue just weeks before the dot-com bubble crash.
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.onseeking.com/ ----- ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ HANDBAG 35$ ,））））,''）~~ ,''~） ╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ SHOES 35$ ｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ CLOTH 15$ ╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2010 NEW Your fashion! Your season! Michael bag fashion tidalcurrent.the fashionable element "bag" you - glamour infinite. Mass commodity, low discount, the buy cheaper. { www. onseeking .com } mall price can buy eligible products and services. Select all kinds of women, men's shoes, etc, { onseeking .com } shopping navigation! In addition, the company has a good reputation, quality standard, At a reasonable price. In the past few years, have been deeply overseas My friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase. ====== Free transport====== !!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.onseeking.com/) !!!!!!!!!!!! input this URL: (http://onseeking.com/) you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (jor dan s-h-o-e-s) (NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y) ( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g) (cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t) (D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s) (ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t) (UG G b-o-o-t) WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!! ----------------------
60 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadI guess that's encouraging in one aspect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.htm...
Yep, your "junk" is fully visible.
Paparazzi's wet dream... I mean, if the LAPD can't keep pictures of a battered Rihanna from TMZ[1], wait until Paris Hilton decides to fly commercial through LAX. (Celebrities can't always afford charter, can they?)
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,498157,00.html
I get your point, though.
I suppose it's to be expected, since it isn't exactly shielded in the way you'd expect it to be, but if this thing is just spewing radiation all over the place, I can't imagine what's going to become of the people that actually work near it all day long.
My privacy is one thing, and I do a good deal to avoid the Backscatters, but this is potentially an actual life and death situation that people may not have even considered, or worse, that is drowned out by all the discussion about our freedoms.
Every one of them should at least be a little concerned about this and it would be great to see them oppose these machines for their own safety, if nothing else.
I'm sure it is.
> However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors.
I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong.
> So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.
Saying this as you out opt isn't snide: "I'm a little concerned about the radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this machine all day. It must be worrying".
I would argue that many of these people are told that the machines are perfectly safe and don't even consider that they are being exposed while standing outside.
Nobody does evil all by themselves. If everyone thought like you do, there would be less room for evil in the world.
While, technically, they might use the Nuremberg defense, I think bringing that up is a little harsh. Some of the TSA workers probably do disagree, but some of them also have been working in this job since before the scanners were introduced, or before other less controversial practices were introduced. If you have a stable job and not too many other prospects, it is particularly difficult to leave, due to human inertia etc... I know how this can be as I'd like to find a new job right now too, because I really hate using CVS where I work now :)
In addition, if they are less educated, they might genuinely believe that what they are doing is helping prevent terrorism. I'm sure there is plenty of mild to heavy indoctrination done during training, and I doubt that many of the TSA agents at the gate are reading Bruce Schneier.
I think it would behoove HNers to have a little more compassion for these people, it is highly likely that they are less fortunate than most of HN.
Needless to say, I disagree with the TSA policies. And actually I think "snide" remarks about the possible health dangers, and educating other passengers similar to a story posted yesterday, is great. Unfortunately, I think comments about the safety of the machines are probably pretty infrequent, and that the agents probably get a lot more incoherent flak than that about all the inane procedures.
You sir, are a mad genius. But really, how long before a class action lawsuit thrown against the government for exposing many to this type of thing? On one hand, I hope it takes a long time for people to feel the ill effects, buton the other...
I would argue that it's one of many reasons they are wrong.
I'm equally as concerned about the privacy and civil rights violations. But it's still a problem that the machines pose a physical risk to passengers and TSA employees.
Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.
Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
And you're just spewing out the FDA report, which has already been debunked for making false comparisons (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines).
>without having actually looked at the numbers
It doesn't sound like you're very well versed on this stuff either, yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in so far.
>If these machines aren't necessary
It's been stated by several security experts (including airport security personnel) that existing techniques can detect more threats then these silly backscatter machines. These machines are only in airports because a form TSA head works for the company that produces them now.
It's absolutely not counterproductive. At the end of the day, people don't give a shit about their rights being violated. Look at what american citizens have already given up. Sure, they'll bitch about it around the watercooler, might even make a facebook group but that's as far as it will ever go. I bet you could go as far as doing full on rectal examinations and so long as accepting that was faster than not people would still do it without protest because convenience trumps almost all.
Almost. If the people think there is a chance that these things cause cancer then it becomes a life and death situation that they will do something about. A poster elsewhere has had some success with this issue with TSA workers.
I'm certainly not going to advocate making things up to get our way but real experts have come out on this requesting a more thorough study. TSA wont release various figures about the radiation. X-ray damage is cumulative. Taken all these things together I really believe there is a chance these things aren't safe and if there's even a chance of it that should be enough to block their usage. The burden of proof lies with the people who want to bring these things in, not with people who need to fly but don't want the added cancer risk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&...
It's a wonder we are still allowed to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging, renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging to get rid of the scary 'nuclear'. Now any notion of 'radiation' is again being ostracized. Everyone just repeats some thing they think they understood, without actually knowing anything of what is actually involved. If you feel X-rays are that scary, stop flying.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913457
You've ignored every counter that was already provided to your "facts". That doesn't strike me as arguing in good faith.
>Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place.
Nonsense. If you care about people's rights, why would you want to bring the discussion to a place of utter irrelevance? The american people accepted The PATRIOT act for God's sake. Do you think they're going to give a shit about being scanned naked, so long as it's fast?
>Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter.
The damage is cumulative. How can it possibly not matter. Damage done by the X-ray doesn't "go away" right? So every little extra dosage you get is just making things worse for you. You can say it's less than taking a cross Atlantic flight but I have to take the flight. Trust me, if there were another way I wouldn't go near a plane.
I still fly. I get X-rays when I think I've broken something. I love bananas. These are all sources of radiation that I'm going to be exposed to for some benefit to me (sometimes the risk of not doing it is worse than the radiation risk) and am willing to take the risks. These scanners don't help me in any way. This is radiation I'm enduring for no benefit to me what so ever. Even if I did buy the party line about terrorists, dying in a car accident would be vastly more likely than being killed by a terrorist so I'd rather take my chances with them than with this machine.
Although the TSA claims the x-ray dose given to air travelers is safe, there are reasons for concern. For one, they refuse to disclose the x-ray flux. Also, the comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they compare to the absorbed x-ray dose and average it over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume.
Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are likely to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts.
See:
http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf
Nevermind that this is proof that the government broke a promise to never store/transit the information from these machines. That won't raise enough of a fuss because people are used to being lied to. That and we have a bunch of spineless politicians backed by spineless scared populace who would trade every liberty for just a little more 'security'.
Nothing makes me more angry than people who don't want to be responsible for their own actions.
These images were not leaked or snuck out by an employee or anything, they were acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request.
I think the TSA's scanners are an unjustifiable invasion of privacy, but I think that people should make their arguments with the facts. This article is shamelessly caching in on people's outrage without really adding much to the discussion.
The US Marshals' statement on the subject: http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2010/080510a.htm
They may maintain that but they've done one lie after another about these machines. An actual TSA screener seems to indicate here [1] that they do indeed store the images, they just choose to delete them if they aren't pertinent. This sounds much more likely, if they find something they will probably need the photos for any court case that comes later. Note that this would also mean that the images can be retrieved from the machines and possibly in a very convenient manner.
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e49v8/by_request_iama_...
It would be naive to think the government responded to the freedom of information request and released these images now during the controversy about the TSA pat downs and x-ray scanners by chance, as it will give those not paying attention the impression the images are not very detailed.
http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf
Not only that - by showing the wrong kind of image taken at places different than the TSA with a different technology, it may mislead people into believing this is the kind of image the TSA generates. It's shameful.
It's been a long time since Wired ceased to be a relevant news source. I remember their "long boom" issue just weeks before the dot-com bubble crash.
The pictures don't quite live up to the title of the article.
I saw it on the news. And they even showed one of the images that are impossible for anyone else to see.