$1B of TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/

by zotz • 14 years ago

1637 330 14 years ago

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

russell_h2• 14 years ago

Does the scanner not pick the object up at all (I don't see why this would be true), or is this simply a matter of needing to change the background color?

mahyarm• 14 years ago

And they can have a two stage process (metal detector and xray) that would solve this problem too.

lignuist• 14 years ago

Not all weapons are made of metal.

ars4• 14 years ago

> Does the scanner not pick the object up at all (I don't see why this would be true)

The object and the background both look the same in reflected x-rays. It's not just the background color.

russell_h2• 14 years ago

In that case, couldn't they put a non-reflective material behind the person being scanned?

Perhaps that would interfere with their ability to scan you from both sides, but if they have a reflective material behind you it seems like they must already have a way to scan through/around that.

togasystems• 14 years ago

I wonder if the color of the background is a simple variable or is based off physics rules? Does anybody know if they can change the color to something different?

ars4• 14 years ago

I think it's checking how many x-rays are reflected back to the machine.

But since the background and the object are both metal they both reflect equally, and are indistinguishable.

agumonkey• 14 years ago

Can't they add some time based depth information to discriminate ?

Or add a slightly absorbing background , additional maybe. ...

ynniv2• 14 years ago

The background is not metal, it is open space that does not reflect xrays. The targeted metal objects also do not reflect xrays.

It is more intuitive to say that these machines are not threat detectors (like metal detectors), they are people detectors. The lack of a person is considered to be a threat within the bounds of their silhouette. Place a threat outside the silhouette and it is undetectable.

TamDenholm2• 14 years ago

Rather than get rid of the body scanners, i think they'll simply just require you to stand sideways as well, or add a scanner on the side of the machine.

waqf• 14 years ago

Or have the background colour of the display changed, by contracting with the original suppliers for a few million more taxpayer dollars.

shingen• 14 years ago

Don't be ridiculous.

Billion is the new million.

ars4• 14 years ago

It's not a color like in a webpage. It's a measure of how many x-rays were received by the scanner, and presumably the background and the object both look the same.

Making the person stand sideways would sort of work, but it wouldn't be hard to shift the flaps of an open jacket while turning.

huhtenberg• 14 years ago

> have the background colour of the display changed

Have you thought this one through?

RKearney• 14 years ago

Then you could hide something in the arches of your feet or under a wig.

kami8845• 14 years ago

Then they'll just extend all US scanned to 2.2m meters width and enforce scanning people lying down in both directions.

raquo• 14 years ago

That would be a reasonable and most probable bureaucratic response to this issue (apart from the option to simply ignore it), but it would double the radiation received and increase inconvenience. Ironically, the opposite of what the guy is fighting for.

prawn2• 14 years ago

Why have people stand sideways when you could sell twice the number of machines to scan people from two aspects!

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

Creator of the video here. The other posters are correct that it's not simply a color change, it's that the backscatter effect reflects similarly from the object as it does from the wall of the device. There are no quick fixes: standing sideways might work, but now screening time doubles (which is actually a big deal to the TSA), the radiation dose doubles, and the machine's software isn't designed for that. There are different scanner manufacturers that have made machines that address this problem, but do so with 5 scans -- 5 times the radiation. Plus, there are other faults to the nude body scanners, and this is just the one I chose to publish. The scanners need to go.

TamDenholm2• 14 years ago

Oh i totally agree, the scanners are an absolute disgrace, i'm just very cynical and anything short of an absolute disaster caused specifically by the scanners or the TSA isnt going to get them removed. Governments are reactive to real world catastrophies and not a lot else, and thats why the TSA is there in the first place, its going to take something of equal measure in the opposite vein to remove them.

seanp2k24• 14 years ago

Also, if you're NOT opting out of every scan, you're not helping the cause. You NEED to opt out of every single scan every chance you get, otherwise they'll eliminate the option and say "well, people seem to be OK with this since no one is opting out!"

Opted out at SFO and DTW and each time it was no big deal.

tlrobinson2• 14 years ago

Has the TSA actually admitted that scanners give off harmful radiation at all?

reledi• 14 years ago

A pat down just on the sides as soon as you come out of the scan would also work.

ars4• 14 years ago

Summary: The background around the person is black in the scanner.

Place the object slightly distant from the person so it's also in the background (i.e. not silhouetted by the person), and the object and the background will look the same to the scanner.

ck22• 14 years ago

You have to be crazy brave or crazy ignorant to do this kind of analysis and share it in the USA.

At a minimum his name will now show up on the no-fly list for the rest of his life. If he realized this, I am in awe.

mikezupan• 14 years ago

he said he was the first person to sue the TSA over the nude scanners.. I'd bet he was already on it

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

Crazy guy who did this here. Before I made the video, I spent the last 18 months manipulating the court system against the TSA. The TSA does not want to add me to any no-fly list (or more realistically, the "selectee list") because every time a legal battle starts, I'm entitled to more and more discovery in court, and more and more of their lies come out.

--Jon

snprbob86• 14 years ago

::hug:: Thank you.

Keep on fighting the good fight man.

toomuchtodo4• 14 years ago

#shutupandtakemymoney

Thank you for your hard work.

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

You guys are very welcome... I appreciate the support, and I feel like on this board it's coming from my own people, so thank you!!

velshin• 14 years ago

@Jon Seriously awesome work. Thank you! People like yourself raising everyone's awareness are one of the few hopes we have of avoiding the dystopian world that @ck2 and others have already resigned themselves to.

tricolon• 14 years ago

> manipulating the court system against the TSA

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

rokhayakebe• 14 years ago

This is why HN is the second best community online. Authors are very likely to be here, and add to the discussion.

enigmabomb• 14 years ago

I hate the scanners also, and I'm glad to support you in defending our freedom.

whiletruefork• 14 years ago

This is awesome. The time/cost of legal battles deter most folks, so I am glad you are doing what other people can't.

dlinder2• 14 years ago

You are honestly one of my heroes. Please keep up the good fight. I haven't flown in over a year, and have never gone through a scanner, and while I love having discovered so much more of my dear old USA by car, the nearly 20K miles I've driven are starting to take a toll!

ps My favorite part of not flying has been discovering Kansas City BBQ joints. I stop each way between IL and CA. Yum. Silver lining, right?

einhverfr9• 14 years ago

As a fellow American, I must sincerely thank you for your service to my country.

jQueryIsAwesome3• 14 years ago

Love you man. You should have a donation button on your website; because you are awesome and because you may get involved in a very expensive lawsuit with the government.

ahmadss• 14 years ago

hey jon - my wife is an attorney in DC and her big law firm often takes on pro bono civil liberties cases. let me know if you're interested and i can put you in touch with her.

ForrestN3• 14 years ago

I laud your efforts against the TSA on the issue of body scanners. It was a huge waste, and they aren't effective.

But I think you'll be more effective against the body scanners if you drop the right-wing crankery at the end. The fear-mongering about terrorists isn't helpful. If they want to pull something off, they will, whatever kind of detector we're using. "Placing us all in danger" is Fox News rhetoric.

The fact that these scanners were a mistake doesn't imply that we should necessarily privatize the TSA. It needs a huge amount of reform. But there's no evidence that privatization wouldn't lead to the same kind of risk-taking and incentive problems that we've seen come to such spectacular fruition in the financial sector.

As things stand now, we have a clumsy system and there hasn't been a major attack since 9/11. Focus on the ineffectiveness, and the invasion of privacy, not on making people scared or promoting bankrupt ideas about replacing the government with free enterprise.

jeremyarussell• 14 years ago

It's already been said, but can't be said enough, thank you for fighting the good fight. Thank you for being the one who stands up instead of the one who lets others stand on his behalf.

kzrdude• 14 years ago

Well and? Is that the society you want, where you keep your head down to keep out of sight of the authorities?

ck22• 14 years ago

I think you've missed the part where they have already won. Drones are now legal and the police are completely militarized in every major city.

Stay tuned during the RNC and DNC conventions this year to watch why it's too late as congress has voted hundreds of millions of dollars for their own security budgets during the conventions so that protesters can be surpressed as quickly and quietly as possible.

We'll never have more rights than we have right now, it's all downhill.

prawn2• 14 years ago

As the self-proclaimed first person to file legal action over this, I'm sure he was already on a few lists, right?

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

Actually not on any list yet. I'm always surprised when I successfully print a boarding pass and it does not have the dreaded "SSSS" on it.

mindslight3• 14 years ago

At this point, insisting that USG is bound by laws is willful ignorance. Small battles may be won, but even the net effect of that is to mislead people into thinking they have recourse through the system. Your share of the responsibility is proportional to how much you're still paying in taxes.

Drbble3• 14 years ago

What causal effect do taxes have on any of this?

hub_2• 14 years ago

You know, all the freedom fighters have take risks. Risk to be arrested, killed, wounded, etc.

That's how it works.

seanp2k24• 14 years ago

Ooh, and it's not just the USA that will shit-list you for life. Read about what happened to Jake Applebaum here: http://174.120.17.199/index.php?topic=5698.0 , but TL;DR they detain him and hassle him every time he flies now.

samstave• 14 years ago

Yep, look at this guy who was arrested for his criticism of US Foreign Policy:

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/singleton/

dedward• 14 years ago

Odd, isn't it, in a country that represents freedom from fear of your government and all that stuff....

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

Hi Guys, Jon here, the creator of the TSA video you're discussing. Thanks for picking this story up. As a tech guy myself, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

--Jon

spolsky• 14 years ago

Is it possible that the TSA actually observed the metallic object at your side, but decided that it wasn't threatening based on its shape?

namuorg• 14 years ago

I would imagine that they would demand that every metal container be opened for inspection, no matter its shape.

jonursenbach• 14 years ago

This has been what I've been wondering. While going through HNL a few weeks ago my girlfriend forgot to take her cellphone out of her bra before going through the backscatter. Nobody said a peep.

sim0n• 14 years ago

Surely any TSA agent would see a concealed object on the side of a body worthy of at least an inspection/questioning.

capnrefsmmat• 14 years ago

The TSA generally detects my watch when I forget to take it off, and insist on rolling up my sleeve and checking despite its obvious location.

I'm not sure how shape could imply safety, either, since anything could have been concealed inside of it.

BlackJack• 14 years ago

I doubt that - they'd be taking a huge chance. Even if it wasn't explosives, the person could've been keeping drugs inside that metallic object and thus would warrant attention.

toomuchtodo4• 14 years ago

What are the chances the TSA wouldn't select you for additional screening upon detecting any metal on your person going through a body scanner? Serious question, no snark intended.

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

No -- TSA policy requires them to investigate all "anomalies" with a pat-down. If they saw & ignored it, they completely broke policy, which is another problem with the nude body scanners: a metal detector has a loud alarm and can't be ignored, whereas an x-ray screen can.

nerfhammer• 14 years ago

I was once subjected to further search because I had left a scrap of paper in one of my pockets.

steve8918• 14 years ago

Even if you were forced to stand sideways, if you had objects hanging down the sides of the inside of your legs, would it still be visible? I would think that the outer part of the leg would block anything on the inside of the legs.

jpdoctor• 14 years ago

How are you dealing with the legal bills? Do you have a team of lawyers, or a legal background as well (I see you went to Stevens Institute, so I'm guessing you have an engineering background.)

Many thanks.

juiceandjuice• 14 years ago

Have you tried smuggling playdough filled with fertilizer yet?

danellis• 14 years ago

Can't they just ask people to turn to the side?

borski• 14 years ago

Simple, yet brilliant; equivalent to a side channel attack on most systems. I can't believe nobody had noticed that before, including myself.

afterburner• 14 years ago

So they should keep using the metal detectors then. I wonder if they'll make people go through both.

orblivion• 14 years ago

I'm surprised they haven't built one in already.

URSpider94• 14 years ago

The ONLY way that they've been able to sell this to fliers is that it gets rid of the existing process, and maybe some time soon we'll be able to keep our shoes on.

If they now make this sequential, then it's twice the time, twice the staff to manage, and twice the inconvenience -- you now have people queueing up between the two screens, passing one and failing the other, etc.

rogerbinns4• 14 years ago

Just more security theatre and corrupt politicians (guess who runs the companies the scanners are bought from).

The reality is that they can't keep weapons and drugs out of prisons where there are no freedoms, and there is plenty of time to be as invasive as you want to visitors and residents.

Additionally the security system has failed if the point you pick up the bad guys is by some low paid grunt at the airport staring at a screen. The point of airport security should be to catch occasional idiots and that is about it - something any metal detector can do.

The reality is that anyone determined can get through any security system and wreak terror. The response is to not be terrorised. It is to live well and not in fear. It is to have made their actions completely pointless.

seanp2k24• 14 years ago

...and instead, we freak out as a nation, flush our civil liberties down the toilet to feel "safe", and let our country fall apart in the wake of our fears.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Bravo, USA, bravo. Osama is still #winning because we're still dealing with his terror of >10 years ago. Let that sink in for a bit....this is exactly what he wanted.

thewisedude2• 14 years ago

For the sake of honest debate... how do you know what exactly it is Osama wanted? Maybe all he wanted was to kill people and didn't care about liberty because he does not know what it is! or he wanted to send some kind of a message to westerners or something else... we will not know. Sure, liberty seems to be lesser in airports...but connecting that to what Osama wanted is a big stretch!

nkohari• 14 years ago

We know. Well, a lot of us do at least. I can only choose to live my life without fear and do my best to influence others to recognize real freedom is more important than a false sense of safety.

davidhollander2• 14 years ago

Fear is not always irrational. If we encountered a large tiger while out on a walk, it would be a very beneficial response. To discuss the pragmatics, the problem appears to be the near deterministic impossibility of shutting off the defense contracting money spigot once it has been opened. It's not a business one has the power to boycott.

raganwald2• 14 years ago

Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe! That's all it's for. To provide a feeling, an illusion, of safety in order to placate the middle class. Because the authorities know they can't make airplanes safe; too many people have access. You'll notice the drug smugglers don't seem to have a lot of trouble getting their little packages on board, do they?......

—George Carlin, “Airport Security"

mc325• 14 years ago

Isn't the psychology half the battle? You need to convince people there exists a reasonable effort to provide some sort of security --even if it's more psychological security than not. In addition, as others have pointed out it's also to filter against known (easily replicated) attacks.

mirkules2• 14 years ago

I remember this stand up, which was actually before 9/11. He goes on in that standup to say here are lethal items you can take on board: "a knife, an icepick, a chainsaw... and the only thing they'll tell you is that you have to fit it under the chair in front of you". Things have changed in that respect, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQdC-e82gmk (language NSFW, obviously)

roguecoder3• 14 years ago

Air travel is insanely safe. Ridiculously so. At some point we hit diminishing returns, and I think we're far past that point now.

I'd pay extra for less-safe and more-convenient air travel personally. Then again, I ride a motorcycle, so my risk profile may well be abnormal.

alapshah• 14 years ago

Yes - Michael Chertoff (Head of the department of homeland security 05-09) consults (TAKES MONEY FROM) the same companies that make the scanners: http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited...

And lockheed (who has the backscatter contract) donates money all over the place: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00303024

Follow the money, as always.

Dove• 14 years ago

The response is to not be terrorised. It is to live well and not in fear.

An interesting comparison is a popular Israeli song from a few years back: Yalla Ya Nasrallah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8pVvJIzllA). They respond to (not merely a single act, but frequent!) terrorism with taunts, humor, and an attitude of defiance.

I can imagine what a parallel song would sound like (Bring it on Osama / Blow up all the buildings you want . . . ). It would never have been written here. It would never have become popular. I see in that an indictment of the culture.

MrMan4• 14 years ago

I completely agree. Any society that is not inextricably, geographically entwined with a mortal enemy is corrupt, degenerate, and bankrupt. Essentially, a society worse than the enemy society, and it deserves to be purged from within to regain the primal purity it once possessed.

dirkdk• 14 years ago

good thing you are hosting your blog on wordpress.com. Hope they keep it available!

robgibbons• 14 years ago

All they have to do is make you turn sideways. This video is a well intended but weak attempt

brunomiranda• 14 years ago

They do not make you turn sideways.

jballanc7• 14 years ago

While it's encouraging to see such a thorough debunking of the latest security theater technology, it's always been security theater... Allow me a few quick anecdotes:

My family is friends with a gentleman who was a green beret medic during Viet Nam, and later worked for the CIA. Once, when I was younger (and metal detectors were the norm), we had the opportunity to fly with him. He entered the metal detector before me, and was waved along. Once we were past the detectors, he turned to me and said, "Guess how many blades I have on me?" He then proceded to produce seven blades. They were a combination of ceramic blades (undetectable by the metal detector and sharper than most metal as well) and traditional blades held or placed on him so that they would not set off the detector. It was part of his CIA training to be able to do that.

I went to college at Stevens Institute of Technology. The Chemical Engineering department there has a lab known as the Highly Filled Materials Institute. When I was an undergraduate, I got a tour of the lab. They informed me that they had been working on an extruder that they were selling simultaneously to Picatinny Arsenal and Hersey. It turns out that C4 and Chocolate are both colloidal suspensions with nearly identical properties. A consequence of this is that in the X-ray machines used in airports, plastic explosives are indistinguishable from chocolate.

Shortly after 9/11 my father, a very frequent traveler, had forgotten his nail clippers in his carry-on luggage. Predictably, they were confiscated. When I greeted him at the airport, he remarked on how ridiculous that was, as he produced his fountain pen from his jacket pocket. "They let me on with this," he said. "I could have stabbed anyone in the eye with this and they'd be dead. What was I going to do with nail clippers?"

...I could go on, but why?

tsaoutourpants9• 14 years ago

You remind me of the occasional TSA "good catch" where they find some weed stashed in a jar of peanut butter. Peanut butter and C4 have the same density. Not a good place to hide your weed. ;)

zotz2• 14 years ago

It seems like your metal container would be a good spot to hide a doob.

physcab• 14 years ago

I used to build a detector for explosives in academia that is now being marketed to the TSA. To get funding for these projects, its pretty standard to rip another technology apart, point out all of its flaws, then argue why yours is better. But every technology has their drawbacks and ways of skirting around it. Today, most technology deployed is more as a deterrent and less as a counter-measure.

You want to know another way to hide illicit items in those body scanners? Surround the items in water.

There are also certain materials that give off false positives and most likely the software will scan the image response against a bank of known materials. I wrote pattern detection software that did just this. Oddly enough, cheese is one of them. So stick your knife in a nice big piece of cheddar and you might make it through just fine.

hessenwolf• 14 years ago

It's also a good way to store your knife in your backpack, when you are taking a picnic lunch.

finnw• 14 years ago

There's a simple explanation - the authorities' main priority is to prevent copycat attacks.

The most embarassing thisg possible for TSA would be an exact repeat of 9/11 - same weapons (wasn't it box cutters?) etc. So that's what they target first.

A new kind of attack is harder to predict and easier for the authorities to explain by saying "nothing like this has ever happened before, there was no way we could have prepared for it." And there's no way they could cover all possibilities anyway.

And to be fair, copycat attacks do happen (e.g. July 21, 2005 in London) so it is not a total waste.

newman314• 14 years ago

You say preventing copycat attacks, I say it's a purely reactive approach towards security, which does not work.

IanDrake• 14 years ago

Great. I can't wait until the next guy hides a bomb in his rectum. What kind of device will search for that?

abraxasz2• 14 years ago

I think that everybody agree on that. The question is: are those very very expensive scanners the only way to achieve that goal. If it is, then fine (I'm not american, so it's not my taxes that are blown), but if there is another way, then you should be worrying about your taxpayer's dollars.

Just as an aside, Ben Gurion airport relies much less on pseudo high tech, and has had incredibly good result.

(http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199--the-israel...)

rogerbinns4• 14 years ago

> There's a simple explanation - the authorities' main priority is to prevent copycat attacks

The weapons used on 9/11 were surprise and that standard operating procedure in a hijacking situation was to do as hijackers said. Both weapons were ineffective by the time the 4th plane found out.

The authorities main priority has been to be seen to be doing something.

Iv• 14 years ago

Isn't this video a proof that a copycat of the 9/11 would be obvious to do ?

Steko• 14 years ago

I used to work at the airport and one of the odder duties was to test the screeners every few days with metal gun, grenade and bomb shaped items. The guy who trained me had a couple ways of getting them past without fail if he wanted to (usually he didn't care because they failed enough if they were put through normally on the belt).

The sad thing is these are the exact items they are supposed to be looking for and the things they are best equipped to detect and still a 20%+ failure rate.

gee_totes• 14 years ago

Was there any financial bonus for the screeners to find the fake guns and bombs? For example, would a screener get $100 if they found one of these planted items?

I would think that would be a good way to reduce the failure rate. Or does the failure rate have more to do with limitations in equipment, rather than screening being a mundane job?

Someone• 14 years ago

If it is a random 25% or so, that might be sufficient deterrence. say, you plan an attack. Would you run a 75% chance of it being thwarted before you enter the plane, or do you start looking elsewhere?

CulturalNgineer• 14 years ago

It really is all just security theater... keeping the peanut gallery scared, entertained... and at the same time self-satisfied about their unearned 'exceptionalism'...

BTW, has it occurred to anyone that someone intending a terrorist act could just blow up a carry-on before ever getting to the ridiculous scanner...

It'll shut down the airport for sure... and do it at a couple of airports simultaneously and you'll shut down the whole network for a day or two...

Stop letting government treat us like childish idiots... yes... things could happen... reasonable precautions should be taken. But this isn't a smart approach.

jballanc7• 14 years ago

What you're referring to is a "soft target". You have to pay rather close attention, but terrorists have long recognized the opportunity presented by soft targets: malls, hotels, and yes, the TSA waiting line. Interestingly enough, it's the real security machinations of the US that have been preventing attacks of this form. Which raises the question further: if we already have real security, why do we even need security theater?

keithnoizu• 14 years ago

Well more than that CulturalNgineer, if you do this in multiple locations thanks the congestion caused by the TSA you can get similiar death counts as the original attacks. Atleast low thousands.

unknsldr3• 14 years ago

I cannot speak to the CIA training but I've received some concealed weapon scenario training mostly developed from lessons learned at penitentiaries. It is a terrible thing to be impressed by but inmate ingenuity staggers the mind. You've likely had several items in your carry on that could do much worse than the pen to eye (which I don't think would be fatal). In the attack tree, a shiv smuggled past the checkpoint would need to have the potential to coerce the cockpit before it would factor in to a risk matrix for the plane.

I served in Special Forces before and after 9/11. The 'security theater' points that many of you make are valid. I don't, however, believe the reactionary measures were to calm the fears of the American people. The severe restriction placed on travelers is similar to a trend of restrictions placed upon soldiers following 9/11. The reaction is CYA for senior leadership/command.

Accountability became a tremendous focus following the early campaigns following 9/11. A single casualty was regarded as a devastating loss. Clearing buildings early in the bloodshed of Iraq taught many commanders that the peacetime tactics largely learned from SWAT were not as effective in combat. The procedure was too slow for such a dynamic and hostile environment. Too many soldiers died because the common procedure for clearing a building broke down in structures of irregular layout and in cities crawling with hostiles. Before commanders and NCOs were prepared to blame the procedures, however, they were taking accountability for the loss.

An after action review (AAR) follows every mission and leaders are encouraged to highlight their mistakes before someone else must do it for them. An atmosphere of blame settled in while civilians back CONUS were tiring of the involvement. Casualties were frequent enough that many ODAs had suffered through a few. For most, it was their first time facing a grieving widow with a young child hugging her leg. Those stories, coupled with the blame, changed the landscape of command. CONOPS that were once routinely approved were rejected for increasingly vague reasons. Ultimately, the tone was that the risk was too great compared with the operational gain- almost like the soldier was too valuable to put in harm's way. But we signed up for that. The truth, I suspect, was that the appetite for risk taking at the senior levels was shrinking. If an ODA lost a man, the mission's CONOP would be scrutinized for evidence that all of the risks were accounted for, that the courses of action reflected sound decision making when assuming risk, that the operational gain justified the risk, and that good faith efforts were made to mitigate perceived risks. The AAR became a trial. While I was working through these challenges during deployments, I believe something similar was happening with security measures and leadership back home.

Creating an illusion of safety seems less likely the hope than creating an exemption from accountability. Negligence would be too likely the charge if tight restrictions were not put in place.

MrMan4• 14 years ago

I cannot argue with the points you have made. Indeed, I feel that your post supports a point that you did not make explicit. Such risk-averse behavior seems to me to be explainable by the fact that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, which is a euphemism for something else. Civilians "tire" of all wars. But when a war cannot be explained on the basis of strategic necessity, much less on the basis of immediate national survival, then it is not surprising that the pervasive vibe in-theater is not very satisfying for warriors. Here's hoping the next war will fulfill your expectations!

jballanc7• 14 years ago

In the vein of "Don't attribute to malice..." this would be my vote for most likely explanation for the TSA and countless other changes in the US since 9/11. The longer I live, the more I'm convinced that much of human behavior, or even human history as a whole, can be largely summarized by two maxims: "nothing risked, nothing gained" and "those who have the most are willing to lose the least".

Edit: Also, regarding the pen... The full conversation was longer. My father was complaining that the "weapons" they were catching were likely all from upstanding citizens, and that the terrorists would have figured out how to get weapons on board regardless. Instead of making the plane safer, they were in fact making it easier for potential terrorists to take control. He remarked, though, that he wasn't worried because he had his pen (and mind you, this was an old-school solid metal fountain pen...possibly not lethal, but I wouldn't want to find out).

So many people forget that one very, very important factor in the 9/11 attacks was that almost everyone on the planet had been conditioned by decades of politically motivated plane hijackings that the proper course of action was to aquiesce to the hijackers every demand. In fact a friend whose mother was a flight attendent at the time told us that they received explicit training informing them to do just that! I doubt you could repeat 9/11 today, security theater or no...

roel_v5• 14 years ago

Thanks for the comment, but when writing for an audience that consists mostly of people who aren't familiar with military terms, you may want to avoid slang or at least explain what it means. Points in case: CONUS, ODA, CONOPS. (probably 'shiv' too, I only know it because I used to listen to a lot of rap music).

boothead• 14 years ago

Shortly after 9/11 I was serving with the Royal Marines and we were deployed to Sierra Leone. The RAF required us to turn in our leathermans/pocket knives prior to the flight... I can't even comprehend the thinking behind this.

1) Were we some form of hijack risk? 2) If 100 marines are some sort of hijack risk, is taking their folding pair of pliers away from them going to anything at all to mitigate that risk?

CYA and security theatre are the worst combination.

perlpimp• 14 years ago

these measures are hit and miss. I always carry clippers and never are confiscated.

jballanc7• 14 years ago

The weeks immediately following 9/11 were much worse than what we have now. I remember flying home for Thanksgiving, and literally everyone was setting off the metal detectors they had them tuned so high. The only reason I didn't was I had prepared by wearing sweatpants and a T-shirt and I had put everything from my pockets, except my ID and boarding pass, into my backpack.

nikcub• 14 years ago

after being sick of trying to find a light for a cigarette after getting off a flight I started smuggling lighters with me onto flights. Over 30 international flights now and not once have they found the lighter.

it took me two flights of trial and error to work out the right method to smuggle it through. security theatre indeed.

eurleif• 14 years ago

But lighters are permitted? http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm

mdc• 14 years ago

>It was part of his CIA training to be able to do that.

In the '90s, long before 9/11, I was traveling with a girlfriend. She didn't want to remove her belt with a big metal buckle so she just went through the metal detector with it on. The machine buzzed and the agent sent her through again. A female agent looked sympathetic and told her to twist her belt buckle horizontally so it wouldn't set off the machine. That was my intro to security theater.

Moral of the story is that if you're a pretty white girl, you don't need CIA training to learn security secrets from lazy guards.

lojack• 14 years ago

Every time I've gone through the new scanners, I've had to go through a metal detectors first, which would pick up this object. Anyone know if there are actually airports that use only the new scanners without a metal detector?

johns• 14 years ago

I've traveled extensively since the scanners have been in place and I've never gone through a traditional detector before a new scanner. They're almost always side-by-side.

martingordon• 14 years ago

As far as I can recall, people were not required to go through the metal detectors at these airports: MIA, FLL, BNA, EWR, PIT. MIA (at least last time I was there in December) has some lines that do solely metal detectors and some that do solely scanners. That is, until the scanner lines start to get long and they start putting everyone through the metal detectors.

I've always opted out (except once at EWR when I was with a large group and the screener took longer than the 5 minutes I was willing to wait) and about half the time I've gone through the metal detectors. In fact, last week at PIT, I tried going through the metal detector on my way to the pat down area and was told to go around it.

nivertech• 14 years ago

TSA should use MRI scanners - no radiation exposure and no metal objects are allowed.

As an added bonus they can use fMRI mode and ask following questions:

    1. Are you a member of a terrorist organization?
    2. Where is the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

MSexton• 14 years ago

The problem with this, of course, is the immediate (ie, sudden and possibly very visible) danger posed to people with devices embedded in them. Pacemakers and MRIs do not interact well.

catch23• 14 years ago

Standing near a MRI machine is also likely to erase the magnetic material on any of your credit cards -- plus they could never shut off the machine. There's probably a bunch more obvious reasons why MRI was never chosen.

And if some metal object were to get stuck on the machine, they'd need a team of people to remove it. Every airport would also need to keep a good stock of liquid helium for the cases where machines need to be shut down.

geuis• 14 years ago

The supposition here is that since magnetic scanners are being removed and replaced with xray scanners, which do not have the feature of detecting metal with magnetic fields, the new machines are more ineffective than the old magnetic scanners. This therefore single-handedly invalidates the xray machines and they should be removed.

The entire video is produced in such a way as to say this is a major discovery and that it will single-handedly trigger Congress and the TSA to backpedal on what they've been for the last 10+ years.

I disagree.

To state, I do not like the TSA. I do not like Congress very much. I have very little respect for the people that are commonly elected to government because of the long history of ineffectiveness, ignorance, and stupidity that continually seeps out when they talk and make "decisions". The best I can say about our government is that it mostly keeps the really bad people out of power. The kind that become Caesars and Napoleons and Hitlers and Pol Pots.

My issues with this video are that its too filled with a political tilt. There is a clear play on emotions and rhetoric with less emphasis on the purported vulnerability being shown.

Further, the actual nut of the video, i.e. the demonstration of the vulnerability, is so underwhelming that its impossible to take the video in its entirety seriously. First, the most important part where the speaker is actually going through security is sped up past the point of being intelligible. That's the part that might actually get some interest.

If the speaker just showed that clip in its entirety, demonstrating how to attach the pocket and further how easy it is for him to get through the scanners, and providing pure technical notes as to the background color and such, it would be easier to take seriously.

As it stands, any reasonably competent person's first thought should be "So we just put a magnetic scanner before or after the x-ray scanner. Ok, problem solved." Other thoughts might be, ok so make people stand sideways, change the background color, etc. Obvious tweaks to the system to patch over this problem.

The video doesn't address this simple point and goes on to argue that no metal detectors invalidates the entire concept of xray scanners. Its a very bad premise to base such an argument on.

The argument against xray scanners needs to be based around the already-proven points:

    *Violates people's privacy
    *Security theater (which the Pocket Problem falls into)
    *Possible negative health consequences for passengers and workers
    *Over-reaching government bureaucracy 
    *Etc.

So in summary, I don't like this video because it shows nothing really new, makes a large claim on very little foundation, focuses attention on the wrong things, and is counter-productive to the task of convincing enough "policy makers" to start doing the right thing.

hub_2• 14 years ago

All these arguments have be brought and have been heard with deaf ears.

Europe is getting out of this theater because they have no interest in these machine and they don't work. They also pose a health safety risk (hint, the Rapiscan backscatter X-Ray were NOT in service in Europe, or not for long).

Even linking US Govt officials to the manufacturers haven't raised eyebrows.

This post titled "TSA Fail" explain how bad this has become:

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2012/01/tsa-fail.html

Not that I tend to believe what I just read on the internet, but most of the arguments have been repeated and confirmed. Again, deaf ears.

einhverfr9• 14 years ago

I also agree there is too much political stuff in the video (which I pointed out when I shared it on facebook). A simpler argument against the scanners is that they fundamentally are less effective at detecting major threats than are metal detectors. Thus whatever minimal security holes they close, they open up larger ones. Moreover these are inherent in the technology so it isn't a question of just fixing a few things.

I am not entirely anti-AIT. I think the machines can have a place, for those for whom there is some reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing, and following a metal detector. But the way they are implemented poses severe privacy and security problems, as if someone decided you could solve security problems by buying fancy machines (an unfortunately common problem).

The problem is that as long as the federal government sets standards for airport security, this will be a problem. It doesn't matter if it is the TSA or the NTSB making these decisions--- big corporations will pay lobbyists to get the message to them that their machines are better than the old stuff and therefore should be used in this way. It matters even less if the TSA agents are doing the screening or not, except that with them monopolizing that market there are fewer voices against.

zotz2• 14 years ago

> I also agree there is too much political stuff in the video

An honest question: How does one de-politicize an obvious political topic?

thewisedude2• 14 years ago

My guess is in the future...you will have to walk through both metal detectors and body scanners! I am not sure, if they will dump the body scanners based on this video!

mark_l_watson• 14 years ago

A pretty good video, but it is not quite convincing enough for me to email to family and friends. Still, kudos to the guy who did it.

BTW, the first time I went through the backscatter scanner, I had a killer sinus headache within about 30 seconds. I went from feeling great to shitty almost instantly. Anyone else experience this? I have refused (opted out of) the scanner ever since. My many opt-out experiences have all been OK: a quick personal search and I am on my way. That is what I recommend to my friends and family to do.

BTW, part 2: the TSA corporation employees at the security checkpoints are not the problem, so be polite to them. The problem is the bribery and corruption that lead to the privatization of airport security.

hoganheros• 14 years ago

"the TSA corporation employees at the security checkpoints are not the problem"

Yes, they are. "Just following orders" does not hold any water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Nuremberg_Trial...

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

"so be polite to them"

No, THEY should be polite to ME. They are public servants.

CWuestefeld3• 14 years ago

Why do so few people get this? Why, for example, do people continue to insist "the war is unjust, but I still support our soldiers"?

jmpeax• 14 years ago

Comparing TSA employees to the people committing war crimes during WWII is a gross overstatement if not logical fallacy. TSA employees are not "just following orders", they are following what they believe to be the morally best course of action to screen people of potentially dangerous items.

Also, TSA employees are human beings, not robots designed to ignore impolite behaviour and programmed to always deliver polite behaviour. As a fellow intelligent human beings we must understand our own limitations and the limitations of the world in which we live, and strive for mutual understanding rather than wear an attitude of self entitlement.

Sniffnoy• 14 years ago

Not made worthless -- revealed as worthless.

sushantsharma• 14 years ago

I find it a little strange that, at present, more than 400 people have upvoted the link, but the linked youtube video has less than 400 views.

Edit: I am not trolling. It was just an observation that I found interesting even though it may not directly add much to the conversation.

queensnake2• 14 years ago

I think those are updated 'eventually', to cope with the scale. I've noticed the same thing.

barrkel• 14 years ago

Popular videos stop having their view count immediately updated at around 300 views. There's probably some duplication / distribution that kicks in to spread the load, and reliable statistics then requires aggregation. Happens very predictably on new videos in some of my YT subscriptions.

Vixter• 14 years ago

If the TSA has to investigate abnormalities with a pat down, you might as well opt for the groping to begin with.

mikeklaas• 14 years ago

Thanks. Now they'll just make us do both.

queensnake2• 14 years ago

It's even easier. I was carrying a metal external hard drive, put it through the belt with no problem. You could easily take out the HD and put some explosives in there instead.

edit Also, if combining fluids really is a threat, they're allowing liquid medicine bottles, now. It really /is/ theater.

vidarh3• 14 years ago

I've had bottles of liquid in my carry on several times by accidents - what happens when you travel alone with a toddler and get slightly frazzled. They've never caught it.

tlrobinson2• 14 years ago

So now they'll just require two scans, one turned 90 degrees.

How hard would it be to construct a prosthetic fat suit that's invisible to scanners? I bet not very.

bicknergseng• 14 years ago

The introduction to <i>Thinking, Fast and Slow</i> by Daniel Khaneman immediately made me think of security theater. He starts by discussing how humans are generally rational, but intense emotions of fear, anger, etc. often cause us to act completely irrationally. While I imagine the book goes on to describe how the individual can stop emotion from perverting what should be a rational judgement, I wonder what defense we have as a society against making bad, emotional decisions on things that shouldn't involve emotions. I understand reactionary emotional decisions and opinions tending to snowball behind them, but why does it take so long, if at all, for rationality to take over?

antonej2• 14 years ago

What a bizarre obsession. The only reason this is at the top of HN is because the word "nude" is (misleadingly) in there.

Obviously airline security in the US is deeply flawed because look at how many planes are being hijacked or blown out of the sky by terrorists! I mean there have been -- wait, let me count -- ZERO on American soil since September 11, 2001. With about 28,000 commercial flights per day in the US alone, approximately 3,800 days after 9/11, that multiplies out to 106 million fights without a successful terrorist attack. Not a bad batting average if you ask me.

With apologies to Churchill, I guess this airline security regime is the worst system there is -- except for all the other systems.

_delirium3• 14 years ago

That lacks a sensible baseline to compare against. The flaw that 9/11 exploited was the conventional wisdom drilled into everyone that, if your plane is being hijacked, you shouldn't resist, because hijackers just want some money/prisoner-exchange/whatever, and by resisting you'll only be putting your fellow passengers in more danger. Post-9/11, nobody believes that anymore, so the one proven hole was plugged.

veidr• 14 years ago

You're focusing on the wrong thing. The problem with the American airline security system is the invasive nude imaging, needless radiation exposure, and the hundreds of millions of hours of human time it wastes annually.

Here in Japan, I arrive at the airport 20 minutes before a domestic flight, show no ID, take my lighter and PET bottle with me, and we haven't had any terrorist attachs either.

andolanra• 14 years ago

1. "Nude Body Scanners" is a common name for the backscatter machines, and is generally understood as such. I'm not sure if you're asserting that people are randomly upvoting this article on the off chance it contains naughty material, but quite a few people—here and elsewhere—are heavily interested and involved in the TSA's use of these machines due to their isolated and cumulative effects on civil rights, so it shouldn't be surprising that it's at the top.

2. The TSA is not the only system keeping terrorists off planes. We don't have a "double-blind survey" where half the airports were protected by the TSA and the other half weren't, so we can't make any kind of sensible comparison. (A better metric would be, "How many attempted terrorist attacks were directly stopped by the TSA during the airport security checks," and it's widely accepted that the answer is, "None.")

3. These new backscatter machines were not put in place immediately in 2001. A great deal of the time you've mentioned involved elevated security on the part of the TSA, but not specifically through the measures being discussed here, which decrease the actual security of the planes by allowing people to bring items through that would have been caught by earlier measures (c.f. the article being discussed.) A case can be made that the TSA's post-9/11 response has been useless and possibly harmful, but this article is specifically making the point that the backscatter machines are problematic.

4. There have also been zero hijackings in other countries, as well, and those countries have different (and usually much less invasive and less expensive) security measures. If we provisionally accept that it is the TSA, and not the other agencies involved, that is preventing attacks, why does it necessarily follow that the only way to keep planes safe is the drastic measures taken by the TSA? (I can quite easily rid my house of mosquitos by burning it down, but that doesn't mean the only or best way to keep my house free of mosquitos is arson.)

kennywinker• 14 years ago

You're joking right? A quick glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings shows that hijackings in the USA are incredibly rare. There was the four in 2001, one in 1994, and before that the last one was 1978.

All I see when I look at those numbers, is that we're due for another one any time now.

mindcrime• 14 years ago

I have a magic rock that protects against Tiger attacks. How do I know it works? Well, in 38 years of carrying it with me at all times, I've never once been attacked by a Tiger! It's pretty amazing... if you want one, email me and I'll see if I can scare one up for ya. They're pretty hard to get so it might cost a little, but it's worth it for the sense of security you'll have, knowing that you never, ever have to sweat a Tiger attack!

nizm• 14 years ago

In case some of you haven't seen this video.

Live on Germany TV man walks through body scanner and builds explosive with everything that passed on the scanner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo

mikecaron• 14 years ago

He also said that in airports, a full scan also scans the sides of the person, in which case the video producer would not have gotten through. So... how often is a "Full" scan done?

jQueryIsAwesome3• 14 years ago

To everyone saying that now they will make you turn sideways i have to tell you that there are many blind spots even with those two angles, think about "corners" of yourself.

An example: http://imgur.com/Q1DTp (The rolled paper represents some sort of tube)

The point is that many angles are required (or another kind of "solution")

jQueryIsAwesome3• 14 years ago

Looks like someone could put it under their skin and the metal object will go unnoticed; heck! a terrorist could use someone else's skin...

astrofinch• 14 years ago

It wouldn't be hard to get a profile view of airline passengers by having them spin or installing additional scanners. Not that I disagree with this guy.

georgieporgie• 14 years ago

While I think the TSA is ridiculous, can't this be solved by having the people stand at 45 degrees to the left or right, chosen at random?

discountgenius• 14 years ago

That's too smart an idea. Get ready for four images instead of two. And then when somebody sneaks something past that, we'll go eight.

aaronharnly• 14 years ago

Interesting video.

However, I would like to have seen a controlled experiment – i.e., with the same metallic case placed in a breast pocket. Trials with only that variable changed, and yielding a different result (presumably being pulled for patdown?) would more conclusively demonstrate the hypothesis that with the side-pocket technique "anyone can beat them with virtually no effort."

gringomorcego• 14 years ago

Nobody's gonna mention Snow Crash? Really? Come on guys...

charlieok• 14 years ago

...so what if they get images from four sides instead of two. Doesn't that defeat the "side" method demonstrated in the video?

njtotten• 14 years ago

I am a frequent flier and hate this stuff as much as the next guy, but doesn't this just argue (from the TSA point of view) that the TSA should be using BOTH the metal detector and the body scanners?

yason• 14 years ago

It has never been about real security. It's about the huge load of money that is funnelled through TSA who are set to spent it all, regardless of what they receive, on these magic wand devices or just angry personnel. Another reason is that security checks allow for arbitrary control of passengers. It's a powerful mechanism, just like a country with enough laws to make everyone guilty but where those laws are only enforced when "necessary", on a select few people. It's like legalized totalitarianism: all backed up by law and rules but the outcome is the same.

GigabyteCoin• 14 years ago

I once got "sharp weapons" (a manicure kit) through London's Heathrow airport.

I was connecting from Shanghai and had stupidly left a souvenir manicure kit in my bag... they found it, but after some pleading allowed me to keep it.

As per usual, I picked up a bottle of liquor at the duty free in Shanghai before I left...

Not sure if I was meant to inform them I was connecting, or they simply forgot to do their jobs... but apparently I was meant to have my liquor in a sealed "official duty free" bag when I landed at heathrow.

Long story short, I got the full attention of about 10 security officers when checking through security in Heathrow. They were entirely concerned with the liquor I had purchased in shanghai, and were so vocal about the whole thing that I personally witnessed the xray machine man turn around and see what the problem was.

Everybody was trying to be the next big hero, when the only problem was I didn't have the right security bag, and who knows what else I might have had in my carry on? (Hint: I had "weapons", I mean nailclippers).

mikejestes• 14 years ago

What if the scanners actually take a 360 degree xray?

yaix• 14 years ago

Just hope that somewone will be helt accountable for it. Anyway, the link to the relevant xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/651/

fab13n• 14 years ago

Most people with critical thinking are hardly surprised by this; this needs to be shown to average Joes, not hackers.

Hence I suggest to vote this up on YouTube, rather than / in addition to HN.

chrischen• 14 years ago

His statement about no one boarding a plane in the US with explosives seems to be false: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/underwe....

Although he seems to be right that the detectors are useless since the guy who was pretty incompetent (set his underwear on fire) and still managed to get it on board a plane.

saalweachter2• 14 years ago

The "underwear bomber" boarded in Amsterdam; the plane was an international flight to Detroit.

joezhou• 14 years ago

epic fail indeed...

alan_cx• 14 years ago

I have a great solution to this. Its cheap and easy to set up. Just tell people that planes are a bit dangerous and might well be stacked with terrorists and bombs. Fly at own risk. Be grateful if you land. No? Oh well.

In all seriousness though, I do wonder given the above, how much passenger numbers would drop. Flying is known to be very safe, and there was a statistic that showed more people died after 9/11 than in 9/11 due to people taking to the roads through fear of flying. Plus, there are not that many planes blown out of the sky by terrorists. If they did nothing, planes would still be statistically safe. Its kinda like those stats that show people drive in a more reckless manner because they now have to wear seat belts and have air bags etc. Take that lot away and people tend to drive safer.

No, Im not suggesting and of this, just food for thought.

petenixey• 14 years ago

I for one would just like to take a moment to welcome our new guests, the intelligence observers!

May you be inspired by the quality of debate and not may you not add any of the good HN folks to any lists.

downx3• 14 years ago

Sadly I don't think the scans are their to protect lives, but rather to protect the machinery (and the industry.) Planes are expensive. It's trivial to kill people elsewhere. I just loathe the rhetoric.

tuxguy• 14 years ago

From Bruce Schneier's blog scheier.com

FBI Special Agent and Counterterrorism Expert Criticizes the TSA http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html

(http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/fbi_special_ag...)

cpursley• 14 years ago

What really blows my mind is that Bin Laden pulled 911 off with about $400,000 - about the price of about two porno scanners.

impunity2• 14 years ago

I always thought that the purpose of the scanners was to catch currency entering and leaving the country, not to catch terrorists.

hippich• 14 years ago

I can tell you what will happen next - instead of shutting down the whole nude-scanner program, more money will be fed into developing enhanced version of nude-scanner with built-in metal detector. All old scanner will be scraped, more billions will be pushed toward TSA to buy more nude-scanner upgrades.

poppysan• 14 years ago

$1B saved by having them take a side profile shot...

bstpierre• 14 years ago

It's interesting how so much is focused on airport security. Let's assume that we figured out how to make airline terminals 100% terrorist-safe and completely secure, no exceptions. (Yeah, it's a fantasy, but stay with me...)

At that point the terrorists will give up on the airports and pick something different. Remember that the first attack on the WTC, and the (domestic!) attack on OK City were TRUCK bombs. What's to stop someone from hijacking a tanker truck and detonating it? Trucker school must be easier than pilot school, right?

And if the terrorists are still hot and heavy for airplanes, they could bring down an airplane without actually going through airport security. At most airports I know of, the planes are vulnerable to ground-based attack on takeoff and landing. Not the same as crashing one into a building, but it seems unlikely that that attack is repeatable.

joshwprinceton• 14 years ago

most ptz ever?

api• 14 years ago

One word: lobbyists.

Nearly everything of this type is a giveaway to some private vendor with lobbyists in Washington. Whether it works or not is secondary to the primary purpose: handing money over.

samspot• 14 years ago

Seems like they should just combine Body Scanners + Metal Detectors + Pat Downs. A weakness in one tech doesn't make the whole stack worthless.

Please don't interpret this comment as approval of the body scanners or the pat downs. I'm just trying to express that the body scanners have not been "made worthless".

eta_carinae• 14 years ago

All he did to prove his point was smuggle a small empty metallic case in his pocket and he expects all the airports to take down their scanners as a result... Makes total sense.

alinspired• 14 years ago

it's amazing how all governments, and monopolies are alike, whether it's US or not

they will get away with it, until smacked really hard - which is almost impossible to do

nimrodreader• 14 years ago

so, if i face the scanner frontally, and the object is on my side, the object can be lost in my contour. then the TSA guy says, "rotate to right". now that object hidden on my side might as well have been taped to my forehead - what was lost in contour is now nicely in silhouette. or, i go through metal detector first, then get scanned.

no big deal?

pseingatl• 14 years ago

Curiously, once upon a time the U.S. federal courts considered a police crotch grab offensive behavior:

http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/oswald-blake-leonard-ea...

$1B of TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog

Related Stories