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

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:<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?"<p>...I could go on, but why?

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

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.<p>--Jon

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

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.

I once got "sharp weapons" (a manicure kit) through London's Heathrow airport.<p>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.<p>As per usual, I picked up a bottle of liquor at the duty free in Shanghai before I left...<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).

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

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.<p>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.<p>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.

TSA should use MRI scanners - no radiation exposure and no metal objects are allowed.<p>As an added bonus they can use fMRI mode and ask following questions:<p><pre><code> 1. Are you a member of a terrorist organization? 2. Where is the Weapons of Mass Destruction?</code></pre>

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?

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

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.<p>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.<p>I disagree.<p>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 <i>really</i> bad people out of power. The kind that become Caesars and Napoleons and Hitlers and Pol Pots.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>The argument against xray scanners needs to be based around the already-proven points:<p><pre><code> *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. </code></pre> So in summary, I <i>don't</i> 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.

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?

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.

One word: lobbyists.<p>Nearly <i>everything</i> 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.

So now they'll just require two scans, one turned 90 degrees.<p>How hard would it be to construct a prosthetic fat suit that's invisible to scanners? I bet not very.

His statement about no one boarding a plane in the US with explosives seems to be false: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/underwear-bomber/53115186/1" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/underwe...</a>.<p>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.

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?

It's interesting how so much is focused on <i>airport</i> 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...)<p>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 <i>must</i> be easier than pilot school, right?<p>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.

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

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.<p>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.

The introduction to &#60;i&#62;Thinking, Fast and Slow&#60;/i&#62; 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?

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?

I for one would just like to take a moment to welcome our new guests, the intelligence observers!<p>May you be inspired by the quality of debate and not may you not add any of the good HN folks to any lists.

Most people with critical thinking are hardly surprised by this; this needs to be shown to average Joes, not hackers.<p>Hence I suggest to vote this up on YouTube, rather than / in addition to HN.

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!

From Bruce Schneier's blog scheier.com<p>FBI Special Agent and Counterterrorism Expert Criticizes the TSA <a href="http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html" rel="nofollow">http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html</a><p>(<a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/fbi_special_age.html#comments" rel="nofollow">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/fbi_special_ag...</a>)

Interesting video.<p>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."

Not made worthless -- revealed as worthless.

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.

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

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

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

Curiously, once upon a time the U.S. federal courts considered a police crotch grab offensive behavior:<p><a href="http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/oswald-blake-leonard-eason-defendants-37283218" rel="nofollow">http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/oswald-blake-leonard-ea...</a>

In case some of you haven't seen this video.<p>Live on Germany TV man walks through body scanner and builds explosive with everything that passed on the scanner.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo</a>

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.

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.

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.

Just hope that somewone will be helt accountable for it. Anyway, the link to the relevant xkcd:<p><a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/651/</a>

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

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

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.<p>no big deal?

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

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

it's amazing how all governments, and monopolies are alike, whether it's US or not<p>they will get away with it, until smacked really hard - which is almost impossible to do

What if the scanners actually take a 360 degree xray?

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

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

most ptz ever?

epic fail indeed...

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.<p>An example: <a href="http://imgur.com/Q1DTp" rel="nofollow">http://imgur.com/Q1DTp</a> (The rolled paper represents some sort of tube)<p>The point is that many angles are required (or another kind of "solution")

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?

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

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

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

What a bizarre obsession. The only reason this is at the top of HN is because the word "nude" is (misleadingly) in there.<p>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 <i>per day</i> 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.<p>With apologies to Churchill, I guess this airline security regime is the worst system there is -- except for all the other systems.