Viral Video About Body Scanners

There is something chillingly unconvincing about their attempts at informality.<p>Big Brother jokey is a lot more frightening than Big Brother bureaucratic or Big Brother bombastic. Too bad this insight wasn't available to Orwell or he could have made <i>1984</i> even scarier.

This has got to be one of the stupidest and (unintentionally) scary responses ever to a serious attempt to question security.<p>- Ad-Hominem attacks on the person raising the questions<p>- No direct refutatio of the specific points raised in the Video<p>- Co-relation and causation confusion (we have found x hence we are effective against the things in the video)<p>- Pathetic attempt at informal tone of voice<p>- Appeal to Stats and big impressive numbers when none is justified<p>In short - Americans need to be really upset that their security is handled by these buffoons. -

Wow. This blog post makes me WAY more afraid of the TSA than the original video did. I can't wrap my head around the language used. "Things that go BOOM" ???!?!?! Are you fucking kidding me? These are the people that are supposedly acting in the interests of our safety? Disgusted.<p>Whoever wrote or approved this post ought to be fired. Fast.

If their security is as good as their blogging it's time to consider travelling by bus.<p>Also their "20 layers of security" chart[1] is an unintentionally hilarious masterpiece. Note the arrow they've drawn circumventing <i>every layer of security apart from passengers</i>. So really, we can't say they didn't warn us.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm" rel="nofollow">http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm</a>

I can't believe that this is the official TSA blog. I can understand trying to take steps to avoid the usual ridiculously dry press release style articles that governments and big businesses normally have, but.. this was just unprofessional.<p>You have "Blogger Bob" telling us to ignore the video "some guy" made and that everything's fine because this is just one of the way they protect you from "things that go BOOM".<p>Also, the blog never disputes the video. There is no text that tries to say that the video was faked or anything, or provides any indication that the video and the vulnerabilities contained therein aren't exactly as they appear.<p>Finally, just because I'm feeling particularly nitpicky tonight: they're using Blogger's favicon and are hosted on Google's servers (DNS resolves to ghs.l.GOOGLE.COM). Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a touch unprofessional as well.

Guess how many of the people who work on the ground airside are scanned?<p>In any event the TSA is not taking enough credit here. Did you know their scanners have prevented meteorites? They have also prevented tiger attacks. Since installing them there has not been a single instance of meteorites hitting planes or tiger attacks on planes. I think the US government should borrow even more money so we can get them to also prevent giraffe attacks.

2 days ago, from a BusinessWeek article about the author of the blog post:<p><i>“I call it the corny dad approach. I’m basically the Bob Saget of blogging,” the 41-year-old tells Bloomberg Businessweek. “This isn’t really the most exciting subject, so I thought I should inject some personality into it.” Three years removed from working the security lines himself—he used to train TSA officers at the Cincinnati airport—Blogger Bob has clearly gained some perspective on the experience.</i> [1]<p>Whether or not entertainment has a place in government blogging is an argument for another day, but I think we can all agree that under no circumstances should this type of blog post ever be allowed as an official government response.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the-tsa-be-as-cool-as-the-tsas-blogger-bob" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the...</a>

Astonishing blog post.<p><i>Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs.</i><p>This reminded me of part of the recent TSA Fail post by a former FBI agent.<p><i>Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle should be appalled at an unauthorized use to which TSA is putting their screening: Identifying petty criminals--using one search method to achieve a secret goal. This is strictly forbidden in other government branches. In the FBI, if I had a warrant to wiretap an individual on a terrorism matter and picked-up evidence of a non-terrorism-related crime, I could not, without FBI Headquarters and a judge’s approval, use that as evidence in a criminal case. But TSA is using its screening devices to carve out a niche business. According to congress, TSA began to seek out petty criminals without congressional approval. TSA have arrested more than 1,000 people on drug charges and other non-airline security-related offenses to date.</i><p><a href="http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html" rel="nofollow">http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html</a>

I've never felt more like I was living in a prequel to Idiocracy than I did while reading that.

I'm almost impressed by the linguistic gymnastics taken here to avoid saying outright that they got caught with their pants down.<p>The post concludes on an entirely unrelated point to the premise of the post<p>|<i>Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down.</i><p>Sure, I'm carrying in a gun in my shirt pocket I'd like to get on the plane. Let me just request the patdown to make sure I get caught.

It seems they don't watch German television shows: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ</a>

As an Indian, i am always envious &#38; jealous of how govt agencies &#38; systems work so much better in the US than in India. So i was really shocked to see this blog post, after the said govt agency's credibility has been seriously damaged (by the viral video)<p>"... things that go BOOM"<p>Are you f<i></i>*ing kidding me ? Is that how a govt official is supposed to communicate ? Leave alone the content, but the tone of the post is very crass, insensitive &#38; insulting.<p>Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly common, even in some of the most liberal cities in the US &#38; the world.. San Francisco bay area.<p>Check out <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052</a> &#38; <a href="http://bit.ly/bartisevil" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/bartisevil</a> on the high-handedness of BART PD (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

The really funny thing is that this guy is probably making between $93,00 - $142,000 (paid by us). Look at this job listing for a TSA program analyst: <a href="http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200" rel="nofollow">http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200</a><p>...with tasks like "You will develop and approve solutions to current and anticipated problems"<p>I think Blogger Bob is writing some of these job descriptions, too.<p>Makes me sick.<p>Here are the benefits Blogger Bob gets: DHS offers competitive salaries and an attractive benefits package, including: health, dental, vision, life, and long-term care insurance; retirement plan; Thrift Savings Plan [similar to a 401(k)]; Flexible Spending Account; Employee Assistance Program; personal leave days; and paid federal holidays. Other benefits may include: flexible work schedules; telework; tuition reimbursement; transportation subsidies; uniform allowance; health and wellness programs; and fitness centers. DHS is committed to employee development and offers a variety of employee training and developmental opportunities. For more information, go to www.dhs.gov/careers and select "benefits."

"tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs" go BOOM?? I can't help but notice the glossing over of the mission creep.<p>[quote from article] ... Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.

"Body scanners don't work, but we do other stuff too." Jesus.

Shorter TSA: We're not going to deny that this guy can bring whatever he wants through, but having screened 600m passengers in the last year, we did once find a gun and some drugs. So you're safe! And if you don't think a dose of radiation is a good trade for pretend security, you can always wait another 15 minutes for a grumpy person to grope you.

If this weren't on a .gov site I'd think this was satire. As it is, it's just scary and sad.

Beyond disturbing. Equivalent of, "u mad?" Rebuttal with no refutation. Embarrassing and useless, but just enough to placate the placid and ignorant.

Blogger Bob is just another part of the TSA's layered approach to bullshitology. I'm glad it's transparent to all, and thank you again for covering this issue.

"around the interwebs" "baggies of drugs" "things that go BOOM"<p>Seems legit.

The flippant behavior exhibited makes me both alarmed and angry.<p>Here's an interview with Blogger Bob that Google returned: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html</a><p>Apparently, being snarky on the government dime pays quite well. Dude appears to be rocking a Rolex.

Their "20 layers of security" reminds me of your usual "7 proxies" and "over 9000": meaningless over-the-top numbers with no relationship with reality.

" down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. "<p>Is this for real? When did the TSA start doing drug searches? Can they effect arrests?<p>I'll be honest - I'm a little shocked that a supposedly "official" blogging site is writing like a half-tweaked 13 year old and is bragging about doing drug searches at a supposed check for weapons.<p>It's also pretty irresponsible to make claims about the scanning system like, " It is completely safe " - I suspect that "Blogger Bob Burns" neither has the background, nor the authority to make such claims (let alone the knowledge). About all he(?) should be doing is suggesting which certifying authority has provided a clean-bill-of-health on their scanners.<p>All in all the most disturbing thing I've read in a couple weeks.

This is a non-serious response. I think I'm going to talk to my congressperson about this.

Number of terrorist attacks detected and thwarted by TSA measures since 2001: Zero<p>Number of terrorist attacks attempted since 2001 over US airspace: MORE THAN ZERO

Well, Bob (original author) -- as if the situation couldn't be more magnified, your post has simply added to the impression that the TSA is mostly public hand-waving in the place of real security.<p>"Crude" attempt? "you know… things that go BOOM"? I sincerely hope you take anyone's claim seriously, public or otherwise, that they can circumvent any security measure put in place by the TSA. The tone of your blog post smacks of disregard; if you thought it would invoke confidence on the part of the reader, you thought wrong.<p>The biggest defense put forth: well, we have other security detection methods so, hah!<p>Don't you get that the point about the body scanners is that they can be beaten? That they're superfluous to the security regimen? That if you can't defend them directly, they serve no real purpose? That's the point of the video, and it's completely lost on you (and obviously others for whom you speak.)<p>As is the impression among so many travelers, the TSA confuses "feeling safe" with "being safe" and it appears your post simply reinforces that view.<p>Visions of the SNL parody skit from years ago come to mind.

This is <i>even worse</i> than I thought the scanners were. THIS is what the operator sees? <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm" rel="nofollow">http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm</a><p>That means that it's a complete black-box and if you just beat the scanner's algorithms, you beat the scanner operators too.<p>What a complete and utter joke.

The blog article is extremely funny.<p>I keep thinking, "If this were a post by Microsoft about a security vulnerability report, I'd be in business doing Linux migrations for the rest of my life."

... and nowhere do they deny that the method presented actually works.

"We're actually safe, I'm not going to give any evidence of this, just trust me".<p>Seems fair.

OK, I will play the devil's advocate.<p>Yes, he does not deny or dispute whether the method works as claimed.<p>The otherwise hip language is not helping nor does it sound sincere, I agree.<p>But, if we want to stay objective:<p>1) He describes the demonstration in the video as a "crude attempt", which is in certain ways true. Neither is the attempt too sophisticated, nor the documentation of it, or should I say especially the documentation. The video itself is lacking in scientific argumentation, and makes up for the lack thereof with unnecessary political rhetoric that I don't need to be fed to see the simple "flaw" he claims to have discovered - more about that now...<p>2) The person in the video may or may not be sincere about his claims, but he definitely is not the first person to point out this "flaw". It was known publicly for a very long time, and it is reasonable to assume people who developed and approved the system were well aware of it.<p>3) Everyone is pointing out that there is no attempt at a "scientific" refutation in the blog post. Well, he is right in stating that their claim never was that they can catch any single concealed object with the body scanner. I don't see what it is exactly that he needs to refute. It is indeed part of a layered system, and I can't see how anyone can disagree with this concept. I'm not saying the scanner is a reasonable layer or that it should stay - but if your argument is "it has to work 100% or it has to go", it is pretty weak. He doesn't really evade any serious accusation here - he simply points out the obvious and reinstates their claim: what was shown in the video is uninteresting, because the body scanner was never about catching metal boxes sewn to the side of a shirt with 98.5% confidence.<p>You can argue the body scanner is an economical disaster, dispute it on the basis of privacy or bring up health concerns, but I like to stay objective. There is nothing wrong with this post, as a response to the demonstration in the video, beyond the silly language.

The post mentioned that the scanners are one of 20 layers of security and mentions Behavioral detection, Explosive Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshall etc as some of the other "layers" of security. I wanted to see what these 20 layers were, and I really didn't see anything that would "protect" against someone exploiting the scanners like the video demonstrated. In fact one of the "layers" of security was "Intelligence". How comforting. If you want to see some serious security theater, check out <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm" rel="nofollow">http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm</a>.<p>This blog post is just feels forced, and makes me a little quesy...

yeah, get all your info about the government FROM the government. No conflict of interest there.<p>So, why did they defer those safety studies anyway? Just a scheduling conflict? Too busy with an election?<p>The things that we have to be subjected to just to satisfy campaign contributors.

Not that I'm condoning the machines, and perhaps I'm missing something, but...<p>Couldn't this "vulnerability" be fixed if they took two scans? Take one of front/back (current approach) and then ask the person to turn 90 degrees and take another scan? to see the sides?

I was at the airport last week and got randomly selected for the backscatter x-ray machine. I was told to remove everything from my pockets, including things that I would normally keep for going through a metal detector (passport, papers, wallet, etc.).<p>The scan went fine, but on the other side, the TSA agent noticed that due to the fold of my jeans, it looked like I had something in my pocket. He said he had to pat me down to make sure I didn't have anything in there.<p>Which made me seriously doubt the efficacy of the backscatter machines. What's the point of the machine if something could slip through that would still necessitate a physical body search?

Just astounding. As soon as I read "interwebs" I had to check to make sure this was an official communications channel of a Federal agency. Mind is blown. Is this the same level of people running the CIA/FBI? What is going on?

The pie-chart on the delete-o-meter on that blog sidebar doesn't reflect the numbers underneath it. At present, there are 50k accepted comments and 17k deleted, but the deleted slice is much less than 25%.

The most interesting thing in that post was on what they focus. One would have that it was terrorism, but no, they spread their attention by looking for drugs with those body scanners. Feeling safe now.

"For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail"<p>Security through obscurity.<p>Are they afraid that if they disclose information people would somehow be able to find holes? If this is the case then why is this technology used? Why have gapping holes already been pointing out by numerous people?<p>Thinking that "the terrorists" don't have the ability to break this system without understanding the intricate details of it is just downright stupid.

Tax payers money...billions...not sure what testing they did before buying or they knew it and still bought them because they got their cut.

What an ignorantly worded blog post. By the TSA?! Come on.<p>If anything, this post does nothing but give the impression that the flaw in the scanners IS true.

If there was any doubt as to whether the original technique described in the original video worked, this blog post has just confirmed it.

&#62; For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail...<p>The way I read it:<p>For obvious <i>job</i> security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail...<p>Anyway, I sure feel safe knowing that the security of my life is entrusted to obscurity, and I'm thankful for the trolling TSA blog posts that remind me of this.

It would appear that Wired came to the same conclusion as the blogger - <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_confirms_1b_of_nude_body_scanners_made/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_con...</a>

To me the bad thing about the TSA, and counterterrorism in general, is that every day that goes by without an attack reinforces whatever methods and expenses they might incur.<p>But the worse is that only a terrible event could prove them wrong and stop the nonsense.

I have a feeling this response is doing them far more harm than good. It's just a simple admission that everything stated was true and I'm going to make it into a high school argument and call you some guy with some crude video that's irrelevant.

This definitely looks like the beginning of the end for at least the body scanners.<p>If that video brought on so much heat that they had to respond like this and drop the ball so much, queue more public outrage and major back-pedalling in 3.....2.....1....

Stand back people, TSA Blog Team is on the case!<p>More seriously, these jokers let terrorists waltz on board planes (e.g. The Shoebomber) and only the passengers, treated like criminals by TSA, stop them.<p>Time to send the rentacops back to the mall.

Confidence Trickster Bob should go through a con artist scanner. It'd explode.

Tagged this in delicious.<p>Wondering if it'll show up with my tags... <a href="http://delicious.com/quink" rel="nofollow">http://delicious.com/quink</a><p>Can someone else tag it too with my tags and it might show up on their page...?

Tone is baffling... only explanation is the official blog is trying to spoof their spoof?<p><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov</a> (TSA satire)

So, this is where our tax payers' money is going? Sigh.

Today, I am not proud to be an American. Thanks TSA.

I for one feel a lot safer thanks to this blog post from the TSA.<p>Keep up the great work TSA and thank you for putting my worries to rest.<p>-- Do I need to put sarcasm tags?

What shocks me most is the abundance of anonymous comments, probably fearful of how the TSA can make life miserable for them.

In any case, surely the weakest link is airports in less developed countries, which always seem to be much less secure to me.

Can someone post a link to the viral video they are referring to? I can't seem to find it (I live in a cave).

Methinks thou dost protest too much TSA

I've never believed something less than the words in this blog post.

All the comments here sucks ass<p>"It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM. "<p>If you shat out an emotion frmo that sentence, you too much of a baby to use the internet, LEAVE.

Uhh am I the only one here who isn't planning on reading too deeply into this? Seems like TSA got pwnt by lulzsec or anonymous?

"things that go BOOM"

That last paragraph is a doozy.<p>Completely addresses privacy concerns; is completely safe; oh and hey, it's completely optional, assuming you don't prefer molestation and possibly randomly missing your flight.

&#62;<i>It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that completely addresses privacy concerns.</i><p>Well that makes me feel great. Guess they decided they been caught blatantly lying on that point before so they decided to reiterate it, just with sufficiently vague qualifiers.

The fascinating thing about their claimed 20 layers of security, is also that a failure by any single layer can result in a terrorist attack succeeding.<p>They surprisingly don't point that out. (har har)