PDA

View Full Version : Feds admit they ARE storing body scanner images.




Anti Federalist
08-04-2010, 09:39 PM
Oh, I'm shocked, shocked and outraged.../s





Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

August 4, 2010 4:00 AM PDT

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that "approximately 35,314 images...have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."
TSA's millimeter wave body scan


http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/08/04/MMW-Image-786339.jpg
TSA's millimeter wave body scan
(Credit: TSA.gov)

This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners--and how they're being used in practice--is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday that the agency's scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. "We're not recording them," she said. "I'm reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport."

The TSA maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events."

pcosmar
08-04-2010, 09:46 PM
Someone needs to Wikileak their collection of child porn.
:(

Anti Federalist
08-04-2010, 09:52 PM
Someone needs to Wikileak their collection of child porn.
:(

I get in such a funk at the airport (you know this already, I have to fly on regular basis) watching the docile herd quietly submitting and putting their children through these things.

Makes me wonder sometimes why any of us should even bother.

*sigh* :mad:

michaelwise
08-04-2010, 09:55 PM
I will be sure to take Viagra and sport the fullness of my manhood before going through those scanners.

Anti Federalist
08-04-2010, 09:58 PM
I will be sure to take Viagra and sport the fullness of my manhood before going through those scanners.

It is not required, yet.

Announce that you "opt out" before walking into the thing.

The TSA goons will wave you through for a slightly less humiliating pat down instead.

At least your biometric ID image, not to mention your junk, will not be on a government database somewhere.

jclay2
08-04-2010, 09:59 PM
I get in such a funk at the airport (you know this already, I have to fly on regular basis) watching the docile herd quietly submitting and putting their children through these things.

Makes me wonder sometimes why any of us should even bother.

*sigh* :mad:

My brother mentioned this to me the other day. He told me that if they force the body scanner on passengers, that he is permanently done flying. I think I might be doing the same, come to think of it.

Anti Federalist
08-04-2010, 10:05 PM
My brother mentioned this to me the other day. He told me that if they force the body scanner on passengers, that he is permanently done flying. I think I might be doing the same, come to think of it.

Oh, so am I.

That's it when that happens.

Natalie
08-04-2010, 10:21 PM
My brother mentioned this to me the other day. He told me that if they force the body scanner on passengers, that he is permanently done flying. I think I might be doing the same, come to think of it.

You will still be paying for air fare though if enough people boycott the machines and the govt decides that the airlines are too big to fail.

Danke
08-04-2010, 10:43 PM
I saw my scan on a few porn sites already.

Kotin
08-04-2010, 10:48 PM
I saw my scan on a few porn sites already.

So you are looking at dudes?

Anti Federalist
08-04-2010, 10:52 PM
So you are looking at dudes?

Pwnd

:D

Matt Collins
08-04-2010, 11:00 PM
You will still be paying for air fare though if enough people boycott the machines and the govt decides that the airlines are too big to fail.
The airlines already received bailouts about 10 years ago :mad:

Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (http://ostpxweb.ost.dot.gov/aviation/Data/stabilizationact.pdf) (P.L. 107-42) in response to a severe liquidity crisis facing the industry in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).

SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline#The_Airline_.E2.80.9CBailout.E2.80.9D

Danke
08-04-2010, 11:08 PM
So you are looking at dudes?

Nah, just ads for penis enlargement.

But not being familiar with how porn sites operate and assuming it has something to do with men is nothing to be ashamed of... oh, BTW, how is your garden coming...along?

Anti Federalist
08-04-2010, 11:11 PM
Nah, just ads for penis enlargement.

Nice counter jab.

:D

michaelwise
08-04-2010, 11:51 PM
Nah, just ads for penis enlargement.

But not being familiar with how porn sites operate and assuming it has something to do with men is nothing to be ashamed of... oh, BTW, how is your garden coming...along?Do you have any pictures of your progress?;)

Kotin
08-05-2010, 12:22 AM
Nah, just ads for penis enlargement.

But not being familiar with how porn sites operate and assuming it has something to do with men is nothing to be ashamed of... oh, BTW, how is your garden coming...along?

this guy..


stick around.

;)

hotbrownsauce
08-05-2010, 01:35 AM
What was the youtube.. or television program that showed people standing in front of a machine on a bus or a tour bus that the TSA was using to test equipment and the TSA said they did not have capabilities of keeping images?

Or maybe it was home land security?

Mach
08-05-2010, 03:43 AM
//

noxagol
08-05-2010, 05:39 AM
And yet another reason I will never fly.

ninepointfive
08-05-2010, 05:48 AM
You will still be paying for air fare though if enough people boycott the machines and the govt decides that the airlines are too big to fail.

'doh!

sevin
08-05-2010, 06:11 AM
I am confused. Why in the hell would they need to store these images? For example, why would they need an image of me showing that on such-and-such a date at some airport I didn't have a weapon on me. What's the point?

pcosmar
08-05-2010, 09:35 AM
I am confused. Why in the hell would they need to store these images? For example, why would they need an image of me showing that on such-and-such a date at some airport I didn't have a weapon on me. What's the point?

Jollies?

:(

paulitics
08-05-2010, 09:51 AM
I am confused. Why in the hell would they need to store these images? For example, why would they need an image of me showing that on such-and-such a date at some airport I didn't have a weapon on me. What's the point?

Big brother needs to know the size of your wee wee.

Anti Federalist
08-05-2010, 10:05 AM
I am confused. Why in the hell would they need to store these images? For example, why would they need an image of me showing that on such-and-such a date at some airport I didn't have a weapon on me. What's the point?

Biometric body print.

This is just in the beta phase right now, but before long, once it's established that government is, in fact, keeping all these images, and any protest over that is squelched, then, it will be announced that each image will be matched to each person going through. By this time you will already be required to submit your slave number for a ticket/boarding pass.

That provides a biometric body print that will be used to identify you from a distance or over a camera monitor based on your height, weight, style of walk, body contours matched to your unique slave number (I'm being a smart ass, I mean social security number ;) )

By the time all this happens, use of these machines will have greatly expanded as well, to the point that almost any public gathering or mode of transportation will require a body scan.

This is an added, coming, feature of the surveillance grid.

Give it 5, maybe ten years at the most. Unless another "attack" happens, then it will roll out in matter of months.

Anti Federalist
08-07-2010, 11:40 AM
bump for other story///

jkr
08-07-2010, 12:37 PM
jay-E-ll-0


always room for more data when selling moores law...

Anti Federalist
08-08-2010, 06:02 PM
///

Matt Collins
09-29-2010, 04:38 PM
YouTube - Jim Harper on Airline Security (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2TEy34V9E&feature=uploademail)

Anti Federalist
09-29-2010, 06:09 PM
I am confused. Why in the hell would they need to store these images? For example, why would they need an image of me showing that on such-and-such a date at some airport I didn't have a weapon on me. What's the point?

Also, evidence.

Consider, deletion of an image of someone with "contraband", could be considered evidence tampering.