[573] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Fun With Body Scanner Images -- and Cutting Through
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Sat Jan 9 16:28:54 2010
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:06:31 -0800
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Message-ID: <20100109210631.GB21335@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Fun With Body Scanner Images -- and Cutting Through the Body Scanner Bull
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000665.html
Greetings. The body image scanner lobby is out in full force to
convince governments around the world to buy their products, and to
scare the flying public into sheepishly putting up with these invasive
devices that will not even be effective in stopping dedicated
terrorists ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000659.html ).
But money talks -- as demonstrated by Bush-era Homeland Security
secretary Michael Chertoff making the TV rounds promoting these
scanners. Oh, by the way, he now works for one of the companies that
manufacturers the scanners. Surprise!
There's lots of false or misleading information floating around
regarding the scanners themselves.
First is the claim that there's nothing to worry about related to the
radiation from these devices. There are two types of units --
millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray. The former do not produce
ionizing radiation, but recent research suggests that they still carry
risks of cellular changes. X-rays we know far better, and the
proponents of this technology make various claims about how little
dosage is involved in each scan.
These dosage numbers seem to vary all over the place, even changing
dramatically from day to day on Web sites that purport to be giving
accurate information. Comparisons with background radiation at
altitude and time spent in the sunshine is fine, but the bottom line
is that statistics clearly indicate that subjecting mass populations
(including frequent flyers) to even small amounts of additional
radiation will result in additional cancer deaths. Many deaths?
Probably not that can be proven, anyway. But if your "lucky" number
comes up, too bad for you.
Another issue -- the claims of safety regarding these scanners all
assume accurate calibration. Yet we've recently seen that major
hospitals -- including right here in L.A. -- have been found to have
medical CAT x-ray scanners that in some cases massively overdosed
patients (not just on one bad day, but over long periods of time) with
radiation, enough to cause burns and hair loss, not to mention other
potential problems down the line. That's in relatively calm and clean
hospital environments. If airport body scanners end up badly
calibrated -- as is typical for baggage x-ray units that vary widely
in intensity -- the risks are obvious.
The many detailed naked images floating around the media and Net from
various scanners are widely known. The level of detail can be
astonishing. A recent YouTube video purported to show how easy it was
to digitally reverse such images to show a naked positive (I noted
this video earlier today in another venue.)
That video turns out to have been doctored but was convincing. Why?
Because my own experiments have shown that reversing such images does
indeed yield almost identical effects. Here's my reversal
[Adults Only] of an image provided by TSA as part a widely seen demo:
http://bit.ly/4HlBCY
Pro-scanner propaganda screams that new scanners don't show this level
of detail.
That's only partly true. There are newer systems that display more
"symbolic" imagery (e.g. "chalk line" body images). But the fact is
that many of the units in use today do display full detail.
Perhaps of even more concern, my sources that have been involved in
the evaluation of body image scanners in security contexts tell me
that the ability of such scanners to actually find contraband on body
areas where it can theoretically be detected (e.g. not in body
orifices, etc.) varies directly with the level of detail shown. The
less detailed the image, the more likely bad stuff will slip through.
Also, I'm told that in practice it's often necessary to have two-way
communication between the security personnel at the scanner and the
remote scanner viewer, in order to instruct the scanning target to
reposition themselves in various ways to get a full scan. And of
course, the full detailed scan is the initial result internally in all
cases, whether or not a simplified image is actually displayed to the
operator.
The irony of all this is that the use of a "booty bomb" -- explosives
inserted into the body in various ways, is an effective mechanism to
evade all of these body imagery systems that don't use
body-penetrating x-rays.
Unfortunately, the more clearly one looks at the reality of these
scanners and how they're being promoted, the murkier the image
actually becomes.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
