Underwear Invention Protects Privacy At Airport 325
Thanks to Jeff Buske you don't have to be embarrassed while going through the full body scanners at the airport. Buske has invented radiation shielding underwear for the shy traveler. From the article: "Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors."
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.
More accurately, only the outlaws will wear underwear.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.
More accurately, only the outlaws will wear underwear.
Actually, only outlaws will have obscured genitalia. Also reminds me a Futurama quote where one of the cops said "And unblur your face, too!"
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/scanner.asp [snopes.com]
Suspecious (Score:5, Insightful)
A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly what I thought. "We can see your junk, better feel around to make sure they're there."
Re:Suspecious (Score:5, Funny)
Grind on the screener's hands while moaning loudly and gyrating your hips. It may not change the official policy, but it will eventually make all the screeners quit.
Well, except maybe the pervy ones.
Re:Suspecious (Score:4, Funny)
I won't go that far, but I've sent off for the free sample of Extenz, and I'm going to take that before the screening. I'm also thinking about wearing a kilt. I'm hoping they'll ask me if I know what they're going to do so I can say something along the lines of "I've been looking forward to it." Depending on how it goes, I might finish off with a quip like "What, no happy ending?"
Probability that I'll have the balls to go through with it: low
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And state clearly that if the inspector touches your junk, you're going to send them a bill, just like all your other customers. Just because they're the TSA does not entitle them to a freebie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The gropedown is what you get if you opt out of the scan. I'm sure that taking a scan and raising an anomaly involves much more vigorous investigation.
Re:Suspecious (Score:5, Informative)
Let's get the terminology right here. It's called "gate rape".
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gate%20Rape&defid=5365083 [urbandictionary.com]
Re:Suspecious (Score:5, Funny)
Hello sir, Rape or Radiation?
My wife and I will take radiation; but we are raising our child catholic so
Re:Suspecious (Score:4, Funny)
Hold on a second sir. Let me put on my priest robes...
Re:Suspecious (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's a "freedom pat".
Re:Suspecious (Score:4, Informative)
http://gizmodo.com/5697222/adam-savage-mythbusting-airport-security-wtf-tsa [gizmodo.com]
You would THINK that...
Re: (Score:2)
A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.
Not to worry. It will be all right. These underwear are named after the Rocky Flats [wikipedia.org] nuclear weapons facility. These are the good guys! They're US! And as an extra bonus, they light up at night.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sir, your underwear violates our security protocols. Please step this way for your cavity search."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Haha, why not just read playboy before entering scanner.. that way picture should be clear and solid.
Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:2)
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think this whole controversy from beginning (obtaining the machines) to end (the protest movement) is bogus.
Why do we have this machines? Because there is a threat that has been shown to be reasonable that these machines prevent? Can anybody point to a hijacking these machines *would* have prevented, but that wasn't preventable with the technology we already had? Almost certainly not. We are doing this simply to show we *can*. This is, unfortunately, a typical American approach to any kind o
Re: (Score:2)
If X-ray backscatter machines could sterilize you, you'd be sterile ten times over already from background radiation.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:5, Informative)
If X-ray backscatter machines could sterilize you, you'd be sterile ten times over already from background radiation.
No, because the magnitude of background radiation is much much lower, disorganized, diffused by the Earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic field, non-directional, and not pointed in an organized fashion directly at your body, and doesn't reach nearly the energy levels of the backscatter machine. Especially when operators make mistakes with the machine that cause people to get even more exposure than they are supposed to, or to be exposed longer than the 2 seconds they are supposed to, that all the numbers validating its safety are based on -- when they make someone stand in the scanner for a few minutes with it running, the person is getting massive amounts of harmful radiation exposure, way beyond what is safe or indicated.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:4, Insightful)
And the flight actually serves a purpose and gets you to your destination.
Body scanners are just security theater and offer you nothing positive in return.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if that's true, why are you defending fascism? Seriously. Is there any level of ogvernment intrusion into your privacy that you would object to? Any at all?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The radiation from the backscatter xray is only equivalent to 4 minutes of flight time for the typical scan time
You are claiming an equivalency that is only based on one raw measure of the exposure, one of the least important measures of exposure (thermal energy), and misses important points.
The higher the energy of the radiation, the deeper into the body it will penetrate before it is absorbed. The lower energy radiation you experience in flight is reflected by the skin. The higher energy of backscatt
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:5, Insightful)
You've hit on the main issue I have when people call these machines 'safe'. I accept that, under normal operation, they are safe. In the hands of a trained radiologist, I would not hesitate. But these machines are being operated by security people who are barely competent to work at McDonalds. I have already seen with my own eyes evidence of the machines not being used in the way they were intended and more importantly tested. And that's why I reject all claims that they are 'harmless' and will opt for a pat-down. Embarrassment I can recover from.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:5, Insightful)
They already said based on the radiation levels and 600 million passengers that about 10 people per year will die from cancer from this screening.
I think the number is lower. Many will die from other causes first.
But say it is 10 and it stops 1 airplane incident per 10 years- it's a wash to a massive savings of life.
Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next. You are not scanned, there is high density of targets, and it would paralyze travel-- again.
Re: (Score:2)
Frisking bad as it is, is unlikely to give you cancer, deform your eggs/sperm, or sterilize you. So there's that.
Has anyone done a study on that? What's the cancer risk of those scans? Say it's 1 out of X million. So can we be sure that out of X million gonad gropes they're not going to cause permanent injury to the "target"? Or the risk ( probability * impact) of injury is less than the risk ( probability * impact) of cancer?
Apparently there are 700 million scans a year in the USA.
Maybe they should skip the x ray scanners and use millimeter wave scanners instead?
FWIW, apparently the Israelis don't use such scanners:
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal of the Israelis is airport security. The goal of the TSA is increased pubic acceptance of fascism. You can see the difference.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:4, Funny)
The goal of the Israelis is airport security. The goal of the TSA is increased pubic acceptance of fascism. You can see the difference.
Most appropriate. Typo. Ever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been many studies. They say "When used properly, the machines don't present unreasonable risk.". Unreasonable means that they're about what a dental X-ray would be.
The kicker is "properly", The people running those machines have not been well trained, and you aren't their customer. So they don't really bother about proper use. Convenient (for them) use is more what they consider.
(Ever notice that when you get a dental X-ray you wear a lead apron?)
Nobody has done a study of the exposure in th
Re: (Score:2)
what if the person who frisks you is irradiated from countless of hours near a xray emitter?
Pat downs (Score:5, Insightful)
This will just get you an enhanced pat down, which you could opt for in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. All this does is:
Waste your money
Get you a dose of radiation while still ending in a patdown
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On the plus side, it feels like wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all!
(Stupid sexy Flanders...)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Similar... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You don't think that stuffing aluminum foil into your pants would get you fast-tracked to the airport's office with no windows and a door that only opens from the outside?
Ahh.. that 80's feeling (Score:2)
And thus the underwear arms race began.. .. did I tell you about the nuke I'm hiding in my boxers? *wink wink, nudge nudge*
Re: (Score:2)
I told them I had a rocket in my pocket, and they had me arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
I told them I had a rocket in my pocket, and they had me arrested.
Shoulda told them it was your magic pocket. That only merits public humiliation.
(Seriously, though, who tagged this article "magic pocket"?)
accessories (Score:2)
Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:2)
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA kills Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like 400-500 [insure.com] people die on the road over the thanksgiving holiday each year. It will be interesting to see if this number increases in 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police. Most States do happen to require their police to have grounds for suspicion before they ask to you do a sobriety test, but you have already given your implied permission.
Searching vehicles,
Re: (Score:2)
Um... No. Stupid Americans kill themselves. And sometimes take some of the rest of us with them.
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:5, Insightful)
~520 annual increase in traffic fatalities was the estimate due to people driving over flying. I believe there was also admittance that the backscatter would cause about 16 additional cancer deaths annually.
Net effect is an estimated 536 increase in annual deaths.
Loss of life due to terrorist attack against westerners from 2006 to 2008 was 12 deaths annually worldwide.
The scanners are estimated to be more deadly than the terrorists have been.
Our trade offs are brilliant.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Is there any level of government intrusion into your privacy that you would object to? Do you have a secret love for Austrian corporals? Do you find yourself admiring black uniforms and jackboots?
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:5, Insightful)
The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.
The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.
No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.
What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, your odds of dying from cancer induced from sitting in the airplane are substantially higher than your odds of dying from cancer induced by the screening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what your odds of dying from TSA-induced cancer vs. an airline crash are?
More [newsblaze.com]. So really, can we just end the security theater?
Re: (Score:2)
If you fly enough, cancer will kill you.
Smart terrists would just go in as a pilot or ground crew to cause planes to crash.
Smarter ones would just avoid planes like everybody else.
It's unclear ... (Score:5, Informative)
From the article: It's unclear whether it would lead to an automatic, more intrusive pat down by federal Transportation Security Administration officials.
No, if the image is unclear, the TSA's reaction is not. If you are not sure, check out what Dave Barry went through when the image of his groin was "blurry" http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa [npr.org]
Christmas goose (Score:2)
Re:Christmas goose (Score:5, Informative)
They don't do cavity searches, that's part of the bizarre theatre of it all. Part of the point of this article was that most people hide illicit things in areas which would require a cavity search and they just feel you up. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
From a buddy of mine (Score:5, Insightful)
"Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports."
This of course assumes the scans are safe, but you get the idea...
Re: (Score:2)
Having a backscatter body scan done once a year is safer than having a single transmission X-ray taken.
Of course, the resolution that the TSA uses is insufficient for proper medical imaging. A higher-resolution image would require a higher beam intensity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why not do both?
I see you aren't carrying a bomb, and you might want to get this mass checked out by a doctor. This would probably make the scanning more popular, although it might cause people without insurance to act suspicious when flying to get a free scan.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huge order for the produce recieved (Score:2)
fuck the tsa (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
4th amendment point (Score:5, Insightful)
4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Seems like it would apply at the airport. TSA claims that you are contractually obligated to put up with search when you enter the secure area and that your air travel ticket states this and as such is a contract. But, you aren't able to sign away your constitutional rights implying, at least, that this component of the air travel contract is illegal. How does this all square up?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think a TSA Gate Rape is an "unreasonable" search?
Note: if you're not citing statute or Federal Court case law, and you don't happen to be a Federal Court Justice, then your opinion doesn't really matter, does it?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:4th amendment point (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court. http://openjurist.org/676/f2d/379 [openjurist.org] 676 F. 2d 379 - United States v. Ek
All of which apply to border searches and not routine air travel. There's probably very little legal standing for these searches apart from the "license with the airlines" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Two-thirds of Americans think this search is "reasonable", as do apparently all elected officials and judges. Also, you are absolutely able to sign away your constitutional rights, that happens all the time, for instance every time a criminal waives his right to a speedy trial, or testifies at his own trial, or speaks to the police without a lawyer present. It also happens when you consent to a police search (they don't need consent for any reasonable or warranted search), and it definitely explicitly happe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:4th amendment point (Score:5, Interesting)
And when these show up at a courthouse, and you have to walk through them to comply with your Jury Summons? The "voluntary" argument is a crock of shit, even for airports.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did I mention the TSA? Airport-style security violates the 4th amendment, and happens in government buildings where your entrance is not voluntary. The argument that airline travel is "voluntary" is just a feeble argument to prop up fascist practices. I really don't care what argument you come up with, searching ordinary citizens at checkpoints does not belong in the United States. If the conclusion of your argument is "checkpoints are acceptable", your argument is flawed on that basis.
There's not
Just for a laugh... (Score:3, Funny)
Aluminum foil (Score:2)
I haven't flown in many months, but I was thinking about next time I go through airport security I could use packing tape to attach strips of aluminum foil to my chest spelling out FUCK YOU. This would be clearly visible in the X-ray, but would not be visible otherwise, and an agent could not even feel it during a pat down. It furthermore would not provide any security threat, and could not possibly conceal any weapon. It would be a pure speech opportunity. How could or would TSA respond to such a thing?
it was (Score:2)
it was only a matter of time.
The only real solution to by-pass... (Score:2)
Irrelevant (Score:2)
seems like a good idea.. (Score:2)
if you wear it on the outside.
Spell it out (Score:2)
How about cutting some metal foil into letters, glue them onto your undies, and spell out a message for the TSA?
You know, tell them what to do with themselves?
FUGLY (Score:2)
As in, "Fig Leaf UGLY." Has anyone actually bothered to look at the image in the article? Seriously? A fig-leaf design for men and "clasped hands" for women? WTF?
Dude. I'd sooner let the agent grope me than be caught wearing something like that. Especially if he's cute. (I kid, I kid)
I think the solution is simple--force everyone to wear a standard skintight full-body lycra uniform prior to entering the security area, and have designated changing areas once past security. Sure, the TSA agents would
"Shy Traveler" (Score:2)
go naked? - strip? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering if it is acceptable to the TSA for me to request a private room, and strip naked to let them do a visual only examination to prove that I'm not carrying anything dangerous. They can look as closely as they want, as long as they don't touch me.
I have no concerns about privacy, but I do have a problem with xrays and a person feeling me up.
But I have no problems about getting naked. Is that an acceptable for the TSA? I will try it next time I go through an airport.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for frustrating TSA agents. Those people are traitors to the cause of liberty. 200 years ago, they would have all been hanged. I think frustrating them is a little less extreme, don't you?
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How about you (a) stop being such a coward, and (b) start caring about the rights that so many people who weren't cowards died to defend? The threat of dieing in an airplane due to hostile action is trivial. Driving instead of flying is significanly riskier. If you don't have the courage to face even such a minimal threat, what good are you?
Re: (Score:2)
you have more of a chance of getting skin cancer from the sun, driving your car to work, getting heart disease (especially if you're an american), getting lung cancer, even getting lupus and in all of these things which has a greater risk of dying we don't ask the gov't for protection nor is your chance of getting irradiated and or groped/sexually molested a part of the risks involved. Take your unreasonable fears and live in a cave deep underground to protect you from the danger called life.