Over 30,000 nude images of civilians have been saved from full body scanners.

[ChuckF]

heh...testy.

[California Tanker]

This is fucking stupid and you should be embarrassed.

Well, seriously. Being able to 'identify' someone seems to have some legal effect. Look at all the people on reality TV shows like COPS who have their faces blanked out to protect their privacy given that they didn't grant permission for their identities to be revealed, but that doesn't much help if you recognise the car, clothing, or whatever.

By going through the machine, you have knowingly given permission for an agent or agents of TSA to view the image of a somewhat fuzzy naked you. In practical terms, it doens't much matter to you if that agent is the one currently on duty around the corner in the viewing room, or if it's one in the training room who could be looking at the 'live' picture of you the next week. You have absolutely no idea who that person is, the view is exactly the same, and in neither case do they have any idea who they're looking at. It might as well be an anatomical textbook, except of lesser detail.

Whilst I share with you the distaste for the 'we won't be saving them/we did save them' divergeance, I'm not sure that the whole 'privacy' argument really is all that strong once you've decided to go through the machine.

NTM

[ceptimus]

Don't you think they will save the images along with a regular photo of you (perhaps taken at the same time by the same machine) and probably other identification such as your passport number?

Of course not! They would never do a thing like that. Not for training, nor diagnostic nor any other conceivable purpose. And you have their word on that, perhaps.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Well, seriously. Being able to 'identify' someone seems to have some legal effect. Look at all the people on reality TV shows like COPS who have their faces blanked out to protect their privacy given that they didn't grant permission for their identities to be revealed, but that doesn't much help if you recognise the car, clothing, or whatever.

Privacy and anonymity are not the same thing at all. Like I said, toilet cams are pretty much anonymous, as are upskirt pictures and probably lots of sex tapes and such. Revealing someone's identity is not a key element of an invasion of privacy.

Model release requirements are largely designed to protect against lawsuits for things like defamation, because reality shows are heavily edited to appeal to viewers in ways that also tend to promote inaccurate perceptions.

By going through the machine, you have knowingly given permission for an agent or agents of TSA to view the image of a somewhat fuzzy naked you. In practical terms, it doens't much matter to you if that agent is the one currently on duty around the corner in the viewing room, or if it's one in the training room who could be looking at the 'live' picture of you the next week. You have absolutely no idea who that person is, the view is exactly the same, and in neither case do they have any idea who they're looking at. It might as well be an anatomical textbook, except of lesser detail.

So why did the TSA make such a point of claiming that they weren't storing the images? I know why. It's because they knew that fewer people would object if the images weren't stored. That's why.

And it is not your place to determine whether someone's concerns about their privacy are appropriate. The images are nonconsensual because they were obtained fraudulently.

You don't get to decide where other people get to draw their own personal boundaries. They agreed to one thing with explicit limits, which were violated.

Besides which, I haven't seen anything that makes a compelling argument that they even ARE anonymous. Don't you think these pictures are probably stored in some kind of organized fashion, so that they already include the identity of the subjects, or where the identities of the subjects could readily be extrapolated?

What would the TSA even be doing with huge repositories of these pictures in the first place, especially if those pictures aren't even organized in some identifiable way?

[Angakuk]

Come on people, give CT a break. He has a point. I mean, if a peeping tom is looking at someone getting naked in their bedroom, but he doesn't know who that person is, then he has obviously not violated anyone's privacy. Suppose he snaps some pics while he is at it and shares those with a select few of his best online buds, as long as they also don't know the identity of the person in pictures there is no way that could be construed as a violation of privacy.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I dunno. I see a little bit of elegance in using pedophile hysteria to combat terrorist hysteria. Maybe I'm overthinking, but my first thought was that the sort of people who buy into the security theater are probably also pedophilia alarmists, and by framing the issue that way, you're almost making them pick whether they're pedophile sympathizers or terrorist sympathizers.

This is very appealing.

The Transportation "Security" Administration (more like Terrorist Sex Agency am i right) wants to help terrorists masturbate to naked images of your children on the Internet. Which side are you on?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Whilst I share with you the distaste for the 'we won't be saving them/we did save them' divergeance, I'm not sure that the whole 'privacy' argument really is all that strong once you've decided to go through the machine.

NTM

You say decided as if it is a choice between Coke or Pepsi. My problem with that is that individuals have to know there is an option. Security, and law enforcement in general, do not present you a list of options that you are allowed to take within your rights. Instead, they present you with what they want you to do--go through that scanner, let them search your car, etc. You have to know that you have the right to refuse AND know the appropriate consequences of those rights in order to have any actual choice (and survive the bullying that most people likely expect from telling some person who thinks they are an authority no).

When I have been singled out for random TSA testing, I was not told whether I had a right to refuse having my hands swabbed down. Instead, I was told to step aside and stick out my hands. I have no idea whether that is an optional test or not. Heck, I don't even know exactly what it was testing for, what I was swabbed down with, or what the results were.

Besides not knowing what your options are, many people do not want to ruffle any feathers when they fly. They are intimidated by security and not knowing their rights or what happens next. So, even if there is an option, they may be afraid to exercise it. Even if they are not afraid of exercising it, choosing another option may slow you down so much that it becomes too much of a hassle to stand on principle.

If I had said, "No.", to the hand-swabber, what would have happened? I don't know. Would it have meant that I couldn't get on the plane? Would I be on a no-fly list that I could never verify or appeal? Would it have meant that TSA would have locked me in a room somewhere while they investigated me? Would it have meant that my stuff would have been "accidentally" stolen/destroyed while I waited for this to be resolved? I don't know. Off the top of my head, I don't really know the answers to any of these questions when it comes to the TSA.

At some point, the decision of whether to open yourself up to this kind of investigation becomes less and less optional. The burden should not be on the flying public to protect their privacy. The burden should be on the government to show that they need to investigate any/all of us who get on a commercial airline in this way.

[LadyShea]

They said they wouldn't store the images yet they did. They flat out abused their authority and lied. Is that not problematic in your view CT?

[BracesForImpact]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Yes, they're supposed to be optional, but I've seen a few anecdotes about airports where passengers aren't informed of that, which if true, renders them mandatory. As far as the options, yes, one would imagine that the patdown would be uncomfortable as well.

But the point is that you don't get to decide for other people what they should or should not be comfortable with, or which option is the lesser of two evils. The whole point is that people were told they would have a choice, and in some places, they may not be given one.

Agreed. In my airport, there is a sign informing that the machine is optional and that you may instead submit to a physical search, but it's not all that conspicuous. It is also moved a lot. I go through security on a daily basis and only noticed the sign after about my 7th or 8th time through. I doubt many people see it, and I have NEVER heard anyone be verbally informed that it is optional.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Come on people, give CT a break. He has a point. I mean, if a peeping tom is looking at someone getting naked in their bedroom, but he doesn't know who that person is, then he has obviously not violated anyone's privacy. Suppose he snaps some pics while he is at it and shares those with a select few of his best online buds, as long as they also don't know the identity of the person in pictures there is no way that could be construed as a violation of privacy.

The problem with that analogy is that it presumes that the person getting naked hasn't given anyone, let alone a stranger or three permission to look at him/her.

I agree with Lisarea's opinion:

It's because they knew that fewer people would object if the images weren't stored. That's why.

But drill down to the 'why would they object'? It's not because of any rational reason.

The images are nonconsensual because they were obtained fraudulently.

I don't think it's that simple. What exactly is the expectation of privacy that you have from this scanner? Here's the 'rationality' problem. When you go through, you are consenting to being seen kindof fuzzy, naked, and unidentifiable by an unknown number of persons, who themselves are unknown to you. There could be just one person looking. There could be twenty people in that back room, giggling away at all the pictures on their break. Realistically, I'd expect up to four or five to be likely to see it. About the only thing that you can really take as a given is that of those unknown persons, they're all going to be TSA personnel or contractors. How many people can you tell a secret to before it stops being a secret? A certain number know the secret ingrediants of Coca Cola. It remains private knowledge no matter how many Coke employees know it. Only once it goes outside of the organisation, does the item change its character. The only practical difference between unknown numbers of unknown TSA personnel or contractors seeing your image live, and unknown numbers of unknown TSA personnel or contractors seeing your image in training is that the latter is on tape delay. They're all TSA agents looking at it for official government purposes, I think you're going to have a hard time stating that your legal expectation of privacy has been violated.

Don't you think these pictures are probably stored in some kind of organized fashion, so that they already include the identity of the subjects, or where the identities of the subjects could readily be extrapolated?

If done the same way as they store the X-ray images of bags, no. However, I've not worked with the body scanners.

They said they wouldn't store the images yet they did. They flat out abused their authority and lied. Is that not problematic in your view CT?

Yes. I think complaining about the image being stored for training purposes is stupid. Complaining about the DHS lying is perfectly legitimate and that is where the focus of the complaints should be.

NTM

[chunksmediocrites]

You know what would make flying safer? Not invading and occupying Muslim nations; not stationing our military in 130 other nations; not being dependent on foreign oil; not backing some of the most repressive governments in the Middle East, including and especially Israel; not torturing our prisoners; and not holding Muslims- or anyone, for that matter- without due process.

That's not just my opinion. It is the reasons many terrorists give for fighting against the US. It is what recruiters use to convince radicalized populations to join their cause. It is overwhelmingly linked to the increase in terrorist attacks via studies by our own government.

But instead we have created Sky Marshals, TSA, and more invasive government systems, including justifying massive expansion of government spying power domestically, and massive expansion of government secrecy and intelligence services, and the US wages perpetual, criminal, costly, counter-productive war.

Osama bin Laden won.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

The problem with that analogy is that it presumes that the person getting naked hasn't given anyone, let alone a stranger or three permission to look at him/her.

That's not what you said at all. You said it wasn't a privacy violation because the images were effectively anonymous. Go back and read your post.

Make up your mind rather than just running around trying to defend your position all willy-nilly. What is your reasonable and consistent argument that this is not a violation of people's privacy?

I agree with Lisarea's opinion:

But drill down to the 'why would they object'? It's not because of any rational reason.

That is ridiculous, and at this point, you're just in defensive mode or something. It is not up to you to decide what is and is not 'rational' and to dictate what personal preferences will be respected and what will not.

Plenty of things aren't entirely rational from the strict perspective you're singling this out for, including not wanting people to see you naked in the first place. But it is not up to you to determine what level of intrusion and deception is acceptable to subject others to.

That's a personal decision, and it is one that people have a right to make for themselves, and if you get acceptance for a new piece of ridiculous and invasive security theater by making claims and promises about how that technology will be used, it had damned well better work the way you claim. The TSA claimed that the scanners did not have the capability to store images, and that was a lie. (Note that the images in question were from federal courthouses, but the TSA machines do have the capability to store and transfer images, and it is very likely that those storage capabilities--which they denied existed--have been used.)

I don't think it's that simple. What exactly is the expectation of privacy that you have from this scanner? Here's the 'rationality' problem. When you go through, you are consenting to being seen kindof fuzzy, naked, and unidentifiable by an unknown number of persons, who themselves are unknown to you. There could be just one person looking. There could be twenty people in that back room, giggling away at all the pictures on their break. Realistically, I'd expect up to four or five to be likely to see it. About the only thing that you can really take as a given is that of those unknown persons, they're all going to be TSA personnel or contractors. How many people can you tell a secret to before it stops being a secret?

Yeah, it really is that simple.

Here is the TSA's official policy that they used to push this technology onto travelers:

TSA: Privacy

Originally Posted by TSA

Strict privacy safeguards are built into the foundation of TSA's use of advanced imaging technology to protect passenger privacy and ensure anonymity.

To that end, the officer who assists the passenger never sees the image the technology produces. The officer who views the image is remotely located in a secure resolution room and never sees the passenger.

The two officers communicate via wireless headset. Once the remotely located officer determines threat items are not present, that officer communicates wirelessly to the officer assisting the passenger. The passenger may then continue through the security process.

Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer. Officers evaluating images are not permitted to take cameras, cell phones or photo-enabled devices into the resolution room.

This was very widely reported and assured at the time they introduced the scanners, and that is the explicit expectation of privacy in this instance.

I'm surprised you have such strong opinions on the matter when you don't seem to have been even following the story at all.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by lisarea

It is not up to you to decide what is and is not 'rational' ...

If CT thinks something is not rational, he's allowed to say that here, yes?

... and to dictate what personal preferences will be respected and what will not.

CT is criticising an argument. That's not dictating anything to anyone.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

But drill down to the 'why would they object'? It's not because of any rational reason.

Generally speaking, you could probably say that any modesty concerning the human body is not rational.

Why not walk around naked all the time, if the weather is favorable, or you're indoors?

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't respect the fact that people don't want everyone to see them naked.

If done the same way as they store the X-ray images of bags, no. However, I've not worked with the body scanners.

I would assume that they would have to scan your ID or something like that to realistically store people's scans with their identity.

At least, at airports I've been at, you present your ticket and identification to a live person (who does not seem to be entering this information into a computer), then walk through the metal detectors - but not necessarily in the order you passed by the first person, since some people have things to put on the conveyor belts for the bag scanners, and others don't, and because people don't do these things at the same speed.

So, upon reflection, probably they do not have these scans associated with people's identities.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

About the only thing that you can really take as a given is that of those unknown persons, they're all going to be TSA personnel or contractors.

Or journalists. Or politicians. Or cleaning staff. Or various airport personnel. How could you possibly know this is a given? This is what you hang your hat on to show that it is a secret?

As for training, if it is so not a problem for people to go through these things, then why don't they just line all the trainees up and send them through the thing and then use their own images. After all, it's just some fuzzy outline that is anonymous. Surely that would be ok. And they'd all be TSA or other security employees, so it would be a secret and stay a secret.

[erimir]

Just like that guy we read about earlier who was harassed by his fellow TSA employees for a year over the apparent size of his pecker as revealed by said scanners.

[Qingdai]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

This is very appealing.

The Transportation "Security" Administration (more like Terrorist Sex Agency am i right) wants to help terrorists masturbate to naked images of your children on the Internet. Which side are you on?

But I don't want to take a cruise on the good ship "Moral Dilemma" again!
So hard to pick an appetizer.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by lisarea

That's not what you said at all. You said it wasn't a privacy violation because the images were effectively anonymous. Go back and read your post.

Make up your mind rather than just running around trying to defend your position all willy-nilly. What is your reasonable and consistent argument that this is not a violation of people's privacy?

The anonymity is relevant. If you can be associted with your image, there is a greater chance of damage to your privacy if the increased circulation also increases the chance that someone will be able to recognise you should they encounter you on the street. As you repeatedly point out yourself, privacy is a very individual and personal thing by it's nature. If it cannot be associated with your person, it's not really damaging your privacy, especially as long as circulation remains within the organisation you authorised to look at the image in the first place.

That is ridiculous, and at this point, you're just in defensive mode or something. It is not up to you to decide what is and is not 'rational' and to dictate what personal preferences will be respected and what will not.

Perhaps, but I may still opine that it's stupid, and I don't believe it would have a legal leg should anyone attempt to bring TSA to court on the issue. Even if they could identify themselves with certainty.

Here is the TSA's official policy that they used to push this technology onto travelers:

This was very widely reported and assured at the time they introduced the scanners, and that is the explicit expectation of privacy in this instance.

I'm surprised you have such strong opinions on the matter when you don't seem to have been even following the story at all.

I'm perfectly familiar with the history of the story, and knowing that images of bags were stored for training purposes I was very surprised when TSA announced that they would not be saving some. Even the bags are not a particularly different analogy. Would you tell someone on the street if your backpack were carrying a vibrator, handcuffs, and some bizarre African sex gadget? Yet nobody remarks at all on the concept of complete unknowns looking at images of them, maybe having the images saved, and quite possibly having the bag opened up and rummaged through. After all, your bag and its contents are not being associated with you, even though your name is on the tag: The baggage guy is never going to see you.

I simply think that the fact that the images are saved is a storm in a teacup. The fact that the Feds lied to the public is far more the correct issue to be focusing on.

Or journalists. Or politicians. Or cleaning staff. Or various airport personnel. How could you possibly know this is a given? This is what you hang your hat on to show that it is a secret?

You don't. But neither did you consent to your image being seen by random employees of Jed's Public Spaces Cleaning Company.

for training, if it is so not a problem for people to go through these things, then why don't they just line all the trainees up and send them through the thing and then use their own images. After all, it's just some fuzzy outline that is anonymous. Surely that would be ok. And they'd all be TSA or other security employees, so it would be a secret and stay a secret.

As has been pointed out, they do. You just won't get the variety of weirdness from a TSA agent in training that you would from private citizens, the practical training effect is going to be much better. As long as we're going to be subjecting ourselves to hassle and indignity, we might as well make the most out of it.

NTM

[The Lone Ranger]

Once again, let me point out that at least some of these TSA scanners apparently make rather high-resolution images, and it would probably be quite easy to identify individuals from those images. The images that have been released to the press have apparently been deliberately fuzzed in many cases.

ETA: It seems that the links in the original version of this post aren't working now. Still, the point remains: it's entirely possible that some of the images are, in fact, fairly high-resolution, and could easily be used to identify individuals.


Cheers,

Michael

[lisarea]

BAMP!

Gizmodo (lol!) filed a FOIA request to get those courthouse scanner images that were saved, and here they are:

One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans

Note that the scanned images appear right next to regular photographs of the scanned people. Also note that bystanders, even some standing quite a distance from the scanner itself, are also scanned in the process.

Note also that these are much lower resolution pictures than the ones from most airport scanners.

[erimir]

More like 100 blurry body shapes.

Now, obviously they have much higher resolution scanners, as we've seen. Releasing these particular photos really oughtn't be controversial for Gizmodo, since they're not really revealing anything.

[Kael]

Yeah, I'm not seeing any difference between this and the saving of any kind of surveillance or security footage. 'Course, I think that's a problem a lot of the time too, but the fact that these are omg body-scanner images just doesn't have any strong impression on me.

[erimir]

I imagine that the concern is that while these particular images don't reveal much, they could easily have saved plenty of images that have detailed 3-D images of your wang.

[lisarea]

The images taken by the types of scanners used in most airports look like this, and might actually be NSFW:

show spoiler

[erimir]

Yeah, that's what I hoped that Gawker was releasing.

The reality was far more boring than scandalous.