We've heard the various stories of folks getting weapons past the TSA's new scanners -- such as Adam Savage's famous video from earlier this year, or the more recent report of a guy getting past the scanners with a 6" hunting knife. Both of those stories appeared to just be about the bag scanners missing stuff on the conveyor belt. But what about the new backscanner x-ray machines? Well, Jay points us to some new research by two UCSF professors that indicates getting dangerous weapons or explosives past the new machines isn't that hard. They look at how the machines work and the various images currently out there, as well as their understanding of x-ray technology, and point out that since the x-rays need to pass through your body, if you flattened out some plastic explosives, they probably won't be noticed, or if you just put the weapon on your side the new machines probably won't spot them:

It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter "high technology". Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.

The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.

Feeling safer? Once again, this isn't to say that there shouldn't be a security screening process, but if we have to go through all this trouble, shouldn't we at least have a system that is at least somewhat effective?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201012 ... rays.shtml

Safe as fcuk!

Well I doubt that this will deter the real terrorists. What will happen next is full strip searches.

Are you qualified to carry out that proctological examination?

Don't forget the total number of terrorists caught in the US since 9/11 is zero. The loonies who flew planes into the World Trade Center were not armed with explosives. All these scanner installations are purely to make money for the scanner manufacturers - at least one's chief executive is a former US government security bod - and will be rolled out for railways, ferries and sporting venues before you know it.

It's all a scam of epic proportions.

Well how long before you get empty stadiums and everyone watching the sport on TV from home? The problem is that the tourism industry will start to suffer from excessive security. My cousin will not return to the US until they get some sense of proportion back. All rather excessive and counter productive really.