Hacker News Reader

Comment by napierzaza | Hacker News Reader

There are airport scanner photos of a naked woman.

This isn't really a 99% case is it? He's saying that someone making fun of a scanned persons genitalia is part of the 1% where it doesn't work. I would argue that 100% of the time this practice is demeaning. I think that using spy satellites on American Citizens (I'm Canadian) is a bad idea 99% of the time. It's the other way around. You're catching the bad guys maybe 1% of the time or less, not the other way around.

Where is even the 1% of crimes prevented by taking naked pictures of women and children? What is the benefit if the bomb won't be in underwear anymore, but an orifice.

"Sometimes the people in charge of tracking you have ulterior motives -- which are very easy to have when there's no warrant involved. That pesky 1%"

Yeah, my tracker is always calling me out when I'm off my diet.

View on HN

No, he's right. The 99% comes from the justifications used to support bad ideas like backscatter scanners. It comes from the well-meaning but misguided (or just unethical) groups and individuals that say, "99% of the time, there won't be a problem. 99% of the people that pass through these will never have to worry about the pictures. We'll be able to stop 99% of all weapons. This is a good idea, 99% of the time."

This is basically about compromise. How much do we want to compromise our principles in the name of a little extra supposed safety? Are we really willing to keep endlessly compromising 1% of our principles ad infinitum for the sake of 99% effectiveness?

We've already made compromises in being willing to let our belongings be searched before boarding a plane; we've already made compromises in allowing those searches to be performed by people who aren't law enforcement; we've already made compromises in allowing our bodies to be searched; we've already made compromises in having to disrobe some while standing in line; and, each time, there have been people justifying it by saying that 99% of the time, this is a good idea.

You and I might not agree with that, but he's not arguing that to us; he's arguing the 99% rule to everyone who uses it.

The argument is not about whether the method is 99% effective. The argument is about whether the method works as intended 99% of the time, which means that 99% of the time, nobody is bothered by it and it may have the positive effect of catching a terrorist if one happens to pass by.

Incidentally, lets suppose the method was 99% effective and that one in a million passengers is a terrorist. That would mean that 10K innocent passengers would be suspected of being a terrorist for every real terrorist. There would be a 99% chance of catching the terrorist and a 100% certainty of harassing ~10K innocent folks, which gets them stripsearched, put on no-fly lists and demeaned in other ways. All under the guise of making air travel safer, which is complete BS, because the examples of journalists still making it through security with unchecked devices are numerous.

> a 100% certainty of harassing ~10K innocent folks, which gets them stripsearched, put on no-fly lists and demeaned in other ways.

Actually you don't have to do anything demeaning or persistent to someone who trips the filter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine

These example images that they always use to show the effectiveness of the backscatter X-Ray always crack me up. They show big, bright blobs of gun-shaped somethings. Gee, what gun is that for it get past the metal detector?

Make it a glass knife instead of a firearm.

Sure, but someone that wants to get a glass knife through airport security can come up with much better ways of doing it.

My dad and I occasionally play a game where we try to one-up each-other with ways to get weapons or contraband through security. There are a lot of ways. These backscatter scanners -- like most of the rest of airport security -- do very little to actually increase the security of the system.

Also: http://xkcd.com/651/

I'd love to know what you've managed to get through (and also how, though I'm doubting you'd want to reveal that).

It is sadly quite possible to get things through the xray machine... all it takes is forgetfulness on your part when packing carry-on, and inattentiveness on the part of the operator. Now, I didn't count on it happening a second time on the same trip, and sent the offending item home by USPS, but uh, yeah.

I'm all for security in airports - and I'm not even particularly bothered by the idea of naked pictures floating around - but I am completely uninterested in a security blanket. If stuff slips through so easily by accident, how hard can it be for a determined person? :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com