TSA's Millimeter scanners see through clothes, installed at 10 airports

Leave it to the TSA to come up with new ways to check out what you're packing. In this case, those body-scanning machines we've known about for some time are being installed in 10 airports. They are already being used in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque, and New York's JFK. Later this month, the TSA will add the bum-looking devices to major airports in Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, and Miami. By bouncing millimeter waves off passengers, the scanners produce a black-and-white image that's detailed enough to see the sweat on someone's back (among other things). The program is aimed at detecting objects such as plastic and ceramic weapons that aren't normally picked up by traditional methods. The technology does have a couple drawbacks, however: it can't see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin. Keep that in mind the next time you wear vinyl pants on your next trip to Mars, kids.

[Via Crunchgear]

[Brian @ Jun 6th 2008 5:00PM]

Is that a golden shower ?

[Dr. Evil @ Jun 6th 2008 5:16PM]

I don't even want to speculate what's going on there.


At least she's giving some sort of hand signal warning. "stay back!"

[E71 @ Jun 6th 2008 10:23PM]

Looks like I'm going to be wearing all-rubber from now on.

[ReggieXuk @ Jun 7th 2008 3:25AM]

this picture nearly turned me gay

[Flashpoint @ Jun 7th 2008 9:45AM]

Americans are so obese now, I don't think I'd wanna be able to see through their clothes. Not even in the interest of National Security.

[Jeebus @ Jun 8th 2008 4:53PM]

this picture nearly turned me urophilic

[Ron Smith @ Jun 6th 2008 5:00PM]

cool, it is in 3d

[Zach @ Jun 6th 2008 5:11PM]

And can see through your pants...

Do they sell Vinyl undies?

[Brad @ Jun 6th 2008 5:26PM]

Oh, naive young kids.

Just google "rubber fetish underwear" and you'll do fine.

Personally, I'm looking forward to attaching some extra rubber as I pass through JFK next week.

"Sir, you're going to need to submit to a search."

"Why, because my penis hangs below my knees? Jealous, much?"

[Mr-Debator @ Jun 13th 2008 9:38AM]

Stuff the knife in the infants diapers!

[Dan @ Jun 6th 2008 8:06PM]

Yes, they do make 3D in 3D now.

[Visionep @ Jun 6th 2008 5:00PM]

Warning! Harmful gas emissions detected!

[Jonathan @ Jun 6th 2008 5:02PM]

Get your ass to Mars.
Get your ass to Mars.
Get your ass to Mars.
Get your ass to Mars.
Get your ass to Mars.

/end Arnold

[Jonathan @ Jun 6th 2008 5:16PM]

In case anyone needs a crash course in "Get your ass to Mars":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgzpfHVgIc

[Gary Combs @ Jun 6th 2008 5:04PM]

WTF? Is that a tail?

[Jherez @ Jun 7th 2008 12:24AM]

I think the answer to what was going on there is too disturbing for our minds

[ethan @ Jun 6th 2008 5:04PM]

are those nipples I see!? Yeah, I don't want some fat slob lookin at my wife's chest. No can do.

[Nick Ritch @ Jun 6th 2008 5:07PM]

But I love your wife's nipples!!!!

[dan @ Jun 6th 2008 5:16PM]

@alexander,

Thats called the frightenned timid fool attitude. Its not right to do any of this.

[Dave @ Jun 6th 2008 5:17PM]

Yeah. If you were secure, you'd let GW, Cheney and Uncle Sam gangbang your wife. You must hate freedom, ethan.

[usmcloadmaster @ Jun 6th 2008 8:51PM]

Better to have them see them than feel on them. Seems like a reasonable alternative if you ask me..

[teej @ Jun 6th 2008 5:59PM]

what about the gay, fat slob checking out your junk?

[Prasand J. @ Jun 7th 2008 10:22AM]

@ Alexander ...

I read that as "T&A Security check"

[Jason @ Jun 8th 2008 9:10AM]

Alexander, Why don't we just let the government install security cameras in all our rooms in all our houses, even in the toilet. Have every word we speak, even while sleeping, be heard by the government. Everything we think about, they know. Wouldn't that be good because then the guy behind you would have been caught long before. Ever heard of Ben Franklin? He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

[Engadgetluvsappl @ Jun 6th 2008 5:05PM]

Damn, bitch has a weak bladder.

[retro77 @ Jun 6th 2008 5:06PM]

I dont want someone looking at my junk. Way too invasive!!!

[BigD145 @ Jun 6th 2008 6:20PM]

I don't want them giving my junk cancer. Not until the second date, at least.

[Blacksheep @ Jun 6th 2008 5:08PM]

Any particular reason for the bathroom incident in this photo?

[John Sullivan @ Jun 6th 2008 6:42PM]

You'd pee in your pants too if the TSA said "HANDS UP! WE'RE GOING TO SEE THROUGH YOUR KNICKERS!"

[redspear @ Jun 6th 2008 6:58PM]

Yes it is what the camera can see of the dress.

[DB @ Jun 6th 2008 11:11PM]

i think john is implying that you wear knickers

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Jun 6th 2008 5:12PM]

It's interesting that they've blurred out the cranial region. Is it possible to reconstruct the face based on what muscle and bone structure shows up in these images?

Hasn't El Al not had a hijacking/terrorist incident since the 70's all without using multi-million dollar equipment like this?

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Jun 6th 2008 5:13PM]

I want answers dammit!

[usmcloadmaster @ Jun 6th 2008 8:50PM]

In short, no, that is not likely or possible. The blurring is done by a piece of software that is part of the system and placed against the raw image. And since the images are not stored in memory, the likelihood of anything being 'recreated' is non-existent. As someone who has seed the unfiltered image, I have to say that you would not recognize the individual that was scanned even if you did see them, which you never would due to protocol restrictions. IMHO, this is FAR less invasive than a physical pat down not to mention faster and more discreet.

[Michael @ Jun 6th 2008 5:36PM]

There was one successful hijacking of an El Al aircraft in 1968. Several attempts were later made in the 70s, but none were successful.

[yode @ Jun 6th 2008 7:04PM]

Well, yes, but I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wad on what was supposed to be a dry run, if you will, so now I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands.

[jbhitter24 @ Jun 6th 2008 5:13PM]

i just took a flight out of BWI yesterday and i'm nearly positive i saw a sign advertising this while going through security.

[Rogue_Genius @ Jun 6th 2008 5:15PM]

Wow, did you think of that all by yourself?

[deaftly @ Jun 6th 2008 5:16PM]

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

[Ethan @ Jun 6th 2008 5:17PM]

And I was about to write 'at least they've made it as un-sexy and sterile as possible.'

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Jun 6th 2008 5:21PM]

Nothing would finish that off better than a big "oh yeah".

[Engadgetluvsappl @ Jun 6th 2008 5:22PM]

OH YEAH

[Seoultrain @ Jun 7th 2008 2:02AM]

Giggity.

[Dan Davis @ Jun 6th 2008 5:19PM]

A couple of thoughts:

For some reason the scene from Spinal Tap comes to mind... where Derek Smalls has the zucchini (or large cucumber?) wrapped in foil stuck in his drawers.

Apparently it can also detect the presence of tails.

This is... Hawt?

[Wiigee @ Jun 6th 2008 10:07PM]

FURRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

though i think that problem might be solved with saran wrap.

[Dr. Evil @ Jun 6th 2008 5:19PM]

Why panties and no bra? Is she a feminist or a s|ut?

[Low Ranked @ Jun 6th 2008 5:23PM]

Feminist.

Sluts are bra with no panties.

[Ian @ Jun 6th 2008 5:27PM]

because it can see THROUGH clothes.. lol

[FRZ @ Jun 6th 2008 7:13PM]

I'll take slut for 200.

[Cactus @ Jun 6th 2008 7:37PM]

Slut for 200? Wouldn't that be a whore?