--------------------------
That goes for Zer0 as well -- review his history!
Posted on 11/22/2010 7:57:27 PM PST by upchuck
A cheap and simple fix in the computer software of new airport scanners could silence the uproar from travelers who object to the so-called virtual strip search...
The researcher, associated with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he was rebuffed when he offered the concept to Department of Homeland Security officials four years ago.
The fix would distort the images captured on full-body scanners so they look like reflections in a fun-house mirror, but any potentially dangerous objects would be clearly revealed, said Willard "Bill" Wattenburg, a former nuclear weapons designer at the Livermore lab.
"Why not just distort the image into something grotesque so that there isn't anything titillating or exciting about it?" Wattenburg said.
....
Wattenburg said that when news reached Livermore in 2006 that the TSA planned to buy the new generation of "backscatter" full-body scanners, the problem seemed clear. "We knew what was going to happen," he said. "People are immediately going to scream like hell because they're taking the clothes off everybody."
Livermore engineers have been deeply involved in enhancing airport security.
....
Wattenburg, whose long resume includes designing anti-terrorist devices, sketched out a possible solution and delivered it to Moses, whose computer experts refined the concept.
"Materials you were looking for would still be there, but body shapes wouldn't be apparent," Moses, the principal assistant director of the Livermore lab said on Saturday. "From the point of view of imaging it's very straightforward. Someone should do a quick study of it in an operational setting."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
--------------------------
That goes for Zer0 as well -- review his history!
[ Or just engage the Infinite Improbability Drive, and move the universe so that you’re standing where you wanted to end up, and the TSA agents are now whales. ]
Why Whales, the TSA folk are as useless as a bowl of petunias and when I see them I think “Oh, No, not again.”
But you still get nuked every time you get scanned.
Lets shove Wattenburg and all the TSA bigwigs into a microwave oven and see if we can "distort their images" a bit.
Myself I am much more concerned about x-ray exposure to frequent fliers. (As well as those who must work near the equipment)
I am fairly sure that a picture special FX fix won't deal with such a concern.
Judging from the “work” many of the front-line screens have been shown to do I can’t imagine that the leadership of the TSA is any smarter.
I’m much more concerned with the health hazards associated with some of the machines than I am about someone seeing my junk.
Wattenburg is one of the (very) good guys... We need more people like him around.
I’m afraid you’re right.
His "fix" is a red herring. It changes nothing in the equation at all. The data is digital therefore the "naked" issue is not solved (a digital image can be "Un-distorted"...)
So all he has done in this situation is at best muddied the waters and at worst enabled Big Brother to continue this travesty.
Ha..ha.....
I just got in from shopping at Wal-Mart.
These days, you’d have to be an idiot NOT to be paranoid.
Only the paranoid survive ~ Andrew Grove
Yep, Dr. Wattenburg is consistently the best personality on KGO radio. Very informative, very thorough, very impatient with junk science aficionados.
Contraband items appear as dark voids in the image since the objects are cooler than a human being. It takes a certain amount of skill to spot suspicious objects; though most vendors supply software to help. The upside is that the scanners can be placed anywhere and aren't obviously imaging devices. They could be scattered throughout an airport terminal, not just at a single point. Above all, they don't irradiate passengers with microwaves and strip them naked.
From what I have been able to gather - the scientific data is very thin - most of the energy in this frequency range is stopped at the skin. Therefore, it is doubtful that sterility would result. Skin cancer is more likely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.