Airport Body Scanners

[mvharley2 at gmail.com (MV)]

Basically there is no defense against human stupidity, laziness, lack of
concern.

I would hope that the offender would become obvious hanging around, or the
equipment is supported/backed up with sufficient measures.

Humans are always the weak link.

Welcome to the human condition....


I am certain Obama has thought this through and has a plan!

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Robert Miller <arch3angel at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was thinking along the same lines as Josh. If a person caused
> interference during a group of people going through the first one or two
> would get the greatest attention, then the TSA would get fed up and
> begin to et lax in the search, at that point the bad person enters the
> picture.
>
> Most of all I am concerned with the defense against such an attack.
> Let's say this does happen, and the person is waiting to see the TSA get
> frustrated and then enters the line and passes with some sort of device
> to cause harm to people, and because the TSA are frustrated with
> "defective" scanning equipment this person passes through.
>
> The outcome could be devastating, so I fall back on the original thought
> of how do we defend against such an attack...
>
> Just something to ponder...
>
> Joshua Wright wrote:
> > Or, trigger a cavity search for someone else.  Living in RI, I often find
> myself on the plane with Larry or Paul.  Heck, I'd book a special flight to
> watch Strand get hauled off for a date with a TSA agent...
> > -Josh
> > --
> > -Joshua Wright
> > jwright at hasborg.com
> > www.willhackforsushi.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MV <mvharley2 at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 8:27 AM
> > To: PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List <
> pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Pauldotcom] Airport Body Scanners
> >
> > Isn't this like teaching a pig to sing?
> >
> > You irritate the pig and waste time.
> >
> > Unless you can interface with the scanner and alter the picture/scan in a
> > significant manner you have only alerted TSA that something about you is
> > interfering with obtaining a accurate scan and it is time for a cavity
> > search - unless that is your ultimate goal.
> >
> > MV
> >
> > 2009/3/5 Arch Angel <arch3angel at gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > > I was researching some information for a buddy who had questions about
> > > these body scanners some of the airports are beginning to use, well
> during
> > > my intertube travels I noticed that the signal used is a 1mm wavelength.
> > > Well my buddy got the info he was wanting and some of these tid bits I
> > > found, as I had been taking good notes for him, and began to converse
> with
> > > his buddy Bob who researched the 1mm signal that is put out by these
> > > scanners and found that the 1mm wavelength actually converts to
> 299.792458
> > > GHz which is within the spec for an amature radio operator.
> > >
> > > Well Bob began to ponder (out loud I might add) what would happen if a
> > > person developed a small device that would transmit random white noise
> on a
> > > range of say 295 --> 300 Ghz ?
> > >
> > > He said that the viewable devices or systems would be directly connected
> to
> > > the machine so the devices reading the images would not be affected but
> what
> > > about the general image being taken, could it be distorted by this
> device
> > > transmitting from somewhere in the area of this scanner?
> > >
> > > Could a device small enough even be built to transmit these freqs?
> > >
> > > Now I tried my best to explain to Bob that scanners at an airport are by
> no
> > > means a place to play games and test his ideas as you fall under some
> > > interesting laws and these people have the right to do a full body
> search
> > > for additional tiny devices in places tiny devices are never ment to go.
>  He
> > > agreed not to use his curiousity for evil, and that he was just curious
> as
> > > to the result of said interference.  Bob has verbally acknowledged the
> full
> > > understanding of a test such as this and the laws involved, agreeing the
> end
> > > result is not worth the chance you would take...
> > >
> > > However it does raise the question...
> > >
> > > What would be the result of such an interference be..................
> > >
> > > Arch3Angel
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pauldotcom mailing list
> > Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20090308/ccafbe84/attachment.htm