New security camera can 'see' through clothes
Apr 16, 2008 | 9:13 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Omaha
Programs: UA/*A nobody, Bonvoy Plat, SW A-list, Hertz 5* (but who isn't???)
Posts: 677
New security camera can 'see' through clothes
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...and/index.html
Does this mean that secondaries by hand could be eliminated? Or even the WTMD? If all we really need to be concerned with (guns, large knives, explosives) could be revealed with this device, then no need to do physical pat downs anymore?
The article also says that this device is already deployed in London. I did a search for T5000 here on FT and didn't reveal any previous postings on that term... what do the experts here know about this?
LONDON, England (CNN) -- New technology that can "see" through clothing and detect what's underneath can now be used to scan crowds, making it a potentially effective tool to prevent terrorist attacks in public places.
..
While similar technology is being unveiled at airports around the world, the T5000 is designed to be used in large, open areas. With a range of 25 meters, the T5000 can screen people in public places, thus avoiding bottlenecks at border crossings or security checkpoints.
..
While similar technology is being unveiled at airports around the world, the T5000 is designed to be used in large, open areas. With a range of 25 meters, the T5000 can screen people in public places, thus avoiding bottlenecks at border crossings or security checkpoints.
The article also says that this device is already deployed in London. I did a search for T5000 here on FT and didn't reveal any previous postings on that term... what do the experts here know about this?
Apr 16, 2008 | 9:21 am
#2
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wild Wiltshire
Programs: Demoted to gold, Cats protection
Posts: 3,465
not an expert but they have 2 machines at LHR which they select people for at secuity, you have to adopt a number of silly poses and then they scan you , looking back at the shots you can see where you need to exercise more, only ever been selected once so I dont know the criteria
Apr 16, 2008 | 10:47 am
#3
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,448
If everything they list about it is true, then I think it could be a very useful tool that may actually be effective. I have concerns but
1) If it is completely passive, then there is no real physical harm to the pax other than the harm of ordinary life. So that is a good thing
2) I have a concern as to what can actually be seen. depending on that I may or may not have a concern
3) At 25 meters effectiveness, this could seriously change the way a security checkpoint is designed. (it may even make the process quicker.) I am almost thinking of the "Total Recall" system, but without X-Ray.
4) For some reason I see this being used in customs halls first before being used at a checkpoint. Reason being is that it should easily detect the mules.
However, from what little i have read, this actually looks to be a good idea. At least better than backscatter
1) If it is completely passive, then there is no real physical harm to the pax other than the harm of ordinary life. So that is a good thing
2) I have a concern as to what can actually be seen. depending on that I may or may not have a concern
3) At 25 meters effectiveness, this could seriously change the way a security checkpoint is designed. (it may even make the process quicker.) I am almost thinking of the "Total Recall" system, but without X-Ray.
4) For some reason I see this being used in customs halls first before being used at a checkpoint. Reason being is that it should easily detect the mules.
However, from what little i have read, this actually looks to be a good idea. At least better than backscatter
Apr 16, 2008 | 10:51 am
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
I've discussed this before, although I don't recall where at the moment.
It also later came on this, which I definitely did not miss:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._that_see.html
It also later came on this, which I definitely did not miss:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive..._that_see.html
Apr 16, 2008 | 10:55 am
#5
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: North America
Programs: FT Member #8119 F & J Free Agent
Posts: 6,560
Code:
"What we should consider is how much we want to lose aspects of our privacy in order to attain a sort of notional security," said David Murakami Wood, director of the Surveillance Studies Network, which deals with surveillance and privacy issues."In most cases this isn't real security -- it's a sense of safety that has very little real effect."
Apr 16, 2008 | 11:38 am
#6
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: DTW
Programs: Dirt Status w/ All
Posts: 5,049
I saw this on CNN this morning. It did not look like there was any kind of resolution that would show what the image was - just a blob. The people looked like a blurry stay-puf marshmallow man and the "bomb" he was hiding under his shirt was just a black blob.
Even if it did work and they tried it in public in the US, how well would it go when they start outing undercover cops, federal marshals and people with valid CCW permits?
Even if it did work and they tried it in public in the US, how well would it go when they start outing undercover cops, federal marshals and people with valid CCW permits?
Apr 16, 2008 | 12:00 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
When technology like this becomes available, it's only a little while before it falls into consumer use. We'll all get used to seeing each other nekkid. Don't buy stocks in textiles.
Apr 16, 2008 | 12:05 pm
#9
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,487
Until then it can't be used to gather evidence outside of otherwise authorized searches. That is if I interpret the SCOTUS ruling on the thermal imaging -> marijuana arrest case correctly.
Apr 16, 2008 | 1:29 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,255
We need to go through one scan or another at the airport - whether it's the WTMD, backscatter or ultrasound, we need to check for guns, explosives, etc.
Do I support this technology being used on crowds without specific knowledge or consent over how/where it's used or what it's looking for? No way.
Do I support this technology as a passive, non-radioactive alternative to backscatter, with smudged outlines of people instead of clear profiles, and perhaps able to scan multiple people simultaneously to improve checkpoint flow? Well, perhaps, but I need to know more.
Do I support this technology being used on crowds without specific knowledge or consent over how/where it's used or what it's looking for? No way.
Do I support this technology as a passive, non-radioactive alternative to backscatter, with smudged outlines of people instead of clear profiles, and perhaps able to scan multiple people simultaneously to improve checkpoint flow? Well, perhaps, but I need to know more.
Apr 16, 2008 | 1:43 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Under an ORD approach path
Programs: DL PM, MM. Coffee isn't a drug, it's a vitamin.
Posts: 12,935
If it shows the subject with sufficiently clear resolution, this will end the TSA staffing problems; they'll have no shortage of guys trying to get hired, and even offering to work for free. (thereby offsetting the cost of the equipment)
Apr 16, 2008 | 11:27 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Rapids Reward
Posts: 40,139
I'm sure if security will able change new technology of the future. If you can given these video for me if I can watched it.