The scanner I went through I thought highlighted areas like a sort of ‘zone’, so it wouldn’t require visual identification.

And by the way, wouldn’t it be reasonable to be asking for studies to be set-up to investigate any related problems that could arise to the frequent flyers by the use of these scanners?

For the machines that use x-rays, the swallowed weapons would have to be made of a less dense material than metal, otherwise they could probably be detected.

So which airlines allow peasants to enter the plane with their farm animals? I want to be certain to avoid them.

Yes, it was wise to expose the ineffectiveness of a purported security measure that has cost  millions of dollars and invades the privacy of travellers to an extent that many are uncomfortable with. Otherwise it would still be possible for the TSA to claim that the expense and indignity are justifiable.

It would be ridiculous to pretend that keeping quiet about it could do any good whatsoever. It is ALWAYS a good idea to make criticism of government as honest, factual, public and open as possible. Free speech: use it or lose it.

I don’t like the scanners, but I’m very sceptical of the video. If the story about the smuggled metal case is real, then are more plausible explanations for the failed detection, such as the scanners attendant not paying attention.

Never did trust those there peasants.

Therefore, a weapon that is surrounded by a container (made of leather, water-proof cloth, or plastic) with a thin layer of water should also appear the same color as the human body and it would be less visible to the scanner, especially if the container was molded to fit the contour of the human body. This would apply to the millimeter wave machines that are in use, although it probably doesn’t generalize to the scanners that emit low-energy x-rays.

With low-energy x-rays, the situation is more complicated as some of the radiation passes through the human body and some of it is reflected back to the scanner. Thus, a weapon made of high density material, such as metal, would probably still show up on the scanner, even if it was swallowed. To elude detection from an x-ray backscatter machine, the weapon would have to be made from lighter elements, including such materials as a carbon composite, plastic, glass, or bone.

Of course this isn’t a good thing. There are already loads of questions about whether these should be used at all, let alone twice every time you need to fly. Also the queues. Soon enough airports will require at least 3 hours before even a domestic flight at the rates of extra security being added.. 

Good-bye time advantage for shorter trips!

It is unfortunate that the TSA managed to _lower_ security standards, increase costs and turn flying into an exercise in compliance.   But the problem is one of methodology, not ownership; privatizing the TSA without changing the methodology will do nothing to help matters.   Indeed, you could argue that the pornoscanners are in fact an attempt to privatize some aspect of security.   As usual, to the great profit of the government contractor, and the impoverishment of the national treasury.

Sarcasm aside, I wonder if this info & the original post should have followed software vulnerability processes where ‘authors’ are notified & given a chance to respond before publication…not that I trust the TSA to react well to such, and I’d bet money it would result in an FBI visit to Jon, if it has not already. Edit: Spelling & TSAOutOfOurPants blog says it was delivered ahead of time – I’d love to read about that experience in addition to watching the video…