TSA finally seeks public comment on pornoscanners

From Slashdot submitter Trims: "The TSA is now in the public comment stage of its project to roll out Advanced Imaging Technology (i.e. full-body X-ray) scanners. The TSA wants your feedback as to whether or not this project should be continued or cancelled. Now is your chance to tell the TSA that this is a huge porkbarrel project and nothing more than Security Theater. You can comment at http:///www.regulations.gov and reference the docket ID TSA-2013-0004." You've got until Jun 24.

13 Responses to “TSA finally seeks public comment on pornoscanners”

  1. kmoser says:

    I see they let you upload files, presumably of any type, which it seems anybody else can download. What could possibly go wrong?

  2. Tim in SF says:

    (Cory – you left out a slash on the link to www.regulations.gov. )

  3. waxplank says:

    Porno… Pornoscanners…

  4. ocschwar says:

    Drafting something right now, thank you.

  5. bob90210 says:

    I like the scanners at the airports. Because my wife would not let me be a porn star, this is the next best thing.

  6. vonbobo says:

    “Add your name to the Government’s Watch List here!”

  7. salsaman says:

    Anybody else been told by opt-out screeners that “it’s not radiation”?

    • heckblazer says:

      If the machine was a passive millimeter wave scanner there was no radiation produced by the machine.  Active millimeter wave scanners emit microwaves, which are non-ionizing and aren’t radiation as most laymen understand the term.  If it was a backscatter x-ray machine like Rapiscan makes though, they were lying through their teeth.

      • salsaman says:

        The machines in question were active mm-wave scanners.  Anyway non-ionizing radiation is still radiation.

        • AnthonyC says:

          Yes, 0.01W to 0.1W of mirowaves. Sustantially less than the energy input to your body from, say, standing in a well-lit room.

  8. legsmalone says:

    IS it just me or is that the hardest to use website in the history of the interwebs?

  9. I would suggest listing the following links in your article:

    The proposed rule:



    The docket it’s contained in (for more context and background):



    Direct links to the comment forms:



Leave a Reply