X Ray Specs
Ah so I expect to see this fake tech offered for £10 in a copy of the Beano soon?
From the department of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" comes news that Indiegogo has put the kibosh on an attempt to crowdsource a portable pervscanner. After The Reg contacted the crowdfunding platform about the creepy cam, its staffers quickly killed it, saying: "Indiegogo's Trust and Safety team removed the …
Haven seen the guts of one of the perv scanner's under repair when I went on holiday last year I would love to know how this guy managed to shrink a couple of hundred kilos of cutting-edge radio gear into a ~1kg handheld!
Until I see actual proof I am going to assume this is just the raving of a dumber than average con man!
"Haven seen the guts of one of the perv scanner's under repair when I went on holiday last year"
That would have been a millimeter wave scanner which creates a 3D image, backscatter x-ray only created a 2d image and was removed from airports in the US and EU in 2013.
Either way I imagine this device would have just been an IR camera designed to work at the specific wavelengths that easily go though cloths.
From memory, the sensor was capable of picking up IR as well as visible, which is not unusual - many camera sensors are actually more sensitive in the near IR than in the visible range. The unusual difference with this camera was that it did not have an internal IR blocking filter. Hence if you stuck a visible-block, IR-passthrough filter on the front you got a pure IR camera. They then revised the model to have an internal IR filter.
I had the later model.
Whoa, slow down there! All these technical details of how a wrist-mounted gadget is supposed to not only generate but also image with x-rays, backscatter or not, are sending my head spinning! Yeah I know this is a site for techies but that's no reason to overwhelm the reader like this describing the technology it's supposed to be using...!
I was just about to say the same thing. 90% of people don't look that great without their clothes on to begin with (ever been to a nudist beach or a sauna?).
And even if they could look great underneath their clothes you'd probably catch some low contrast monochrome image of someone's body parts squashed by clothes/underwear or in unflattering positions because they're commuting on public transport, not posing at a beach club.
The next celeb nude scandal is going to be from airport scanners and tech like this. Pretty soon it won't just be hats that are lined with tin foil.
I know images aren't suppose to be saved and operators see the screen at the queue and it's a stick outline but it stretches my credulity past breaking point to think these images are not saved. If someone manages to smuggle something past a scanner and brings down a plane, those images will be needed for the investigation and determine what the vulnerability was that let the contraband through. Now imagine that capability in the hands of paparazzi who could target you from meters away and through your clothes. Or nasty ex-partners for that matter.
They would get a more scandalous celeb nude by just photoshopping a with-clothes picture. The resolution of these scanners is pathetic.
You might just about be able to work out whether a push-up bra is in use, but that's about it for the ladies. For the men, you could determine a bit more, but frankly nobody would bother.
"Four Yorkshiremen" should be all the proof you need that there's no situation bad enough that couldn't be imagined being worse with a little creativity; that does not mean that the comparatively better situation is not pretty fucking bad regardless. Yes, right now we're better off that your examples. No, in spite of that, objectively speaking we're nowhere near "good enough" or even "acceptable". Modern existence may be a take it or leave it deal and not immediately life-threatening but that doesn't mean we have to like it...
"No, in spite of that, objectively speaking we're nowhere near "good enough" or even "acceptable". "
It is, however, the best time in all of history. Given certain existential threats (climate change, antibiotic catastrophe, killer AI) on the horizon, it might well be that this is the best time without restrictions.
And it's only nowhere near good enough because people are nowhere near good enough. Well, I say people, but I obviously mean everybody but me.
... forgive the atrocious pun, but (a) this is El Reg, so there are many worse floating about already, and (b) this topic is so thoroughly unpleasant that I feel the need to introduce a note of levity.
So here is the question: why do we consider it difficult for a suicide bomber to get a bomb aboard an aircraft? If we're talking about a committed lunatic (which, let's face it, you have to be to want to kill a few hundred innocent civilians), then some risk and discomfort don't count for much. Nor does dignity.
I don't believe that the aforementioned lunatic, dieted and otherwise well prepared, could not fit at least two pounds of HE where the sun don't shine. Neither watery eyes nor a slight waddle ever barred anyone from boarding a plane. The battery and active parts of a detonator are trivial to conceal in something no larger than a ballpoint, which is also ideally shaped to be inserted in its (very) final destination.
And if you're going to that much trouble, it's worth the effort of researching your tail number, seat plan, and figuring which toilet is the best one for effect*¹: all information easily available on the net.
The good news is, wannabe terrorist loonies are apparently badly educated, unimaginative cowards. If they weren't, we'd be knee-deep in trouble. The worry is that some new crop of aggrieved nutcases will turn up with all the righteous anger preserved— and a half-decent scientific education.
Heck, they get as much attention and disruption for failing as for succeeding. Planes are strong. It wouldn't be the first time a jetliner has landed safely with a chunk of fuselage missing, although this might be messier than most. It's commonly pointed out that airport security is mostly theatre, especially the absurdites of America's TSA nincompoops: but what good is it really, against a determined and clever foe?
*¹ I'm not going there, but anyone who knows a bit about airliners and their catastrophic failure modes will be able to work it out.
Please let them. The human body is rather sturdy. 2 pounds of HE "down there" isn't going to do much damage. Someone has already tried, but body surrounding flesh and bone dampens much of the blast and it didn't have much effect. I'm NOT going to google that for you though. I don't need to be on any more watch lists than I am probably already on.
If so, there are plenty of web sites out there supplying such pictures and movies anyway.
Wasn't there some sort of moral panic over camcorders (*) with infrared capabilities being able to "look through clothes" back whenever?
(*) Youngsters, ask an old person.
This sounds similar to the unit a certain Ms J Ellsworth built a while ago but far more advanced.
Used from memory parts recycled from LNBs and modifications so it could do Doppler imaging.
A higher resolution and smaller version would use 22 GHz Gunnplexers on a rotating scanner.
The device I planned to build as part of my EmDrive research was actually very similar except in this case the three modules would be stacked vertically instead of at 120 degree angles.
The big problem with X-ray based units is getting the 300+ KV needed for that tiny tube.
You'd need to be incredibly careful as X-rays generally are not good for anything living
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018