The First Significant Deployment of Aviation Security Technology Since the 1970s
If you weren’t watching C-SPAN today, you missed Kip's testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Congressional Hearing was centered on how the Transportation Security Administration will continue to enhance security for all modes of transportation.
Kip announced the purchase of 580 AT X-rays (in addition to the 250 we’ve already planned to deploy). While technology isn't the only answer, this is the first significant deployment of proven aviation security technology since the 1970s. This equipment is part of the Checkpoint Evolution and will greatly strengthen our Layers of Security while also streamlining the process for passengers making things a little faster.
The AT X-rays allow TSOs to view multiple views of the item in the X-ray which will reduce the amount of bag checks and allow the lines to move faster while improving the quality of security. The AT X-rays are upgradeable so they can evolve with any future threats. Once we deploy these 580 machines, nearly half of the lanes at our checkpoints will have this new technology.
Millimeter wave will allow our TSOs to view a noninvasive image of a passenger revealing any items that were not divested. These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody. Privacy and security go hand in hand, so the millimeter wave must pass muster with the public. It’s important to keep the public safe, but it’s equally important to protect the public’s privacy. The millimeter wave is currently in use at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. More than 90 percent of passengers have elected to undergo screening with this technology instead of being subjected to a pat-down.Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
8:59 PM
Subscribe in a reader
68 Comments:
If the new x-rays are so much better than the old ones, why are they not being deployed at all the screening stations?
April 15, 2008 9:47 PM
"Millimeter wave will allow our TSOs to view a noninvasive image of a passenger revealing any items that were not divested. These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody."
...................................
Then why is the screener viewing the images in a remote location?
This is no different than a strip search without warrant!
April 15, 2008 9:58 PM
The millimeter wave is currently in use at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. More than 90 percent of passengers have elected to undergo screening with this technology instead of being subjected to a pat-down.
Good. So when will O'hare get it?
April 15, 2008 10:29 PM
Reliability and maintenance of this new equipment will be key issues as to whether this is another waste of money vs a step towards a less invasive and more tolerable check point search.
April 16, 2008 8:16 AM
when are you gguys going to start to deploy "PinPoint Technologies Software" into your X-ray machines. From what i have heard is that with this software that works with almost any x-ray machine you wouldnt need any human operators the machine will just do it all.
Yes i know it has a 9% false alarm rate but if you dont have a X-ray operator you could have 2 bag checkers which would solve that problem.
KBC
April 16, 2008 10:15 AM
"The First Significant Deployment of Aviation Security Technology Since the 1970s "
Really? So the EDS (Explosives Detection Systems) deployed in the 1990s - which are essentially CAT scans allowing for automated detection of explosives - were not significant? Then why did TSA make such a big deal out of deploying the new small ones?
April 16, 2008 10:18 AM
Why have you stopped 'approving' hardly any of the submitted comments? [I won't bother pointing out that you still refuse to answer any questions put forth.
April 16, 2008 10:20 AM
Let's have more details about the millimeter wave equipment. First off, why the images are viewed remotely instead of right there at the checkpoint is definitely a valid question. Care to explain the reasoning? Secondly, you say the images these machines output aren't invasive (and the photo you posted tends to support that) but what assurance do we have that your TSO's won't be tuning these machines to look at naked ladies? Given the lack of professionalism at the checkpoints where everything is in full view, I shudder to think what your goons will do unobserved in a room, peering at people's bodies. If the machine is incapable of outputting such an image, could you point us to some technical documentation about the machine that verifies that?
By the way, are you EVER going to give us an answer about why potentially deadly liquids being mixed together in trash cans in public areas isn't dangerous? I'd appreciate an answer that includes scientific proof, please. This question, despite being asked repeatedly remains unanswered except for Chris having said that it was like having a slingshot without rocks, an answer containing absolutely no actual information. In the interests of transparency and in fostering a productive dialog with the people you serve, could you guys please stop ignoring this question?
All that said, thank you focusing your efforts on making the security check less hellish. So far, you guys get a C on effort and a D- on execution. You haven't made it worse yet but it won't get better 'till you rescind some of the dumber rules and provide more transparency, accountability, and methods of redress for mistreated passengers.
April 16, 2008 10:47 AM
What about the COBRA machine you have in Cleveland. Doesnt it give you a 3D image that you can rotate and it can also detect pretty much everything without a operator.
Plus you dont need to take out your laptop or 311 bags
Get More of these!!!!!!
April 16, 2008 11:01 AM
Yes, and it supposedly blurs faces too -- and how exactly can it distinguish between children and tall adults?
The potential for abuse is astounding here. Where's the oversight? If our images are mis-used is the flying public entitled to collect damages? I'm guessing probably not since everything Uncle Sam does to violate our privacy is secret.....
Can you prove these naked body images are indeed kindergarten friendly or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Nope -- this is way to invasive for me. It goes too far.
April 16, 2008 11:04 AM
You notice, don't you, that the pic shown in the article is of the BACK of an individual - not the front.
Let's see a picture of the front of a person before we say it can be used on the cover of Reader's Digest.
April 16, 2008 11:21 AM
I think it's great! TSA is evolving despite constant ridicule in effort to save money.
From what I understand, the screener is of same sex located in a room near by for YOUR privacy. Aside from that the bodies look like mannequins. It's much less invasive than a pat down.
Get over it people. I think the general public on this blog are totally uncredible, too whiney and over-reactive.
April 16, 2008 12:00 PM
In regards to the Millimeter Waver Imager, just what studies have been conducted that prove there are no long term or accumlative health issues with this type of machine?
We have been told that Cell Phones are perfectly safe yet it seems that after longer study that may not be the case. I am not concinved of the safety of this new technology and refuse to be used as a lab rat.
Publish the documentation and studies proving the safety of this new equipment.
April 16, 2008 12:18 PM
From the TSA webpage discussing Whole Body Imaging.........
The image will not be visible to the public, and the viewing TSO will not be permitted to bring any camera into the viewing area.
Why would TSA make the above statement if the image was not capable of showing considerable detail?
Lack of Credibility and Integrity at TSA is a much larger questions.
The Public does not trust you!
April 16, 2008 12:32 PM
tell rik roll said... If the new x-rays are so much better than the old ones, why are they not being deployed at all the screening stations? April 15, 2008 9:47 PM
It's a money issue. We’d love to have the best of the best at each and every one of our checkpoints, but until the day that the folks on the hill give us a blank check, I don’t see it happening overnight.
Anonymous said... Then why is the screener viewing the images in a remote location?
This is no different than a strip search without warrant! April 15, 2008 9:58 PM
This is a case of us listening to the public. Even though we know the images are G rated, a popular concern has been that passengers don’t want the person who sees them walking into the machine viewing the image. I think it’s a reasonable request. It ensures the passenger’s privacy while making them feel more at ease about walking through the machine.
Anonymous said... Good. So when will O'hare get it? April 15, 2008 10:29 PM
I don’t have a deployment schedule, but seeing that O’hare is a major airport, I would imagine they are on the list.
Dunstan said... Reliability and maintenance of this new equipment will be key issues as to whether this is another waste of money vs a step towards a less invasive and more tolerable check point search. April 16, 2008 8:16 AM
The equipment has been piloted at other airports and is a proven technology. Each airport also has maintenance teams in place both contracted and in house that maintains all machinery.
Anonymous said... Why have you stopped 'approving' hardly any of the submitted comments? [I won't bother pointing out that you still refuse to answer any questions put forth. April 16, 2008 10:20 AM
While I can’t speak for everybody, I’ve been on vacation since 4/5. We all have different responsibilities on top of the blog, so we try our best to moderate comments as soon as they come in, but sometimes it might end up taking longer than normal.
Anonymous said... Let's have more details about the millimeter wave equipment. April 16, 2008 10:47 AM
On the way…
Anonymous said... By the way, are you EVER going to give us an answer about why potentially deadly liquids being mixed together in trash cans in public areas isn't dangerous? April 16, 2008 10:47 AM
It is on my long list of items to be addressed.
Anonymous said... All that said, thank you focusing your efforts on making the security check less hellish. April 16, 2008 10:47 AM
You are very welcome. We are committed to making things better for the passenger as well as security and all of our reader’s suggestions help us get closer to making that happen.
Anonymous said... What about the COBRA machine you have in Cleveland. Doesnt it give you a 3D image that you can rotate and it can also detect pretty much everything without a operator. Plus you dont need to take out your laptop or 311 bags. Get More of these!!!!!!April 16, 2008 11:01 AM
The COBRA is a very nice machine indeed. I am not aware of the future deployment schedule for the COBRA. I’ll add it to my list of unanswered questions.
Eclectic Dilettante said... Yes, and it supposedly blurs faces too -- and how exactly can it distinguish between children and tall adults? The potential for abuse is astounding here. Where's the oversight? If our images are mis-used is the flying public entitled to collect damages? I'm guessing probably not since everything Uncle Sam does to violate our privacy is secret.....Can you prove these naked body images are indeed kindergarten friendly or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Nope -- this is way to invasive for me. It goes too far. April 16, 2008 11:04 AM
A detailed post is in the works about the MMW. Stay tuned…
April 16, 2008 12:56 PM
It is interesting that, knowing you never respond to comments in "old" entries, you held up my comment in the prior entry until this entry was up.
It is interesting that, in the middle of all the questions and comments that I write that you refuse to answer, you post a blog entry about how you are using feedback and answering comments to improve security and improve processes.
Respond to these:
Given that all chemists agree your 3-1-1 rules makes no sense, why do you continue to enforce it?
Given that nipple rings are by no means deadly weapons, why did you have them removed?
Given that TSOs allegedly don't have the power to deny someone the right to fly, do you recognize any connection between holding someone until after their flight has departed and denying that person their flight?
Given that several states are refusing REAL ID, how do you plan to allow legal passengers to fly?
How can a non-terrorist get his name removed from the terrorism watch list?
Given that according to Kip himself, there is a specific policy against giving additional screening to anyone who complains about screening, is there ever going to be enforcement of that policy?
Since this blog is to facilite communication, why do you always ignore comments on all entries other than the absolutely most recent entry?
April 16, 2008 1:02 PM
This is a great first step. The problem is that like inmates in a prison, the traveling terrorists are constantly thinking of ways to beat the system. Here the problem is explosives that are put into body cavities.
The foolproof system that the prisons use is the full body cavity examination. This was proved to work around the world.
Training of TSA agents could minimize any health hazard to pregnant women and children. No one can feel safe until security can catch up to the threat.
April 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Eclectic Dilettante said April 16, 2008 11:04 AM
Can you prove these naked body images are indeed kindergarten friendly or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
*******************************
Judge for yourself:
http://themodulator.org/modulator/images/capt.1056584283.see_through_security_bbp108.jpg
April 16, 2008 1:36 PM
The now suntanned Blogger Bob says:
While I can’t speak for everybody, I’ve been on vacation since 4/5. We all have different responsibilities on top of the blog, so we try our best to moderate comments as soon as they come in, but sometimes it might end up taking longer than normal.
That explains why the tone of the blog had changed and why perfectly acceptable posts were sent to the the abyss. I had to resort to posting under other nicknames in hopes of getting at least one post through.
I honestly believe you are the only one on the team that understands blogs and is not afraid of caustic criticism.
Welcome back, I hope you went someplace nice and were able to take a ton of photographs. As a hobbyist photographer myself I would love to see some of your work.
April 16, 2008 1:47 PM
"From what I understand, the screener is of same sex located in a room near by for YOUR privacy."
Are you saying that the TSA stations two people, one of each sex, in a back room and communicates to them in a timely manner whether the person in the box is male or female?
I don't believe that for a nano-second.
April 16, 2008 2:13 PM
You might want to check out my comments on the problems with the WTMD in Passengers Asked for It.... thread.
The things don't work properly and that's why all shoes have to come off.
Now, with this news, you expect that the contraption which is the subject of this thread will work? The puffers didn't work and neither will this.
April 16, 2008 2:25 PM
To Ayn R. Key:
I can't decide whether you are dim or only read what you want. I'm a casual reader of the blog and will try to answer some of your questions.
A. Given that nipple rings are by no means deadly weapons, why did you have them removed?
Answer: It's pretty simple. They HAD to resolve the alarm. They couldn't confirm it was a nipple ring setting it off and they weren't allowed to visually inspect the woman's breast. So...you do the math.
B. Given that several states are refusing REAL ID, how do you plan to allow legal passengers to fly?
Answer: To my knowledge, TSA has not yet legally required everyone to show an ID to fly. You can fly without ID, you just have to go through additional screening.
C. How can a non-terrorist get his name removed from the terrorism watch list?
Answer: Type in watch list on TSA's website and it brings you to the redress stuff. You can also find the link on the "Contact Us" page:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/redress/index.shtm
D. Given that according to Kip himself, there is a specific policy against giving additional screening to anyone who complains about screening, is there ever going to be enforcement of that policy?
Answer: That's just stupid and impossible to enforce 100 percent. Think about it: if complaining or citing "Kip's policy against giving additional screening to anyone who complains" was the magic formula that could ensure you wouldn't get additional screening, wouldn't that be a giant loophole for terrorists?
Just my thoughts.
April 16, 2008 2:43 PM
Additional screening technologies are a welcomed improvement. And, kudos to TSA for having something positive to report. The public isn't (yet) going to congratulate TSA, so tooting your own horn may be the only way to get some recognition.
Now, onto one still unanswered question. With all the changes made in policy and technology to address passengers, when will ground crew, maintenance staff and other airport workers (many of whom have easy access to aircraft) be screened so as to fully enforce the existing security measures.
Without screening airport employees who have access to planes, everything else is Security Theater
April 16, 2008 2:51 PM
Let's try using some common sense shall we,
First Up:
Ayn R. Key said...
Respond to these:
Given that all chemists agree your 3-1-1 rules makes no sense, why do you continue to enforce it?
Given that all chemists did NOT say the 3-1-1 rule makes no sense... Am I to believe that you spoke with every chemist on the planet? You don't believe this agency when they say something and go as far as to post actual scientific evidence to the contrary of your belief you still don't believe them, so I ask why we should believe you. Have you seen the MSM coverage of the trial in London? Have you seen the video of the liquid explosives that the defendants where planning on using actually being tested? If not you should, it may just open you eyes and mind. These terrorist will stop at nothing to defeat us!
Given that nipple rings are by no means deadly weapons, why did you have them removed?
It has been stated on here many times, the TSO's did NOT know that the items in question were in fact just body jewelry, they cannot and should not accept the pax word for it. While logic might dictate that these were just piercing, they could have in fact been detonators, in case you are unfamiliar with them they can range in size from several inches in length to less than two inches in length. To assume that the were just piercing would of been stupid.
Given that TSOs allegedly don't have the power to deny someone the right to fly; do you recognize any connection between holding someone until after their flight has departed and denying that person their flight?
No, I don't. If pax were to follow the airline and TSA's suggestion in regards to arriving 1 1/2 to 2 hours prior to departure than this would be a mute point. When pax arrive within 15-20 min of their scheduled departure, it leaves very little time for them to make their flight if they were held up for even the shortest of time completing the screening process.
Given that several states are refusing REAL ID, how do you plan to allow legal passengers to fly?
Everyone know that you do not need to show an ID to fly, however, if you do not have an ID you will be required to undergo additional (secondary) screening.
How can a non-terrorist get his name removed from the terrorism watch list?
Just go to www.dhs.gov and follow the process for redress on the no fly list procedures.
How'd I do ANARCHY, Sorry I meant Ann R. Key?
Some people will never get it, the isloamofacist terrorist want to kill us!!!!
If you can read this, Thank a Teacher.
If you can read this in English, Thank a Veteran!
April 16, 2008 3:32 PM
"Anonymous said...
This is a great first step. The problem is that like inmates in a prison, the traveling terrorists are constantly thinking of ways to beat the system. Here the problem is explosives that are put into body cavities.
The foolproof system that the prisons use is the full body cavity examination. This was proved to work around the world.
Training of TSA agents could minimize any health hazard to pregnant women and children. No one can feel safe until security can catch up to the threat.
April 16, 2008 1:22 PM"
I think the first thing your "full body cavity" concept would do was eliminate the need for TSA altogether because almost all of the public would cease to fly on commercial aircraft. Perhaps YOU would love to see the decline of the entire airline industry, it certainly would be more effective than any terrorist attack yet attempted in destroying the US economy. Beyond that, it probably would do nothing to deter a real terrorist attack. Perhaps you feel the need to punish the general public for the administrations failure to interact in a meaningful way with the rest of the world's population, I think there are far more worthwhile ways to resolve our problems.
April 16, 2008 3:39 PM
It's unoffensive as long as it's not a picture of MY body - which is the measure of privacy, to me. I wouldn't want such an image taken of me, ever. This is a ludicrous invasion of privacy.
April 16, 2008 9:29 PM
Anonymous said: "This is no different than a strip search without warrant!"
Wrong again...no warrant required for an administrative search when conducted with the passenger's consent, which you give when you submit to screening. If you don't like it, don't submit yourself for screening by this method, but please leave the FT.com fantasyland lawyering to the professionals.
April 16, 2008 9:47 PM
Wrong again...no warrant required for an administrative search when conducted with the passenger's consent.........................................
This imaging system exceeds an administrative search.
Can a TSO conduct a strip search now? That is exactly what this whole body imaging system does.
If my only choice is being forced to submit to whole body imaging or not flying then the airlines have lost a customer. I doubt I will be the only one to find other means of travel. General Aviation looks very promising.
When no one flies you TSO's will need to learn a real trade other than harrassment of the public.
April 16, 2008 10:38 PM
Let's get back on topic to something you have conveniently overlooked.
You cherry-picked this techno-geek self-congratulating item from CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY. This was done in conjunction with three other testimonies -- including the GAO. Another testimony was from a former DHS employee and former IG -- Clark Kent Irvin, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting. Mr. Irvin did the right thing and repeatedly ripped your bosses a new one and was fired for speaking his conscious.
If you are really interested in meaningful dialogue with us taxpayers who pay your salary, you will do the following:
1. Publish the complete transcript of the testimony, including questions from the Committee members, not all of which were as complimentary of your Dear Leader as you try to make us believe;
2. Post the list of Questions for the Record (QFRs) when you receive them in about 30 days. (If you don't know how to do this, just go down the hall and talk to your Congressional Liaison people.);
3. Post your responses to the QFRs.
Also, you need to inform your readers that this testimony was before your authorizing committee, which is a generally friendly audience. How about publishing testimony, oral questions, QFRs and your responses before Waxman's committee or the appropriations committees?
How about publishing all of your GAO reports and your responses -- if you have even bothered to respond?
I suggest you do it before we do it for you -- in the interests of full disclosure, you understand...
April 16, 2008 10:40 PM
"More than 90 percent of passengers have elected to undergo screening with this technology instead of being subjected to a pat-down."
Give me a bloody break. This is like choosing between lethal injection or a firing squad.
How about choosing between fear-mongering security theater and civil liberties that hundreds of thousands have died to protect for the last 230+ years???
You people JUST DON'T GET IT!
April 16, 2008 10:51 PM
So just how much are these machines going to cost? And what "threat" are we being "protected" from this time? And how much did L-3 (the company that makes the ProVision millimeter wave machines the TSA is deploying) contribute to the Republican National Committee and or its pet 527 committees in 2004 and 2006 to get the contracts and through what vehicles?
This latest affront to logic, common sense, and civil liberties is the latest example of TSA's getting it wrong at great cost in terms of wasted taxpayer dollars and in terms of dangerous precedents set in terms of surrendered privacy.
If we are to take TSA at its word, checkpoint security is but one of many "layers" in its overall approach to what it does. It is not a secret to anyone who follows security that the checkpoint is a place where the TSA performs particularly poorly. Screeners frequently miss things in carry on bags. TSA's and the GAO's own audits have found unacceptably high levels of errors on the part of TSOs. The millimeter wave scan seems to be simply another device for a TSO to misread while other TSOs continue to miss things in the bags that are going down the conveyor belt. The person reading the images on the scanner will also miss things -- people get bored. If this person is looking at several hundred people an hour it is not reasonable to think that at some point the reader will yawn, blink, look away, or simply faze out at some point.
I know that someone will pull out the administrative search argument. It is true that the courts have determined that a person gives permission for an administrative search in a variety of circumstances where the public safety suggests that it is a good idea (i.e. entering a courthouse, airport checkpoints, etc.). This notwithstanding, the 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" warrantless searches. The millimeter wave is effectively a virtual strip search. At the time the courts made the administrative search ruling the technology to do a virtual strip search did not exist. I would have a hard time believing that the court would have extended the reasonability of a warrantless administrative search to a warrantless strip search. This is a question that will need to be settled in the courts, and if TSA proceeds with this boondoggle, most likely will be addressed (we can all be thankful to civil rights lawyers for this).
In the interim, people can do themselves a favor by refusing to be scanned by the millimeter wave machine. Demonstrate to the TSA that if they must screen you, they must do it in a traditional way that respects your rights and your dignity as a person. Also, write your Congress critters, Kip Hawley, your local newspapers and the members of the transportation committee in front of which Kip was testifying to let them know what a bad idea you think these scanners are.
April 17, 2008 2:36 AM
Regarding - Let's have more details about the millimeter wave equipment. First off, why the images are viewed remotely instead of right there at the checkpoint is definitely a valid question.
1.REGARDLESS OF HOW TSA ANSWERS THIS SOME WILL TRY TO PICK IT APART JUST BECAUSE. ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE IMAGES WAS THAT AN EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ABLE TO "see me naked and look at me to". TSA can resolve baggage alarms in a remote location and also can view an image like this in a remote location. At least this was they can ensure there is nothing of danger on the person and not be eyeballing them to.
Care to explain the reasoning? Secondly, you say the images these machines output aren't invasive (and the photo you posted tends to support that) but what assurance do we have that your TSO's won't be tuning these machines to look at naked ladies? Given the lack of professionalism at the checkpoints where everything is in full view, I shudder to think what your goons will do unobserved in a room, peering at people's bodies. If the machine is incapable of outputting such an image, could you point us to some technical documentation about the machine that verifies that?
2. IN ORDER TO DO THIS EVEN IF POSSABLE ONE WOULD HAVE TO GO IN AND CHANGE THE SETTINGS. THERE IS NO ONE AT AN AIRPORT WHO HAS THAT ACCESS TO INCLUDE THE FEDERAL SECURITY DIRECTOR.
By the way, are you EVER going to give us an answer about why potentially deadly liquids being mixed together in trash cans in public areas isn't dangerous?
3. WHOEVER SAID IT WASN'T. TSA DOESN'T CONTROL THE PUBLIC AREA. IF I RECALL THEY CONTROL A CHECKPOINT AND DO NOT ALLOW ANYTHING PROHIBITED PAST? Besides if they treated every items as an unknown hazmat-----talk about slowing things down. No - most are sealed and will be disposed of by a contract company.
I'd appreciate an answer that includes scientific proof, please. This question, despite being asked repeatedly remains unanswered except for Chris having said that it was like having a slingshot without rocks, an answer containing absolutely no actual information. In the interests of transparency and in fostering a productive dialog with the people you serve, could you guys please stop ignoring this question?
4. SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO TAKE SOMETHING ON A FLIGHT. I THINK THEIR JOB IN THIS CASE AT LEAST IS WHERE THE SAFETY OF THE MASSES OUT WEIGHS THE MOANING OF ONE. I am surprised though that you didn't use the line "I pay your salery". My guess is you, like me, pay damn little of their and pay a lot more to Medicade and other social programs.
April 17, 2008 11:06 AM
Regarding - Anonymous said...
What about the COBRA machine you have in Cleveland. Doesnt it give you a 3D image that you can rotate and it can also detect pretty much everything without a operator.
Plus you dont need to take out your laptop or 311 bags
Get More of these!!!!!!
Agree but like it or not the TSA only has so much money in their budget and I hear the Cobra units are roughly $250K each. I am not sure how many screening lanes they have in the country but to place all of the latest equipment in all of them at once is simply not possable both in cost and the manufacture's ability to supply.
April 17, 2008 11:09 AM
Regarding ----Anonymous said...
In regards to the Millimeter Waver Imager, just what studies have been conducted that prove there are no long term or accumlative health issues with this type of machine?
We have been told that Cell Phones are perfectly safe yet it seems that after longer study that may not be the case. I am not concinved of the safety of this new technology and refuse to be used as a lab rat.
Publish the documentation and studies proving the safety of this new equipment.
They are radio waves which we have been being hit with for many years now. Bottom line is we take what we believe to be accepatable risks in everything we do. Some are willing to take more chances than others and then we have people like a Howard Hughes. The way I see it there is little known risk and it is still safer than driving. I am curious to know how many who worry about this smoke, drink, and talk on a cell phone all day?
April 17, 2008 11:14 AM
Privacy issues aside -- I am extremely worried about the health effects of repeated exposure. Studies in the past have shown we should avoid prolonged exposure to this type of imaging. And what about pregnant women or even anyone who plans on having children in the near future? What risks are associated with this type of exposure? If you are pregnant you are told to avoid bombarding your fetus with radio waves, x-rays, etc. (including having too many ultrasounds performed). I hear they plan on using this technology on other public transit in the future too, so what happens if I am exposed several time a day for the rest of my life? What studies have been done to show this is "harmless"? I have no problem with the TSA trying to use technology, but I think the public needs to be informed by a non-biased, third party about the technology and potential health risks so we may be able to make an informed decision about if we submit to a scan or request a pat down instead. If I am pregnant I do not want my baby to be a guinea pig for technology I know so little about without some documented proof about the saftey. Too many times we are quick to embrace something & only after the fact find out the horrible consequences (remember things like DDT?). Do we the public want to find out 10 years from now that it really was not so harmless when adverse health effects are later discovered?
April 17, 2008 11:50 AM
I am only one person but have contacted both of my Senators objecting to Whole Body Imaging and the attempts by TSA to make one think ID is required to travel.
TSA is out of control and needs to be subjected to greater scrutiny.
April 17, 2008 12:29 PM
re: The way I see it there is little known risk and it is still safer than driving.
...........................
Please cite your evidence.
Thank you.
April 17, 2008 12:31 PM
You complain if you are patted down and now if there is a better way you still complain. You may think that all TSO's are morrons but many come from the same jobs you have today. I believe that we have some STSO'S, LTSO'S AND TSO'S who are not professional in any manner and I would like to apologize for those individules.
They should not be working in this organization.Unfortunately I am notin a position that I can do anything about that, it is not under my chain of command. I do believe that you as a passenger or flight crews shoul be treated with respect. If you complain and ask for a Supervisor and still get treated badly don't hesitate to ask for Security Manager. You should not be required to go thru additional screening just because you wanted to make a complaint.I do believe that the new screening devices wil make it less invasive.
I work at a CAT X airport and the number of items from guns to large knives that are found on the checkpoint as well as guns that are undeclared and are loaded in baggage is incredible after almost 6 years of Federal Screening. I worked for a private security firm at the same CAT X airport as I do now and thought security has gotten tougher many of the same procedures such as the WTMD and hand wanding have not changed a great deal. There are enough differences that terroist would have a harder time getting thru security at this time. The changes have been positive. I do not remember all the uproar when screening was done before 9/11. The lines were just as long and we now do approx. 30% more passergers.
I would like to thank all of those that fly and I do hope that we can meet your expectations while doing our job screening your persons and your bags. As a screener that appricates your trust in us I hope we can treat you with that respect. I know that I will be hammered for these comments but I believe in them. I was not able to serve our country in the Armed Forces due to health issues so this is my way of tring to give something back to my country.
Thanks Again
April 17, 2008 1:59 PM
This is a great transitional system. Obviously there are holes in the system, but it is a strip search without a strip search. This lessens the public holler about "privacy". Once in place for a few years, the traveler can be required to be strip searched or body cavity searched. There should be a lot less griping as the government can point to the millimeter wave as accepted by the public and the physical checks are just about the same thing.
The Homeland won't be safe until each passenger can be completely searched.
April 17, 2008 2:27 PM
"Reader's Digest", "posting in preschools"? If the photo of the fellow with his back to the camera is an indication. What I see is a distinguishing mark of his gender hanging down.
Now, that might make Reader's Digests medical article, but if you show that photo to preschoolers in my neck of the woods, you do time and get your name on a list for your lifetime.
April 17, 2008 2:34 PM
Anonymous @ April 17, 2008 1:59 PM:
"...so this is my way of tring to give something back to my country."
I'd like to suggest that there are more honorable and useful ways to give back.
Allow me to suggest one:
http://www.americorps.org/
April 17, 2008 3:18 PM
To the two anonymous who parroted the company line at me.
Question about the nipple rings.
The TSA claims prohibition to conducting a visual inspection even after offered. Yes, the alarm needed to be cleared. The individual in quesiton offered the visual inspection. This is not like cases where people feel they were stripped by the TSA, this is an offer to resolve this in a painless an inexpensive way. Therefore the TSA didn't do it. I know you both think the TSA is incapable of error, just like the TSA thinks it is incapable of error, but in this case the TSA did commit an error.
Yes, I am familiar with the sizes of piercings. Trollkiller and I went back and forth a little on whether or not there could be a piercing sufficiently large to actually be a disguised weapon, and we didn't find one.
Question about the 3-1-1 rule.
It is true that not every single chemist in the world has confirmed that the rule makes no sense, only those that have been asked about it. I suppose if you tried hard enough you would eventually find a chemist to say otherwise, a lone voice within the profession.
The famous London Plot is always used to justify it, in spite of the fact that the conspirators had neither the knowledge nor the equipment to implement the plot, and in fact their planning had not gotten any farther than "this would be a neat idea." Yes, the MSM news reports admit the plot never got past that stage. The laws of chemistry themselves conflict with TSA rules. Many people have tried to question the TSA about this on various grounds, including questioning why if these liquids are so dangerous they are all disposed of in one unshielded trash bin in front of the TSA inspection point. There is no scientific basis for the rule, but the rule is enforced anyway.
Question about denial of flight.
You both make a very critical mistake here, deliberately misreading what I wrote. My scenerio, scenerio 1, is "Person makes complaints AND THEN is pulled for additional screening". You both read scenerio 2, "Person is pulled for additional screening AND THEN makes complaints." There's a pretty crucial difference between the two, and it is called "order of events." What happened first? In my scenerio the complaint happend first. In your scenerio the additional screening happened first.
It's a pretty important difference when you think about it, because according to Kip scenerio 1 is illegal. It is also the one I actually asked about. It's not the one you responded about. It's also one the TSA never responds about either.
Some can show up in plenty of time, following the 2-3 hour rule, and because they dared voice a complaint, be held for 2-3 hours in additional screening until the flight is missed. The TSO didn't actually forbid the traveler from flying, the TSO simply made sure the person could not connect to the flight. That is the nature of my quesiton. Do you want to try to address it again, or will you reverse the order of events again.
Question about REAL ID.
You both seem to think that I'm asking about an already implemented program. Unfortunately for your answers, I'm not. I'm asking about something that is soon coming up. You both need to do some research about REAL ID, and find out which states are telling the Federal Government that they do not plan to implement the program. The list is growing. If current TSA policy remains unchanged, any state driver's license that doesn't conform to REAL ID is not a valid ID. Therefore every citizen of that state will be held over for additional screening. ALL OF THEM. As of now that includes the entire state of California on the "probably not" list and the entire state of Montana on the "definitely not" list.
The common theme.
The TSA has an institutional impediment to admitting error. The closest they ever come is "we are reviewing policies." Even the TSA knows the 3-1-1 rule has no scientific backing, but to repeal that regulation is to admit they did something wrong. They cannot admit they did something wrong. Therefore the rule cannot be repealed. The more I question them about their obvious mistakes, the harder it is from them to avoid admitting they made a mistake. They can, and do, make mistakes. They erred on the 3-1-1 rule, they erred on the piercings, they are going to err on REAL ID.
Since you want to thank veterans for your ability to read in English, YOU'RE WELCOME! I served so that you can be free. Stop defending the domestic despotism of this agency or my service trying to keep you free will be in vain. I can't protect your freedom if you give it away.
April 17, 2008 4:03 PM
I believe that many of the screeners posting here are doing nothing more than proving the point that so many of us are making: The TSA doesn't know what it's doing.
Ayn R. Key, thank you for an excellent post at 4:03 p.m.
April 17, 2008 6:15 PM
Perhaps the millimeter wave scanner will do away with the need for this:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=812992, a.k.a. "TSA Stuck Hand down my Pants"
Somebody please explain to me how a TSO could not use visual inspection to clear the nipple ring situation (even at a passenger's request, it's supposedly against SOP), but it's OK for a TSO to stick a hand in a person's crotch.
April 17, 2008 6:38 PM
Here's another interesting one from FlyerTalk:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=803894
"When my husband came to pick me up from the airport (TPA) today, members of the TSA and local police were forcing people to consent to a vehicle search, pat downs, and ID checks to park in short term parking..."
Sounds like another TSA attempt to expand its authority.
This has got me wondering -- when I was in the Navy, there was some scrutiny of the concept of "consent to search". The issue was whether the person in question gave a truly informed consent, or was simply bowing to authority.
I wonder how that would play in this situation. If there is no probable cause, can a citizen simply refuse to give consent?
OK blog team -- please step up to the plate and shed some light here. What is the TSA's authority to search vehicles and pat down vehicle occupants at an airport parking lot?
April 17, 2008 6:52 PM
"The Homeland won't be safe until each passenger can be completely searched."
We'll start with you, there is a very small cavity at the top of your body that need to be searched....
April 17, 2008 8:43 PM
"Anonymous said...
This is a great transitional system. Obviously there are holes in the system, but it is a strip search without a strip search. This lessens the public holler about "privacy". Once in place for a few years, the traveler can be required to be strip searched or body cavity searched. There should be a lot less griping as the government can point to the millimeter wave as accepted by the public and the physical checks are just about the same thing."
Quite powerless, aren't you...
April 17, 2008 9:05 PM
There are a couple variations on the mm-wave imaging system. One is a passive system relying on RF engery we all naturally emit. The other is an active system (transmitter and receiver). The resolution is 1mm (2.54mm = 0.1 inch). The display can be anything from a grainy image to just a red light signifying that a person is armed. This would be a great thing for people who have implants since the implant wouldn't show up and they wouldn't get the 'process' from TSA people (unless they get a charge from patting down children, elderly and infirm). Could this system be abused? Yes, and you would have to trust an organization, that hasn't always been up front with the American people. How about a 10 year term in prison for TSA types who abuse this technology?
April 17, 2008 9:40 PM
To the anonymous TSO (April 17, 2008 1:59 PM) who is serving in the TSA as a "way of trying to give something back to my country," I appreciate your service and also believe that your statements are honest and sincere. However, as you note, there are enough bad apples among your colleagues to give any passenger reason to be frightened and anxious when they enter a checkpoint (and distrustful of the TSA at all other times). There's no way to know whether they'll get a professional TSO like you or one of the bullies when it's their turn to be screened. And there's also no way to know how that TSO will choose to "interpret" the TSA's vaguely-written rules-- or whether the TSO will subject you to an "illegal" retaliatory secondary screening if you challenge them or ask for a supervisor.
What we do know from TSA press releases and official posts on this blog is that TSA management will back the bullies 100% should something generate enough attention to require management reaction. I'm glad you have managed to retain your integrity in an environment where management effectively encourages and rewards the bullies by officially standing behind their actions. Passengers should recognize that this really is a problem with the management of the TSA and Homeland Security bureaucracies rather than with individual TSOs. Individual TSOs may respect passengers because they're good people, but their bosses clearly regard passengers as criminals and terrorists who need to be herded like animals, yelled at like children, and humiliated like prisoners. Apparently that's necessary for "effective security." Although the minority of bullies deserve anger and outrage, that really should be directed at their managers who are conveniently removed from the public behind a shroud of secrecy.
ayn r. key makes a related point about the TSA management having an "institutional impediment to admitting error." That explains much of what we see here and at airports. Although this impediment is often an inherent characteristic of any bureaucracy, in this case it actually goes beyond the TSA. The entire Bush administration, from the Commander-in-Chief on down, regards itself as infallible and completely incapable of error. And if any errors do occur that are sufficiently egregious, they find a few of the lowest-level flunkies, make a show of punishing them severely, and pronounce the problem solved (e.g., Abu Ghraib). Thus the continued pronouncements about "progress" in the Iraqi Civil War, and Dick Cheney's reaction of "So?" when an interviewer dared to mention that the overwhelming majority of the public no longer supports the war.
Although some lower-level TSA officials may be able to make certain cosmetic improvements like "re-composure benches," we're not going to see any substantive changes in the War On Liquids, Toiletries, and Shoes and the other questionable things that cause so much trouble. And the TSA will defend TSOs who bully passengers whenever defensive action is indicated. To do otherwise would be admitting that someone representing the Infallible Bush Administration made an error. And (to paraphrase any number of official TSA pronouncements on this blog), "you'll just have to trust that we never make mistakes."
However, there is at least some hope that the next administration won't have delusions of infallibility, and will thus be able to thoroughly review TSA policies and procedures with the goal of minimizing unnecessary intrusion while maximizing effectiveness.
April 18, 2008 12:22 PM
Blogger Bob said:
It's a money issue. We’d love to have the best of the best at each and every one of our checkpoints, but until the day that the folks on the hill give us a blank check, I don’t see it happening overnight.
I thought for sure I posted this on 16th, but I don't see the post nor do I see an increase in the delet-o-meter so I will assume it got lost in cyberspace and repost.
Bob, it is not a matter of getting a blank check, it is a matter of spending the money you get wisely.
Stop wasting money on high priced gimmicks designed to CONTROL our behavior. How much did the light and sound show cost? How many improved x-ray machines could have been bought with that money?
Take the fancy new "cop" uniforms. They are designed to project an image of authority in order to control the public's behavior. Once again we do not need controlling, we are not prisoners or lab rats.
If you assume the cost of outfitting each employee with the fancy new uniforms is just $100 each the total cost of the unnecessary makeover is $4,300,000. (FOUR million, three hundred thousand dollars)
How many of the improved x-rays machines would that buy?
The TSA needs to quit wasting MY money on flash and spend it on worthwhile technology like improved x-rays, backscatter or millimeter imaging, and bomb detection puffers. you know the stuff that will make the TSOs job easier and make the TSAs results reliable. Heck I would not even mind if they spent the $4 million on training BDOs.
You and I both know it is not the uniform on the man, but the man in the uniform that gets respect.
April 18, 2008 2:44 PM
Ayn R. Key said...
Yes, I am familiar with the sizes of piercings. Trollkiller and I went back and forth a little on whether or not there could be a piercing sufficiently large to actually be a disguised weapon, and we didn't find one.
Just to be clear, we still disagree on that issue.
Ayn R. Key also said...
Since you want to thank veterans for your ability to read in English, YOU'RE WELCOME! I served so that you can be free. Stop defending the domestic despotism of this agency or my service trying to keep you free will be in vain. I can't protect your freedom if you give it away.
Thank you for your service, I could not agree more with your statement.
April 18, 2008 2:49 PM
Anonymous said... Perhaps the millimeter wave scanner will do away with the need for this:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=812992, a.k.a. "TSA Stuck Hand down my Pants"
April 17, 2008 6:38 PM
We would like to look into this, but we need more information.
Please have the individual in question post a comment to us with the date, time, checkpoint/airline, airport etc. If they would like to leave more detailed information, they can do that as well. We will not publish the comment. The information will remain private.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 18, 2008 5:21 PM
We would like to look into this, but we need more information.
Please have the individual in question post a comment to us with the date, time, checkpoint/airline, airport etc. If they would like to leave more detailed information, they can do that as well. We will not publish the comment. The information will remain private.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 18, 2008 5:21 PM
If you really want to "look into this" why don't your trot over to FT and ask the question yourself?
April 18, 2008 11:32 PM
TSA's own Susan Hallowell went through this device as a test (see link). You'd really post that in a pre-school (coming from the administration that freaked out about part Janet Jackson's nipple)??
Here's the photo and link:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/11/airport_porn.php
Of course you didn't bother showing what the actual photos from your device look like on here since people would have then been freaked out... Who needs transparency and honesty!
April 19, 2008 1:43 AM
Anonymous said... If you really want to "look into this" why don't your trot over to FT and ask the question yourself? April 18, 2008 11:32 PM
I did. I posted it yesterday at 15:22:11. To date, it has not appeared in the thread.
Interesting...
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 19, 2008 3:28 PM
Anonymous said... TSA's own Susan Hallowell went through this device as a test (see link). You'd really post that in a pre-school (coming from the administration that freaked out about part Janet Jackson's nipple)?? Here's the photo and link:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/11/airport_porn.php
Of course you didn't bother showing what the actual photos from your device look like on here since people would have then been freaked out... Who needs transparency and honesty! April 19, 2008 1:43 AM
Nice try. That image is what the Backscatter is capable of. The TSA adjusted the image to look like this.
The millimeter wave is the machine we are deploying which is a different machine than the Backscatter.
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 19, 2008 3:35 PM
Bob, you say:
Nice try. That image is what the Backscatter is capable of. The TSA adjusted the image to look like this.
The millimeter wave is the machine we are deploying which is a different machine than the Backscatter.
Bob
I'm sure you're a nice guy and all and wear spiffy ties and such, but why should I or anyone else believe you or anyone else from the TSA? Your buddy Nico claims that there is a 90% acceptance rate for this technology, which so far has shown itself to be at best an overstatement of his case, and at worst an out and out lie. We as questioners are repeatedly brushed off when we make reasonable requests for transparency and proof of your assertions (i.e. containers of liquids over 3oz are dangerous, we're keeping you safer than you were pre-9/11, etc.)
The TSA is suffering from a credibility problem. We have no assurance that even if you are telling us the truth here and that all you guys would see would be the cartoon outline, the fact remains that the machine is capable of being adjusted to produce the very detailed image (just because you tell us it won't be does not mean that you won't do it.. again, until you prove yourselves worthy of being taken at your word, "trust us" is not going to cut it here). How are we to know when (not if) someone will reset the machines to produce that image. We will not be told when that happens. We will not be shown the pictures. They will be used against someone, however, in some way. This is the problem you guys are facing.
I know that I'd personally give up my job in which I travel by air frequently and find a different one than allow the TSA to "strip search" me even once (fortunately even though there is one of those infernal machines in my home airport there are multiple security gates so I'll not have to use the one that would require it). I'll be making sure that the airlines know this as well. I urge every traveler who is uncomfortable with this technology to do the same.
To the extent that enough people refuse to use the airlines because of the TSA's screening methods and tactics, the airlines will put pressure on the TSA to alter them.
April 19, 2008 6:21 PM
Nice try. That image is what the Backscatter is capable of. The TSA adjusted the image to look like this.
The millimeter wave is the machine we are deploying which is a different machine than the Backscatter.
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
The software gods can do pretty much whatever they want to do. When you're in security having either a high resolution picture or a high resolution window on the suspicious item would be better. FYI body jewelery would stand out like a beacon (metal or an absorber of MMW).
So blur the entire image and look for items through shape/density and display those in high resolution.
April 19, 2008 6:58 PM
I think this is a great example of how the TSA's credibility problems are interfering with the deployment of a technology that, for once, can genuinely improve security. I am convinced that millimeter wave scanners are a truly revolutionary tool that, if properly used, can reliably detect weapons and explosives that threaten aviation and accurately distinguish between the terrorist and the tourist. It's a major improvement over the utterly worthless War On Liquids, Toiletries and Shoes, and a likely improvement over BDOs. For once the TSA can put something in place that goes beyond costly and exasperating security theater and offers something like real security.
The only problem is that millimeter wave scanning is nothing more and nothing less than a strip search. That's the reality, no matter how you spin it. And even though the TSA and Homeland Security officials regard us passengers as suspected terrorists and criminals who have no rights and deserve only contempt and bullying, they realize that many if not most passengers will be deeply offended at the major privacy invasion that millimeter wave strip searches involve. They're probably afraid that passengers may become so incensed about it that they complain to their elected representatives in large enough numbers to create problems that can't be swept under the "security" rug or spun away. So their only (distasteful) choice is to sell it to the public.
Here's where the problem comes in. In attempting to sell it, they put out press releases and blog posts that say, in effect, "We know you have privacy concerns, but trust us that it's really not that bad. Trust us that the images really are innocuous and inoffensive, so you shouldn't be afraid of this technology. Trust us that we're still sensitive to your concerns, so trust us that we've put measures in place to protect your privacy. As always, you're getting upset over nothing at all, so just trust us." Since very few people trust anything the TSA says, this approach only makes us even more suspicious. Especially when you understandably get upset over requests to post millimeter wave scans of Kip Hawley or blog administrators, claiming privacy violations. Rather than selling us on this technology, you're just increasing the opposition to it (and further diminishing whatever credibility the TSA has left).
I think you'd have better luck selling the public on millimeter wave scanning if you stop the spin and condescending dismissal of our concerns and, for once, tell us the truth. We may be suspected terrorists and criminals, but we're not little children. We'll trust you (and even be eager to help you with your mission) if you reason with us and tell us the truth rather than talking down to us with fraudulent spin.
Consider something like this. Note that it includes enough concrete details to make it credible-- "SSI" won't do that!
We're deploying millimeter wave scanners, a new technology that will greatly improve our ability to detect weapons and explosives. Millimeter waves go through clothes and reflect off skin, providing a clear image of anything a terrorist might be concealing. The scanner is an electronic strip search that doesn't require any removal of clothing. We certainly recognize that a strip search, whether real or electronic, is a major invasion of privacy. But we believe this technology provides a revolutionary advance in our ability to detect dangerous items that threaten aviation. It is also a major advance in our ability to reliably identify those who mean to do harm to aircraft and to the United States, while getting passengers more efficiently on their way.
Again, we recognize that a millimeter wave strip search significantly invades passengers' privacy. But we have taken specific measures to protect passenger privacy, and to ensure the integrity of the protection. The TSOs view the millimeter wave scan images in a closed area away from the scanner and inaccessible to the public. The scanner deletes and overwrites all images before the next scan, and the scanner has no printer or non-volatile storage to retain any images. A third party auditor makes monthly verifications of the configuration of each scanner, and conducts periodic unscheduled inspections. The TSOs who operate the scanners are not permitted to bring cameras, cell phones, or recording devices into the booth. They undergo millimeter wave scans before entering the booth to verify that they are not bringing in prohibited materials, as well as periodic unannounced inspections.
We have a Zero Tolerance policy toward any abuse of the millimeter wave scanners. Any TSO found in violation of any rule will face immediate disciplinary action. The results of all audits and inspections will be posted on the TSA website, along with reports of all disciplinary actions. We recognize the invasive nature of millimeter wave scanning, but we believe it provides a very significant improvement in our ability to carry out our mission of keeping aircraft, passengers, and crews safe from the terrorist threat. And we take our responsibility to protect your privacy just as seriously.
That's just a suggestion, but I think something like that will not only help to help the public accept millimeter wave scanners, but also improve the TSA's credibility. However, I know better than to hold my breath waiting for that sort of candor from any government agency.
April 20, 2008 1:11 PM
winstonsmith: To the extent that enough people refuse to use the airlines because of the TSA's screening methods and tactics, the airlines will put pressure on the TSA to alter them.
At the rate things are going south, I think the TSA will soon be the least of the reasons people refuse to use the airlines!
April 20, 2008 1:12 PM
"However, I know better than to hold my breath waiting for that sort of candor from any government agency."
Amen to that. Too often the TSA's tendency to hide behind "that's classified" comes across as stonewalling.
April 20, 2008 5:20 PM
In response to the Anonymous poster who said:
winstonsmith: To the extent that enough people refuse to use the airlines because of the TSA's screening methods and tactics, the airlines will put pressure on the TSA to alter them.
At the rate things are going south, I think the TSA will soon be the least of the reasons people refuse to use the airlines!
April 20, 2008 1:12 PM
True enough. There are lots of things to be disgusted with these days about commercial aviation. The TSA is just one of them, but a dirty litter box gets cleaned one scoop at a time.
April 20, 2008 5:34 PM
Too often the TSA's tendency to hide behind "that's classified" comes across as stonewalling.
"Comes across"? It is stonewalling. The Bush administration (of which the TSA is a part) has a good reason for its obsessive fetish for secrecy and for classifying any information its tentacles touch. It's to cover up the iceberg of incompetence, whose tip occasionally emerges into visibility in the form of lack of response to Hurricane Katrina, the missing Iraqi WMDs, and of course TSA checkpoints that impose continually increasing difficulties for travelers but year after year fail miserably in undercover tests (and I'll bet the classified parts of those test results are far more dismal than what they admit to the public). This administration (of which the TSA is part) fears any scrutiny or oversight, with good reason.
After 9/11, the administration could get away with continually hiding itself behind the thick black curtain of "National Security," and answering any questions with "We can't tell you because it would reveal secrets that would aid the enemy." It could set up a massive Homeland Security bureaucracy including the TSA, which operates behind the black curtain and is accountable to no one because it deals with National Security. But after more than six years of evasion and stonewalling, I think much of the public is getting wise to it (as anyone who visits a TSA checkpoint can see for themselves).
TSA officials surely realize this, which is why their PR campaign is in high gear. That's what this blog is for, although it seems to be backfiring as a way to inspire confidence and trust in the TSA. They're still responding to questions with the usual "SSI" stonewalling. And from what I can tell, they're completely ignoring many constructive suggestions. But this blog is still a good sign. Can you imagine any part of the Bush administration inviting the public to post critical comments five years ago? I don't know that it achieves anything useful, but it shows they can no longer easily get away with hiding and stonewalling.
April 20, 2008 7:33 PM
This is quite awesome!
I truly like seeing all the progress that the TSA is doing for the American traveling public.
However...we as Americans are very demanding of you and very spoiled.
We should have NO say and no knowledge..this is security.
I worked in a bank for 20 years...we never told security issues.
Linda
www.attentiontodetailgifts.com
May 2, 2008 12:38 AM
"We should have NO say and no knowledge..this is security."
It may be security but it is not the way a free people do things.
,>)
T. Saint
May 8, 2008 8:00 AM
We should not have any problem with our Government virtually strip searching us, for the government owns us and they have every right over us. We should just take their every order and follow all regulations without question, because the Government has rights to limit our rights, freedom and privacy. NOT!
May 12, 2008 12:24 AM
The D.H.S. is lying to you, people. I am just so sick of all this propaganda being released by the DHS to make the public unaware of this new technology. On the public available DHS website, the DHS has released a single photo of what they say is taken by the millimeter wave machine. The photo the DHS released is not in its original format, the DHS had purposly blurred the photo and edited it to make people think it is not that big of a privacy intrusion when in fact it is. In the links below, I have REAL photos of what these millimeter machines really take pictures of.
This first link shows a side by side comparison of the DHS Edited photo along with an unedited millimeter wave photo: http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave1.JPG
This second link shows a 3D photo of a male taken by a millimeter wave machine in an airport. Please note that this is just the low resolution version:
http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave2.JPG
May 12, 2008 12:45 AM
"From time to time, The Tree of Liberty must be watered, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants"
-Thomas Jefferson
We must preserve our Freedom.
May 12, 2008 1:00 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home