See SPO. See SPO Screen. Screen, SPO, Screen!
Keeping the flying public safe from curbside to cockpit is a major part of TSA’s mission. This post will hopefully provide some more insight about what’s going on before you even reach the security checkpoint.
Surveillance of non-sterile areas in airports is a no-brainer when it comes to mitigating risk in an efficient manner. There’s really no way to get around that. For a while now, several different TSA programs have been in place to satisfy this security need—and thus far, Behavior Detection has been getting most of the attention. However, Passive MMW, a.k.a SPO-7, might just steal the spotlight.
Since April 21, TSA has been testing and evaluating two tripod-mounted, highly mobile SPO-7 units at Boston’s Logan International (BOS). You may recall Blogger Bob’s post about Passive MMW back in September ’08; however, a few things have happened since then. Just as a quick recap, Passive MMW has been used in mass transit and maritime environments since 2007. In 2008, TSA tested the technology in non-sterile areas of Denver International and Minneapolis/St. Paul International during the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions.
The name “Passive MMW” may imply that this technology operates in the exact same way as the stationary Whole Body MMW machines at the checkpoint. This is definitely not the case. Both technologies are non-invasive and completely safe, but other than that, the only similarity is that both systems make use of millimeter waves in one way or another. To be clear, Whole Body MMW machines bounce harmless millimeter waves off of your body to generate a metallic image. Passive MMW on the other hand receives energy generated by an individual and the objects that they are carrying on their person. This energy can be detected by an appropriate receiver and can be used to detect anomalies.
So…Passive MMW…awesome idea right? Let us know what you think.
Blogger Paul
Labels: innovation, mission, technology
posted by Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team at
6:38 PM
Subscribe in a reader
112 Comments:
Are you actually opening this can of worms up on a Friday?! This oughta be good! Guess Phil will be busy all weekend!
April 24, 2009 9:53 AM
Cool. I dig it.
April 24, 2009 10:00 AM
I'm interested to see how this technology develops...this could be a useful tool in future security efforts!
April 24, 2009 10:02 AM
To my untrained eye, that looks like regular video on the screen. What gives?
April 24, 2009 10:09 AM
"All individuals are subject to screening beyond this point" in the non-sterile area?
Look, I like the idea/concept of passive MMW, if indeed explosives are all that it detects. But I suspect it also can be used to detect things like water bottles, knives, "artfully concealed" items, and even firearms, which may be completely legal outside of the sterile area. And descriptions of passive MMW that aren't from TSA, DHS, or manufacturers, often mention a high probability of false alarms.
What authority does TSA have to stop, detain, and search a person outside of the sterile area? If there is a false alarm, but something else is found (e.g., artfully concealed cash which is perfectly legal but TSA has declared to be contraband), we all know that TSA is going to harass the person and or turn them over to law enforcement for harassment.
It seems to me like you guys keep pushing the line of "implied consent," which IMO should really be called "coerced consent," farther and farther away from the door of the airplane and closer and closer to the front doors of our homes.
April 24, 2009 10:13 AM
My question would be: what's been the results of these tests you've been doing? Has the use of these devices led to any "catches" of people or items which would be a threat to airline safety? And what would be the comparative costs of using this technology versus other checkpoint enhancements?
April 24, 2009 10:16 AM
No radiated energy from this one? Oh very cool, where can I get one?
Honestly, this is very cool technology. Public areas have been a concern for us as well as the public for a long time. We hear so much about bombing’s around the world and they always seem to go after soft targets, just like the public areas of an airport. This is definitely a step in the direction of safety for the traveling public.
April 24, 2009 10:36 AM
I know you won't answer this question, because you never answer anything but the softballs, but I'll pose it anyway. So if I'm picking up a friend at baggage claim, and carrying something that's legal to have in the public portion to have in the airport -- for example, knives or fireworks -- you won't arrest me?
Also, how much did this technology cost taxpayers?
* the actual detectors
* training TSA thugs to use them
* implementing the system in test airports
* evangelizing the use of this technology to the public
What's the bill? How much do I write a check for?
April 24, 2009 11:33 AM
Ok, I was wrong about it being like radar. My bad... ^-^;
April 24, 2009 11:47 AM
So, how are you guys getting around the consent issue now?
You can post a sign up all you want saying you're going to screen, but that doesn't make it a legal search, nor does it mean people consent. There was a court case where police were using IR scanners to scan in the inside of people's houses to bust pot growing operations. Judges rightfully knocked those down as an illegal searches in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). In particular, the US Supreme Court found that "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." The same would apply for a person. You're searching for items that would not be seen without the intrusion.
The courts have upheld that implied consent was given for airport screening at the checkpoint because an affirmative action was taken: placing items on the conveyor belt. Just being somewhere isn't an affirmative action of consent.
It's a shame to see TSA still has no regard for the 4th amendment. I hope anyone you bust has the evidence tossed for an illegal search. Also, I'd like to see a judge can this in the process.
I'd really also like to see your legal justification for this. TSA has justified searches based on admission to the sterile area. This isn't the sterile area, and people who are there may not want to be go in.
This isn't just passive surveillance like a security camera. These are active searches that violate the Fourth Amendment.
Stop it. Now. What you're doing is illegal and unconstitutional. I hope someone who's caught with this search sues both the TSA and the opeartors using this for violating civil rights.
Robert
April 24, 2009 11:48 AM
Can you please point me to the cost benefit analysis of both this new toy and the Full Body MMW machines that shows they are indeed a more cost effective use of tax payer funds than say the old metal detectors and pat downs and a more visible security presence in the airport terminal?
April 24, 2009 12:10 PM
This is about as far to the opposite of awesome as you can possibly get. MMW technology is invasive, period. Every time I see this, and every time I hear of this at a checkpoint I make sure everyone around me knows just how invasive this technology is, and why they should follow Nancy Reagan's advice and "just say no" when asked to participate in the strip-search-o-matic nonsense that this agency is foisting upon us all.
The TSA has no business peeking at people walking around before the checkpoint, many of whom may not be going through the checkpoint at all. This kind of activity is tantamount of police officers frisking everybody in the airline terminal with NO GOOD REASON and NO PROBABLE CAUSE. I would not subject myself to it if an LEO asked to do a pat down, and I will openly be hostile toward any TSA folks using this crap near me when I fly.
I am a passenger, not a felon. I refuse to be treated as a felon when I fly, and I encourage the American public to do the same. It is time we stand up for our rights, lest we wake up some morning and discover that the TSA and DHS has taken them away in the interests of "safety" and "security"-- especially when these two bumbling jokes of organizations can't even accomplish their basic mission with any degree of competence.
It's time to go write my Congressman once more about how much money we're wasting with TSA, and how much more efficient and respectful of privacy private screeners were in the pre-fascism days.
April 24, 2009 12:12 PM
And just what is the risk that this is intended to protect against?
A man drawing a gun on the SPO-operator? (Like the actor in the picture.)
A wheely-bag claymore in a backed-up checkpoint line?
What items are prohibited in non-sterile areas of the airport?
The SPO is another expensive security theatre prop. I'm sure that marketing it to TSA is a no-brainer for QinetiQ.
April 24, 2009 12:25 PM
This sounds like the TSA is finally getting round to addressing a long-standing flaw in the their approach to mass screening. I think it's pretty obvious (and quite worrisome) to anyone who uses an airport that a large crowd waiting at a checkpoint is inherently vulnerable to a suicide bomber or someone with a machine gun. The new combination of passive MMW and BDOs may reduce that vulnerability (eliminating it is impractical). But as with any other announced TSA "improvement," I have to take it with a large box of salt.
The obvious "salty" issue is sensitivity and specificity. First, how reliably can the technology detect hidden explosives or guns on one or two people in a crowd (sensitivity)? And more importantly given the TSA's track record, how many false positives will the combination of MMW and BDO generate (specificity)? Of course, if any valid answers to these questions exist they are surely SSI. So those of us who are disinclined to accept the TSA's glowing announcements on faith will naturally be skeptical.
My suspicion is that this enhancement is mainly security theater. But it at least provide an unknown deterrent potential that's probably small but possibly significant. The concern here, given the TSA's track record, is false positives. I think the main effect of this enhancement is that the "checkpoint experience" we know and love will extend into the rest of the airport. A lot of innocent people will be stopped, interrogated, and searched who would not have been hassled before. In doing so, the TSA will enjoy more opportunities to stumble upon drugs, cash, fake military jackets, and other "suspicious" items that are no threat to aviation. The TSA leadership surely will not hesitate to crow about these as proof of their effectiveness. And there will be many resulting comment posts here denouncing those reported "successes" as false positives and "mission creep," all of which will be ignored or condescendingly dismissed as usual.
So I'll give the TSA half a mark for finally doing something about a very real risk. Will it actually protect those crowds from suicide bombers? There's no way to know that. But based on everything else I've seen with the TSA, it's certain to increase the hassle and unpleasantness of air travel.
April 24, 2009 1:02 PM
Also, how much did this technology cost taxpayers?
* the actual detectors
* training TSA thugs to use them
* implementing the system in test airports
* evangelizing the use of this technology to the public
What's the bill? How much do I write a check for?
April 24, 2009 11:33 AM
___________________________________
Ewww, who do you people think you are? This is none of your business!!!!
April 24, 2009 1:27 PM
Stop it. Now. What you're doing is illegal and unconstitutional. I hope someone who's caught with this search sues both the TSA and the opeartors using this for violating civil rights.
Robert
___________________________________
Ha, sues.... Love it.
April 24, 2009 1:33 PM
I am a passenger, not a felon. I refuse to be treated as a felon when I fly, and I encourage the American public to do the same. It is time we stand up for our rights, lest we wake up some morning and discover that the TSA and DHS has taken them away in the interests of "safety" and "security"-- especially when these two bumbling jokes of organizations can't even accomplish their basic mission with any degree of competence.
___________________________________
Oh get over it!
April 24, 2009 1:35 PM
George wrote: "This sounds like the TSA is finally getting round to addressing a long-standing flaw in the their approach to mass screening. I think it's pretty obvious (and quite worrisome) to anyone who uses an airport that a large crowd waiting at a checkpoint is inherently vulnerable to a suicide bomber or someone with a machine gun."
What you fail to see is that any large crowd not just those at airports are vulnerable to a suicide bomber or crazy with a gun. I guess we should just deploy these everywhere a crowd might gather for instance, mass transit stops, movie theathers, tourist attractions, popular bars on the weekend, houses of worship, grocery store checkouts, etc, etc.
This new tech is theater and mission creep all at the same time.
April 24, 2009 1:38 PM
If TSA is so worried about lines presenting a target to would-be bombers, it can do the following three things:
1. Stop the rollout of virtual strip-search chambers and stick with metal detectors.
2. Roll back the shoe carnival to where it was before August of 2006: No need to remove shoes if there's no alarm from the metal detector.
3. Drop the liquid policies that are scientifically indefensible and do nothing to protect anyone from anything.
Lines will then be far shorter because screenings will take far less time, and no one will be any less safe than today. Indeed, everyone will be safer because TSOs' time will not be wasted on shampoo and flip-flops.
April 24, 2009 1:51 PM
"Security officers operating the Passive MMW will work closely with Behavior Detection Officers on the floor."
Given that BDOs find almost nothing but false positives, in what way is this supposed to make anyone safer? Why are BDOs not screening cargo instead of wasting time harassing citizens?
April 24, 2009 1:52 PM
Thanks, Bob!
I see your suggestion discouraging photography of monitors has gone by the boards. That's good news!
Thanks as well for posting "an example of the image an operator would see." Having done that, I am sure nothing will stop you from posting a full-size, accurate photo of "what an operator would see" using the full-body image MMW's currently in operation in some airports.
All we have seen so far are those tiny, grainy i-pod size photos. We'd like to see what the TSA in the back room actually sees on his or her screen, just as you have done here for the SPO-7 screen monitor.
Thanks again! Finally some good information about what pax who submit to the Full-Body MMW are subjecting themselves to.
April 24, 2009 2:32 PM
"Why are BDOs not screening cargo instead of wasting time harassing citizens?"
Yup, I can see it now:
BDO to cargo: "Sir..eh, mam, eh whatever: what is your destination?"
Cargo: " "
BDO: "Do you want to fly today?"
Cargo: " "
Sometimes this blog veers into comedy...
April 24, 2009 2:46 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Ha, sues.... Love it."
If you don't think an agency can be sued, or an individual working for an agency can be sued for violating someone's constitutional rights, think again.
If I were working one of those machines, I'd be buying the liability insurance that gov't employee associaton sell. You CAN be sued for the performance of your duties.
Here's one that's sold by association for a federal agency I used to work for. Fully condoned by that agency.
Think TSA would back you up in a lawsuit?
Robert
April 24, 2009 2:46 PM
Thanks, Paul!
I see Bob's suggestion discouraging photography of monitors has gone by the boards. That's good news!
Thanks as well for posting "an example of the image an operator would see." Having done that, I am sure nothing will stop you from posting a full-size, accurate photo of "what an operator would see" using the full-body image MMW's currently in operation in some airports.
All we have seen so far are those tiny, grainy i-pod size photos. We'd like to see what the TSA in the back room actually sees on his or her screen, just as you have done here for the SPO-7 screen monitor.
Thanks again! Finally some good information about what pax who submit to the Full-Body MMW are subjecting themselves to.
April 24, 2009 2:48 PM
@Anonymous, April 24, 2009 1:38 PM:What you fail to see is that any large crowd not just those at airports are vulnerable to a suicide bomber or crazy with a gun.
Yes, but in this case it's a specific vulnerability that the TSA increased when it "enhanced" airport screening to make it more "thorough" and time-consuming. When I've gone to the airport and waited in a Disney-style switchback queue for my screening, I have been more than a little worried about the obvious vulnerability. If it's that obvious to me, how could the experts who designed the TSA's procedures not see it?
It took seven years for those experts to recognize the problem and do something about it. I guess it took that long for appropriately impressive and costly technology like passive MMW to become available. It would be very interesting to know the process by which they tested and deployed the technology. The relationship between TSA officials and the contractor that provides it would also be interesting. But I'm sure that's all classified or SSI for "national security reasons."
I'm sure there are some travelers who find those signs proudly proclaiming the use of MMW scanners comforting and reassuring, and even an "awesome idea." They'll have no concept of what it means, but it looks so futuristic and high-tech that it must be highly effective protection against something! I'll be eagerly awaiting the first triumphant announcement of a drug bust that started with a MMW/BDO team. As Paul might put it, that will be truly awesome!
April 24, 2009 2:48 PM
I said "A man drawing a gun on the SPO-operator? (Like the actor in the picture.)"
...but on looking at it again, it might be just a water bottle. Or maybe the alert is the green bar and the crosshairs on something tucked in the dude's waistband.
Looking at the image as a half-drawn revolver, I really wondered what threat you are ameliorating here. The perp would have drawn long before you execute "... a variety of scenarios can occur, up to and including calling local law enforcement."
What imaginary threat is this awesome idea supposed to fix again? To catch water bottles in the "free" part of the airport? To catch a suicide bomber in the crowded checkpoint line?
SPO-7 looks like a tool in search of a problem.
April 24, 2009 3:08 PM
Wow, more jailhouse lawyers. Cool
They posted information on this in an earlier blog (September 2008), maybe before you jump off the melodrama bridge you might want to take a look at the technology specifications first?
Here is a link to some information on the technology. Sit back, get a glass of juice, and read. Its an amazing technology, technology that has absolutely no chance of invading anyone’s privacy.
http://www.planningsystemsinc.com/downloads/DS09_001_SPO_jan23PM.PDF
April 24, 2009 3:38 PM
Quote from George: I'll be eagerly awaiting the first triumphant announcement of a drug bust that started with a MMW/BDO team. As Paul might put it, that will be truly awesome!"
I'll be eagerly awaiting the announcement that a judge found the search unconstitutional, suppressed the evidence, and told TSA to stop the searches.
THAT will be truly awesome!
Robert
April 24, 2009 3:55 PM
George, @ "It took seven years for those experts to recognize the problem and do something about it. I guess it took that long for appropriately impressive and costly technology like passive MMW to become available."
It won't solve that vulnerability. If they pack the machine gun or bomb in their carry-ons while they enter the cattle chutes this machine won't detect it. This "awesome" idea only detects body-hidden-stuff that the MMW and WTMD already cover.
April 24, 2009 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...
“Thanks as well for posting "an example of the image an operator would see." Having done that, I am sure nothing will stop you from posting a full-size, accurate photo of "what an operator would see" using the full-body image MMW's currently in operation in some airports.”
Here are the images that a Transportation Security Officer would see TSA-Release-Images-2-050808-726403 --
Here is what the Transportation Security Officer looks like in that secluded area while looking at a Whole Body Imaging scan. CNN “TSA Security or Breach of Privacy: You Decide!” –
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
April 24, 2009 3:59 PM
If you don't think an agency can be sued, or an individual working for an agency can be sued for violating someone's constitutional rights, think again.
If I were working one of those machines, I'd be buying the liability insurance that gov't employee associaton sell. You CAN be sued for the performance of your duties.
___________________________________
There are no consitutional rights being violated! What law school did you go to Robert? It is highly entertaining how everyone crys that they are going to sue. You people do not realize that The Department of Homeland Security has some serious lawyers working for their agency, and everything that takes place must go through them first. The agency knows what they are doing, and they do not leave themselves open for petty lawsuit.
April 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Tim, are the images you posted of the same size and resolution TSA's hidden operator sees?
Why are you unwilling to post a scan of yourself in the machine, Tim?
April 24, 2009 4:58 PM
Oh for crying out loud! Will nothing ever satisfy you people?
You have constantly pissed and moaned about how we 'do nothing' to mitigate the threat out in the non sterile area. How often have you moaned about how the lines are a huge 'soft target'. Now along comes the SPO, specifically designed to be used out in the terminal or non-sterile area, and still you gripe and yell we are somehow invading your privacy. You can't have it both ways people! Why don't you just hop in your car and drive?
I for one am very happy to see this machine again. I was one of those trained to use it in Denver when it was first rolled out and tested. I am looking forward to having it become a permanent part of our screening process.
Ronnie TSO DEN
April 24, 2009 5:11 PM
How on Earth is this legal? Don't I have a right to be protected from searches if there is no probable cause? Going to the airport doesn't feel like probable cause to search me. This is creepy big brother stuff. WOW.
April 24, 2009 5:11 PM
A couple of comments about the prior test at DIA. First I know that the machine was still set up over a week after the Democratic convention ended. So that can't be used as an excuse to continue its testing there.
Second, when you stepped off the elevator, you were in the detection zone without any warning. No signs existed between the elevator and the machine.
April 24, 2009 5:15 PM
Seems like someone with an icepack or hand-warmer would be subject to further scrutiny. Great for detecting people smuggling food into a stadium. It doesn't do much to keep a suicide bomber from detonating, however.
April 24, 2009 5:29 PM
@H2H: So the operator sees a couple 200x480 images? For a 7' tall chamber, that's about 5 pixels/inch.
If that is the best your technology does, a 22LR cartridge would be 1 pixel x 3 pixels, a blasting cap would be 1x8 pixels, and a box-cutter blade would be 5x10 pixels in the best of circumstances.
Good luck with those visual inspections....
April 24, 2009 5:34 PM
Hey Ron, given your absolute disdain for rights, civil liberties and law shown by your recent appearances at FlyerTalk (which was pretty much called out by another TSO as disgraceful), I don't trust your assessment that it absolutely won't violate my or anyone else's privacy.
Someone posted a valid SupremeC court case that calls into question the constitutionality of this type of search. The technology used is irrelevant. Do you have any proof outside of what a vendor says that it won't invade privacy? Like legal precedent where this was accepted?
Seems like it really doesn't matter what technology is used if the underlying search is illegal.
Earl
April 24, 2009 5:49 PM
H2H,
No offense intended, but I doubt things will be as demure as the links you provided.
In the link of "what TSO would see," I am seeing 4 images (front/back, male/female) that take up less than 1/3 my tiny computer screen. But the person on the CNN report is looking at 2 images that take up more than 2/3rds of her screen (although I am looking over her shoulder from a distance in the CNN report).
Let's see a good, detailed close-up image-grab of what can be seen by the TSO, and let's post it, life size, alongside the note saying, "This is voluntary."
April 24, 2009 5:51 PM
TSORon said...
Wow, more jailhouse lawyers. Cool
//////////////////////
And just what kind of lawyer are you, TSORon?
April 24, 2009 6:15 PM
Anonymous asked a question of the TSA:
So if I'm picking up a friend at baggage claim, and carrying something that's legal to have in the public portion to have in the airport -- for example, knives or fireworks -- you won't arrest me?I'm not sure that the premise of your question is valid ... or, at least, universally valid.
I just did a quick search, and for my home airport, DTW, there is in fact a local ordinance, supported by a state law, making it illegal to possess knives, explosives, or incendiaries anywhere on airport property. I won't claim this is universal, but I would suspect that there are other airports with similar ordinances. (And I'm not about to spend the next week compiling a list of similar ordinances, thanks.)
I'm all in favor of looking at hypotheticals ... but we need to be careful that the hypotheticals make sense ...
April 24, 2009 6:20 PM
Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix is a municipal facility operated by the City of Phoenix. Under the laws of the State of Arizona and the ordinances of Phoenix, a citizen has the right to carry a sidearm inside a terminal at Sky Harbor in any public areas outside of the sterile area.
Will you be approaching people at Sky Harbor who are carrying sidearms if a security officer sees the sidearm on the Passive MMW scan?
April 24, 2009 6:20 PM
How long before some construction worker or someone else that works with explosives is shot like a dog because the sensor goes off? One more reason not to fly.
April 24, 2009 7:34 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Also, how much did this technology cost taxpayers?
* the actual detectors
* training TSA thugs to use them
* implementing the system in test airports
* evangelizing the use of this technology to the public
What's the bill? How much do I write a check for?
April 24, 2009 11:33 AM
___________________________________
Ewww, who do you people think you are? This is none of your business!!!!We are the customers and tax payers. The taxes we pay and the $2.50 per flight we are charged by the TSA gives us the right to ask what the cost benefit ratio is and if there is a more effective way to do this.
April 24, 2009 7:45 PM
How tough is it to post a picture of the actual image the operator will see? As opposed to a picture of computer monitor where I can't even tell what I am looking at.
April 24, 2009 7:51 PM
Hint: I've legally carried for nearly 40 years, and per state law my local airport's non-secured areas are an area where it is still legit for me to carry my usual daily carry, so long as I am not entering the sterile areas.
Stopping off at the airport to pick someone up, or even just to watch planes while I suck up a Starbucks, with a concealed firearm on me is legitimate in this state.
I have given no one permission to determine if I am or am not carrying a firearm in public spaces where it is entirely legal for me to do so.
I am curious how the TSA will address such difficulties if they want to roll out these units, especially if they intend to take any actions based on this potentially unlawful search...
Tom (1 of 5-6)
April 24, 2009 10:54 PM
This brings up an interesting point that hasn't been discussed here in quite awhile. One the one hand, TSA likes to say that they have no control of the airport outside of checkpoints. As an example, check out their stock response to complaints about special tax payer funded security lanes for 'elite' travelers. We are told that they don't have control over the airport space before their constitution-free zones and that it is just the airlines controlling the lines outside checkpoints. On the other hand, HERE they are doing things to citizens who have not indicated any attempt to even go through the checkpoint.
April 24, 2009 11:25 PM
Hmm, where do I start?
Paul wrote: "Keeping the flying public safe from curbside to cockpit is a major part of TSA’s mission."
Since when? Why curbside? Aren't you going to come to my house and escort me to the airport? Do you understand that I, a passenger, am not going to the cockpit? But can you come on the flight with me and then drive me to my hotel and tuck me in?
No. Your "mission" is to keep dangerous things off aircraft. Period. That's it. Stop expanding into the rest of our lives.
Now, as to keeping dangerous things off aircraft, why don't you use the SPO-7 at the checkpoint instead of the far more invasive strip search machine? Go ahead and use big words, Paul, I know quite a lot about both the hardware and image processing capabilities of these machines.
As others have already clearly said, there are some serious constitutional problems with searching people before they get to the checkpoint. Posting signs doesn't make it legal, any more than my local PD can post signs to say that by living in a particular neighborhood I have given implied consent for them to search my house at any time.
On a practical level, I find it hard to envision someone who is really a threat to the airport concourse with a gun or bomb is going to stand still while you go get the LEOs and BDOs and interrogate him. At the very least SPO-7 operators should be getting hazard pay, because a smart bad guy is going to shoot him first. But really, the probability of such a person showing up is so vanishingly small, multiplied by the probability of someone SPOTTING him, multiplied by the probability of the SPO-7 finding the gun or bomb, multiplied by the probability of resolving the issue without bloodshed, that it seems almost impossible to use this to stop a tragedy. On the other hand, it can certainly be used to conduct unconstitutional searches for drugs, water bottles, medical assists and colostomy bags.
In short, such searches are both illegal and useless. And really, really expensive. How can you possibly justify this while your screeners claim they don't have the money and manpower to install proper surveillance in the baggage handling areas?
April 24, 2009 11:48 PM
HappyToHelp wrote:
"Here are the images that a Transportation Security Officer would see ...
Here is what the Transportation Security Officer looks like in that secluded area while looking at a Whole Body Imaging scan. ..."
Yeah, Tim, we (the ones who have read this blog since the beginning) know. But there are 300 million other Americans out there. When those pictures are printed out at the size of an iPod screen, a few inches high, and posted at hip level at the checkpoint, it doesn't really give people a fair idea of what they're submitting to.
If TSA can afford the strip search machines and the SPO-7s, you can afford some big poster paper. Go get life-size posters (5 to 6 feet high) made of those images you linked to, and paste them on the side of the strip search machines. Then people will really see what they're being asked to do.
Better yet, use the SPO-7 at the checkpoint since it doesn't show a strip search image.
April 25, 2009 12:04 AM
TSORon: "Here is a link to some information on the technology. Sit back, get a glass of juice, and read. Its an amazing technology, technology that has absolutely no chance of invading anyone’s privacy."
Huh? Its mere existence anywhere near me is an invasion of my privacy. You people are just utterly clueless. What on earth would make you think I'd want your silly organization to have any -more- excuse to intrude into the lives of people who, now, apparently don't even want to fly today?
April 25, 2009 2:42 AM
I guess all I can say to the Anonymous that is crying about this technology is don't fly. You think you should have all these rights at an airport. Come on! I am happy for any new technology that might keep a crazy off the plain or catch on trying to get on. By all means, put the MMW to use and keep comming out with new stuff. I don't care if you can tell what type of underware I have on, and how many days I have worn them as long as I am safe.
April 25, 2009 3:04 AM
Congratulations. I have now read two posts (the current "See SPO etc... and the earlier post linked in the write-up) and I have absolutely no clue what "passive MMW" is. In fact, the only clue I have is that it makes a rotund man's midsection appear to be larger.
I do see that this will be coordinated with so-called "behavior detection officers" (I suppose you couldn't come up with something more Orwellian). Can you please provide links to independent, peer-reviewed research confirming the efficacy of these methods? How many hours are required to train a "human lie detector" who can somehow override subconscious racial/ethnic profiling? How much has been paid for so-called "BDO" training?
Also, can TSA take any actions re: employees like "TSORon" who are clearly ignorant of our constitutional rights? Or do we have to keep pretending that these people are highly qualified, intelligent security experts?
Thanks for your prompt response.
Signed,
Anonymous (but only because I'm afraid of my government taking punitive actions over a blog post. God Bless America!)
April 25, 2009 4:25 AM
TSORon-
Before you post another comment referring to "jailhouse lawyers," could you please tell us where you got your law degree?
Thanks.
April 25, 2009 4:44 AM
So if you can detect "threats" without generating nude images of people, why not use this kind of technology at the checkpoint?
Also, what kind of right do you have to search people who are not going through the checkpoint??
April 25, 2009 6:26 AM
2. Roll back the shoe carnival to where it was before August of 2006: No need to remove shoes if there's no alarm from the metal detector.
Last I knew, most explosive material will NEVER alarm the metal detector. It is also very easy to pack enough explosive into a shoe to effectively disable an aircraft.
Also, an even greater amount of people than you can imagine have metal shanks in their shoes that WILL alarm, or an excess of metal stitching. They would then have to remove their shoes still, not cutting down the wait time much at all. So, yes. The "Shoe Carnival" will be needed for a long time. Unless they decide to have one of those little doggies at every checkpoint sniff people's shoes while they get checked at TDC.
3. Drop the liquid policies that are scientifically indefensible and do nothing to protect anyone from anything.
Many bomb specialists would disagree with that statement. This argument isn't worth going into though, since it has been announced that TSA is working on upgrading the new x-rays so they will be able to determine which liquids are the "dangerous" ones. So hopefully by the end of the year the LGA ban will be lifted, but who knows how long it will actually take.
April 25, 2009 9:20 PM
So, can it count the $4,354 dollars I have in my backpack?
Can it tell if I have nipple rings? (no, we haven't forgotten!)
April 25, 2009 11:03 PM
These "passive mmw" things can't be called mmw ANYTHING! Fact is that the human body doesn't emit mmw radiation. At the standard human temperature of 37 degrees Celsius, the blackbody radiation is below infrared, but well above millimeter-wave at 31.7 Terahertz! If this device uses mmw technology, then it is not passively using what humans "naturally" emit. If it isn't then don't call it mmw!
April 26, 2009 12:35 AM
So…Passive MMW…awesome idea right? Let us know what you think.No it isn't a good idea. TSA infests the airports and the mission creep while ignoring cargo screening is pretty disgusting.
April 26, 2009 8:56 AM
This has "Security Theater" written all over it: An awesome high-tech device with an awesome high-tech name, with its operators in full view so everyone can see how awesome it is! (The very fact that it's so open and visible can only suggest that it's purely for show. The TSA's "real" security all happens behind an impenetrable veil of secrecy, since the TSA themselves constantly insist that secrecy is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of everything they do.)
It would seem harmless enough, except that it's surely costing us taxpayers a lot of money. And it will certainly produce a lot of false alarms that will lead to many innocent people getting needlessly questioned, searched, or otherwise subjected to a stressful, intrusive encounter with the TSA. The only benefit is that those encounters will give the TSA more opportunities to find drugs, fake identity papers, and other "suspicious items" that do not threaten aircraft. That will yield a bounty of metrics and press releases to justify the effectiveness of both the new toys and the TSA itself. And hopefully lost in all the self-congratulatory hoopla will be the fact that none of these "catches" did anything to protect aviation from the terrorist threat.
I have no reason to believe this is any kind of "awesome idea." It's most likely just another waste of taxpayer dollars that will create more false positive hassles of passengers in the name of helping the TSA justify its intrusive mission creep, while doing nothing at all to improve security.
The only way "awesome" could ever apply to the TSA is if the Administrator publicly admitted that the entire agency is seriously flawed. And then (s)he committed to gutting it, getting rid of all the "Do you want to fly today?", and rebuilding it with the goal of creating an accountable agency to provide cost-effective security that respects the rule of law and the rights of passengers. Accountability.... that's an awesome idea, right?
April 26, 2009 5:20 PM
@Tim: Here are the images that a Transportation Security Officer would see TSA-Release-Images-2-050808-726403
Is this really the actual image a TSO sees? The linked image is 960x720 pixels. It includes four panels showing scans. Since there is white space between each panel, each panel is less than 240 pixels across. That's comparable to an iPod or PDA screen. If the image displayed on the TSO's screen really is that small, then there seems little danger to privacy. But there also seems to be little value to the scan, since the display is too small to see anything.
The CNN segment you linked to clearly shows that the image the TSA is showing us is misleadingly small. The segment showed a TSO viewing the scans in a secret room, on a large wide-screen monitor that displayed two scan panels that mostly filled the screen. I can't tell how large the monitor is (it's inexplicably masked with a big sign that has the TSA's website URL), but the resulting scan panels obviously have to be larger than the iPod-sized image you linked to. I'm sorry, but this only gives more reason to doubt the TSA's assurances about privacy, since they will only show us reduced-sized images of the scans.
I also find the CNN segment dubious in the way it shows "frequent flyer" Wayne Loeb apparently endorsing the scans. He says that it's "quick unintrusive, a piece of cake." But is he really aware of what the TSO sees in that hidden room, and what it actually is? Then he comes on again and says it's definitely better than a pat-down. We're then presumably supposed to accept on faith Nico Melendez' statements that the system is unable to save or transmit the images.
The CNN segment looks like a TSA-scripted propaganda piece meant to tidily sweep privacy concerns under the rug with reassuring statements we're supposed to accept on faith, and the "endorsement" of ordinary passengers who may or may not be aware of what the strip search actually entails. It might be convincing if the TSA didn't have a severe credibility problem. But unfortunately, the TSA does have a severe credibility problem, so it may actually raise more questions than it purports to answer.
April 26, 2009 5:51 PM
It appears that the TSA is trying to use notification signs to circumvent the 4th Amendment protections affirmed by KYLLO, KATZ and ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.
In the TSA's world do the blind, stupid, or illiterate not have the same Constitutional protections as the sighted, literate and intelligent?
April 27, 2009 12:39 AM
Looks like DHS/TSA caught a terrorist this week thanks to the no fly list
Who the terrorist was - http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/air-france-klm/air-france-jet-diverted-over-us-no-fly-list-FR0000031122-656553
What happen to the terrorist - http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=922&Itemid=1
Thank you for keeping us safe from French journalists.
April 27, 2009 5:47 AM
Hey, where did my post go? All it did was point out the cognitive dissonance required to see this plan as legal at the same time that TSA says it has no control over airlines giving elite passengers access to tax-funded short security lines. There by giving rich people better service from the government then not rich people. The reason given for that was that TSA doesn't control anything in airport outside of scanning area. This contradicts it. Which is it and which policy will be revoked? You can't have both.
April 27, 2009 11:21 AM
Bubba said...
Also, what kind of right do you have to search people who are not going through the checkpoint??
April 25, 2009 6:26 AM
This is the key question that must be answered by TSA.
When did America devolve to open surveillance of its citizens?
Bob?
April 27, 2009 12:56 PM
serious question... does the SPO alarm on "implants?"
April 27, 2009 2:06 PM
Ewww, who do you people think you are? This is none of your business!!!!We are the customers and tax payers. The taxes we pay and the $2.50 per flight we are charged by the TSA gives us the right to ask what the cost benefit ratio is and if there is a more effective way to do this.
___________________________________
OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it.
April 27, 2009 2:43 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Ha, sues.... Love it."
If you don't think an agency can be sued, or an individual working for an agency can be sued for violating someone's constitutional rights, think again.
If I were working one of those machines, I'd be buying the liability insurance that gov't employee associaton sell. You CAN be sued for the performance of your duties.
Here's one that's sold by association for a federal agency I used to work for. Fully condoned by that agency.
Think TSA would back you up in a lawsuit?
Robert
April 24, 2009 2:46 PM
___________________________________
You people are so humorous. You don't think that The Dept. of Homeland Security does not have lawyers that everything that they do goes through first?! You think the things that TSA does are just done on a whim? Who cares about peoples rights, right. I don't think so! I highly doubt that TSA leaves itself open to all of these threatened law suits everyone if crying about.
April 27, 2009 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Ewww, who do you people think you are? This is none of your business!!!!We are the customers and tax payers. The taxes we pay and the $2.50 per flight we are charged by the TSA gives us the right to ask what the cost benefit ratio is and if there is a more effective way to do this.
___________________________________
OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it.
=============
The TSA charges each passenger $2.50 per flight, this fee is collected by the airlines and turned over to the TSA. That fee makes us customers since we are now paying the TSA to provide a service.
With two million customers flying per day the TSA receives five million dollars. If you need proof use this link
http://www.tsa.gov/research/fees/passenger_fee.shtm
April 27, 2009 4:03 PM
Yet another Anonymous yammered... OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it.
________________
To which I reply with this, from the Federal Register...
Under 49 U.S.C. 44940 and the Transportation Security Regulations at 49 CFR parts 1510 and 1511, respectively, air carriers and foreign air carriers are required to pay to TSA fees known as the September 11th Security Fee and the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee (ASIF).
The September 11th Security Fee is a fee in the amount of $2.50 per enplanement imposed by TSA on passengers of domestic and foreign air carriers in air transportation, foreign air transportation, and intrastate air transportation originating at airports in the United States. This fee is limited to $2.50 per enplanement for up to two enplanements (or up to $5) per one-way trip or four enplanements (or up to $10) per round trip. 49 CFR 1510.5(a). Section 118 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 107-71; November 19, 2001) authorized TSA to impose the September 11th Security Fee to help pay TSA's costs of providing civil aviation security services. (Emphasis added.)
We ARE not only TSA's employers, but also TSA's customers.
Tom (1 of 5-6)
April 27, 2009 4:29 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "You people are so humorous. You don't think that The Dept. of Homeland Security does not have lawyers that everything that they do goes through first?! You think the things that TSA does are just done on a whim? Who cares about peoples rights, right. I don't think so! I highly doubt that TSA leaves itself open to all of these threatened law suits everyone if crying about."Well, if you look at the quality of lawyers TSA employs, it doesn't not very good.
Lawyers for an agency are more often tasked to try to find legal ways of doing things within case law, including loopholes. While they are there for the general workforce to ask legal questions, they're largely there to try to find legal ways of pushing thru policy.
Just because a lawyer reviews something doesn't mean a judge would see it the same way. Remember, Alberto Gonzalez, the former Attorney General, thought warrantless wiretaps are ok. Now with those suits tied up in court, it's not certain.
TSA has been successfully sued in the past. It's naive to think that it can't/won't happen again, nor that just because a lawyer vets something doesn't mean it's legal.
If TSA cares about people's rights, it sure has a funny way of showing it.
Robert
April 27, 2009 4:38 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it."I pay a $2.50 per segment 9/11 security fee that pays for security. The airlines may collect it as part of a ticket price, but it's still going to TSA, much like a retailer collects sales tax.
Robert
April 27, 2009 4:41 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Last I knew, most explosive material will NEVER alarm the metal detector. It is also very easy to pack enough explosive into a shoe to effectively disable an aircraft.
Also, an even greater amount of people than you can imagine have metal shanks in their shoes that WILL alarm, or an excess of metal stitching. They would then have to remove their shoes still, not cutting down the wait time much at all. So, yes. The "Shoe Carnival" will be needed for a long time. Unless they decide to have one of those little doggies at every checkpoint sniff people's shoes while they get checked at TDC."Here's a question TSA has never successfully answered regarding the shoe carnival.
If shoe bombs are such a serious threat, then why aren't planes falling out of the sky in countries that don't have a shoe carinval? Surely, shoe bombs would be reaking havoc world wide in those other nations.
So are we less safe in those nations that don't do a shoe carnival? You know, nations like Canada, Australia, Israel, Korea (for non-US bound or flagged flights)? If so, how do you explain the lack of shoe bombings? If not, why are we wasting our time?
America alone is obsessed with the shoe carnival. Please spare the "we're the only terrorist targets" in the world.
"Many bomb specialists would disagree with that statement. This argument isn't worth going into though, since it has been announced that TSA is working on upgrading the new x-rays so they will be able to determine which liquids are the "dangerous" ones. So hopefully by the end of the year the LGA ban will be lifted, but who knows how long it will actually take."So, who are these scientists? Dr. Alford and DHS don't count as they have agendas and/or conflicts of interests.
If these bomb experts exist, then please link them.
Somehow, I think if the evidence supporting it existed outside these circles, TSA would have trumpeted it. Unfortunately, other scientists have shown to be skeptical and there hasn't been any third party peer-reviewed science supporting your claim.
Robert
Robert
April 27, 2009 4:48 PM
You already know what I think about this.
I want the constitutional basis for screening, in any way, people not attempting to enter the sterile or secure area.
Last time I asked this quesiton you stopped using the system.
April 27, 2009 5:27 PM
"When did America devolve to open surveillance of its citizens?"
Sadly quite a while ago...
http://www.messyoptics.com/bird/pro_06.html is a Vietnam era example of our paranoid government at work.
April 27, 2009 5:30 PM
"Also, an even greater amount of people than you can imagine have metal shanks in their shoes that WILL alarm, or an excess of metal stitching. They would then have to remove their shoes still, not cutting down the wait time much at all. So, yes. The "Shoe Carnival" will be needed for a long time."
It is not needed now. Simply roll back the policy to where it was prior to August 2006: If you don't alarm the metal detector, you don't need to take off your shoes.
April 27, 2009 5:51 PM
"Last I knew, most explosive material will NEVER alarm the metal detector. It is also very easy to pack enough explosive into a shoe to effectively disable an aircraft."
And yet, no one has tried to do so since 2002. And no one tried to do it before the shoe carnival became mandatory in 2006. And no one has tried to do it in any of the countries that don't have a mandatory shoe carnival. All of which shows that the TSA's reaction to the potential use of shoes as a delivery device for explosives is far, far overblown given that no one is trying to use shoes to harm aircraft.
April 27, 2009 5:54 PM
"OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it."
TSA is funded by taxpayers. I can't imagine anyone seriously trying to dispute that.
April 27, 2009 5:56 PM
Another Anonymous poster said:
"Also, can TSA take any actions re: employees like "TSORon" who are clearly ignorant of our constitutional rights? Or do we have to keep pretending that these people are highly qualified, intelligent security experts?"
Please, show us what you think your constitutional rights are. I'll be glad to show you where you are wrong. Be specific, what areas of the TSA process are violations of your rights.
April 27, 2009 10:14 PM
> So…Passive MMW…awesome idea right? Let
> us know what you think
Yah awesome idea. So what did that cost?
Looks kind of ridiculous if you ask me. What is the problem this is intended to solve exactly?
I have yet to see one shred of evidence that this is anything other than throwing good money after bad.
I would feel more than perfectly safe if you got rid of even the metal detectors and screening all together.
As a traveler, I would happily walk onto a plane, pay cash for my seat, showing no id, and fly perfectly securely with no worries knowing everyone else did the same.
Thats my opinion o fmilimeter wave, yah, its a way cool technology. I can't wait to see what...well... what actual useful uses it gets put to.
However, the TSA doesn't need it. Please stop wasting our money.
If you are scared of flying, check auto accident statistics before the next time you get in a car. Seriously... spend way more time thinking about your driving, its FAR more risky.
-Steve
April 28, 2009 2:41 AM
@Robert
Hear! hear!
I think you hit the nail right between the eyes. If shoe bombs are such a threat... then why aren't planes falling out of the sky?
Could it be that there are so incredibly few people world wide who rationally feel that blowing up planes will make the world a better place in some way, that really, nobody is out there trying.
What paltry few incidents have ever happened, can be attributed to an even smaller number of people.
I thank the person who pointed me at bojinka. Read up, a handful of people were responsible for several attacks. How do we know? They were caught. So we have immensely rare event, caused by a really tiny number of people.
This is really like setting up checkpoints near gas stations to catch people who might be looking to burn buldings down. Yes, arsonists buy gasoline. However they are such a small percentage of the gas buying population that, wholesale surveilance doesn't make sense.
Now people who will drive off without paying for gas, in some neighborhoods more of them... for them it makes sense to do the wholesale surveilance....so they do.
-Steve
April 28, 2009 10:07 AM
There is one bright side here....
If boogeymen really wanted to make travel annoying, next time they will pack a jock strap full of explosives. Maybe an explosive tampon.
"Please put your metal items in the bin, along with your shoes and underwear. Are you on the rag, sorry, we need to screen that to, damn terrorists so crafty these days"
Just think guys, if the shoe bomb had gone off, we might never have known what the bomb was disguised as.
Its obvious now, you don't need to take down a plane to cause a rukus and get us to waste money, you just have to get caught trying some lame plan.... and as the liquid explosives guys showed, just like the shoe bomber, comeptence is not required.
-Steve
April 28, 2009 10:15 AM
> Honestly, this is very cool technology.
> Public areas have been a concern for us
> as well as the public for a long time.
> We hear so much about bombing’s around
> the world and they always seem to go
> after soft targets, just like the
> public areas of an airport. This is
> definitely a step in the direction of
> safety for the traveling public.
Really? I am not concerned. I live in the US. Bombings are so rare that they make the news when they happen in other countries.
Seriously man, spend more time thinking about what you eat and what the other driver on the road is doing. These are far bigger areas of concern.
Anyone who is really thinking about bombings so much, I have some advice... seek medical help. Your paranoia can be treated.
Seriously, anyone in the US who is worried about bombings really needs to take a step back and look at the realities of the situation.
I would be far more worried about abuses of power with these new tools. If one thing is a constant, its that new tools find new abuses.
We didn't create the FISA courts, until it came out that the FBI had been abusing their ability to wiretap.
Nobody called for more accounting regulations, until their were corperate scandals and money lost.
If it wasn't for clerks willing to leak a record, politicians willing to bend the law to corperate whim, a CIA that did experiments on our own people (Operation Midnight Climax anyone?), a breakin at watergate, and the list just goes on and on....
If the government and its agencies were not full of people with all of the faults and all of the mixture of good and evil we see in all other people.... then we wouldn't need laws to protect our rights.
But... all these things happened, all these things are what they are.
New abilities bring new abuses. Thats why we should be asking, is this really needed?
When more planes fall out of the sky from equipment failures than bombs, when millions of people fly without incident, when the very few people who were found responsible for several of these rare incidents are in jail or dead....
why do we need to spend so much on this imaginary problem?
Seriously, this mm wave program, whats the cost been so far? WHats it projected to cost to outfit all these terminals, and train all these people?
Why is it that people are so afraid of the boogeymen? I hate to sound like a broken record, but when I keep seeing the same pork over and over, its hard not to have the same reaction.... I don't wanna pay for it! I think its more trouble than its worth.
-Steve
April 28, 2009 10:32 AM
"OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it."
TSA is funded by taxpayers. I can't imagine anyone seriously trying to dispute that.
April 27, 2009 5:56 PM
___________________________________
Alright that does not make you the TSA's customers. Nor does it make you our boss.
April 28, 2009 1:29 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Alright that does not make you the TSA's customers. Nor does it make you our boss."
If I'm paying 9/11 security fees for TSA's services when I travel, how does that NOT make me a customer? Or are you saying were serfs to TSA?
It may not make us TSA's boss. It DOES mean, however, that we should be treated with dignity and respect - something TSA promises but often doesn't deliver on.
Robert
April 28, 2009 5:32 PM
TSORon said...
Please, show us what you think your constitutional rights are. I'll be glad to show you where you are wrong. Be specific, what areas of the TSA process are violations of your rights.
Okay dokey TSORon, I will accept the challenge. To help those following at home I will make a seperate post detailing each violation.
Forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area falls outside the scope of a screening for weapons, explosives or incendiaries, as provide by law.
Because the TSA search is an administrative search the governing statute defines the limitations.
The TSA is out of bounds with the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area and it is breaking the law when it requires its TSOs to perform them.
Because the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute, the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area is an unreasonable search within the confines of the 4th amendment.
Therefore the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area violates the 4th amendment protections.
April 28, 2009 8:52 PM
TSORon said...
Please, show us what you think your constitutional rights are. I'll be glad to show you where you are wrong. Be specific, what areas of the TSA process are violations of your rights.
Round 2:
The common area of an airport has been deemed a public space by the Supreme court.
Placing the SPO-7 or ANY screening device in the public space of an airport to conduct an administrative search falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute.
Screenings are to take place in screening locations for the purpose of granting access to the sterile or other restricted areas as defined by the statute.
Because the subjects of this search have not agreed to the search and because the search falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute, the use of the SPO-7 in the public space of the airport is an unreasonable search within the confines of the 4th amendment. Therefore the use of the SPO-7 or ANY screening device in this manner violates the 4th amendment protections.
April 28, 2009 9:22 PM
TSORon said...
Please, show us what you think your constitutional rights are. I'll be glad to show you where you are wrong. Be specific, what areas of the TSA process are violations of your rights.
Round 3:
The SPO-7 uses technology that can "peer" beneath clothing and create a threat assessment. Based on either reflected MMW or emitted MMW. (not sure, don't care to look right now and it does not change the argument)
Because the technology can detect both illegal and private legal activity its usage constitutes a search within the 4th amendment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that without a warrant this type of search is unreasonable and violates the 4th amendment.
Any use of the information gained by the SPO-7 located in a public area to generate an immediate "probable cause" search, a warrant search or a secondary at the legitimate screening location would violate not only the unreasonable search clause of the 4th amendment but also the unreasonable seizure clause of the 4th.
April 28, 2009 10:19 PM
Anonymous:
Yes, not your boss, more like shareholders.
I just wish the value of my stock would stop going down the toilet. I mean seriously, if I owned stock in a company that was run as poorly, I would sell and cut my losses.
I have worked in the public sector my entire career. I know how bureaucratic budgeting works. Its the kind of environment where, if there is money left in the budget, you scramble to spend it before the next budget cycle, or you will get less next time.
The only time you cut back is when someone higher up slashes the budget.
So it doesn't surprize me that when money got allocated to be used for airport security, it was time to go hog wild with the USDA Grade A porkbarrels.
I just don't see the point. And we have already seen what looks plainly like abuses: http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=922&Itemid=1
Story sounds to me like someone didn't like this guys articles and decided to put him on a no fly list to screw with him. Was he hurt? no, but, he was harassed.Can it be proven, of course not... thats the beauty of being the person who puts people on the secret list.
So now we have a situation where a journalist not even entering the US except being on a plane that flys through its airspace (not something he has any direct control over), can be stopped, and made to walk through places where his body is being scanned by these machines.... so you can detect anything he might be hiding....
How is this making us safer again? How many flights have flown since the last time this would have saved a single life? Are the people it would have caught still at large?
-Steve
April 28, 2009 10:44 PM
Alright that does not make you the TSA's customers. Nor does it make you our boss.
April 28, 2009 1:29 PM
---
Sounds like somebody needs a crash course in what it means to be a civil servant. That word "servant" is in there for a reason, because it means one who SERVES the public.
April 29, 2009 12:44 AM
George said...
The CNN segment you linked to clearly shows that the image the TSA is showing us is misleadingly small.
The picture comes from the manufacture L3. Here is the blog post that I snatched it up from.
Here is a good paper on the subject of Whole Body Scanning controversy. "Whole Body Imaging in Airport Scanners: Activate Privacy Filters to Achieve Security and Privacy" (pdf warning)
Technology: Obfuscation
“By themselves, both backscatter and millimetre-wave technologies produce highly detailed images, as illustrated by Figures 1 (at left), 2 and 3 (below). This has led to the popular conception of WBI as a “virtual strip search.” Developers and users of these technologies have recognized this as an issue that must be addressed. A number of algorithms or privacy (“modesty”) filters have been developed with the goal of reducing or eliminating the level of personal detail contained in the images displayed to screeners, while simultaneously highlighting objects carried on the person. Thus, a wide range of potential images may be presented to screeners, ranging from detailed and identifiable to generic and unidentifiable.”
The paper has a great conclusion as well.
“Whole Body Imaging technologies that incorporate strong privacy filters – rendering bodily images to mere outlines, to front-line screeners (Figures 5 and 6), can deliver privacy-protective security. When combined with appropriate viewing, usage and retention policies, privacy algorithms that obscure personal details, while still allowing potentially threatening concealed objects to be revealed, will allow WBI implementations to satisfy security requirements without sacrificing (and perhaps enhancing) passenger privacy. We believe that this positive-sum paradigm can, and should be, the end goal of such airport security passenger screening technologies – security and privacy, not one at the expense of the other.”
later,
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
April 29, 2009 5:26 AM
I gave you a chance to answer my question. I asked fo rthe legal and constitutional basis for this. You never answered. Now I will answer.
It is interesting how just by putting up a sign you claim you can violate our constitutional rights. You cannot. Your jurisdiction is limited.
Your signs are lies. You cannot conduct warrantless searches outside of the areas already established (searching people entering sterile or secure areas and searching luggage) simply because you put up a sign. You still need a warrant to do so.
Some of us have concealed carry permits. While we would be foolish to attempt to enter the sterile or secure areas as passengers with said permits we are allowed to walk around the ticketing area. We may be dropping off a friend and sticking around because the friend may run into a rogue TSO who will want to confiscate something valuable simply becuase "it's different." Your scanner now identifies us as criminals for doing absolutely nothing.
Your scanners are a violation of law and of the constitution. You have no legal or constitutional basis for doing this. These should be shut down and any TSO operating these should be arrested.
April 29, 2009 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...
"OK, passengers not customers, and show me some proof, research, what have you of info on the public giving money to TSA. I don't buy it."
TSA is funded by taxpayers. I can't imagine anyone seriously trying to dispute that.
April 27, 2009 5:56 PM
___________________________________
Alright that does not make you the TSA's customers. Nor does it make you our boss.
************
So what does it make us? The TSA is funded by money collected from taxes and the $2.50 fee that each passenger is charged when they fly.
When I am charged a fee for a service that makes me a customer. The money collected from my taxes makes you accountable to the American public.
April 29, 2009 11:34 AM
Although not conducted by the TSA another questionable search is that done by local law enforcement entitites of vehichles entering the airport. At least two airports, Boston-Logan and Los Angeles International, have checkpoints set-up on roadways leading into the airport. (In both cases I do not know if the location of the checkpoing is considered within airport boundaries.) The Massachusetts State Police handled the Boston-Logan checkpoint and the LAX Airport Police handle the LAX checkpoints. At LAX TSA personnel are at the checkpoints.
April 29, 2009 1:04 PM
“Whole Body Imaging technologies that incorporate strong privacy filters – rendering bodily images to mere outlines, to front-line screeners (Figures 5 and 6), can deliver privacy-protective security. When combined with appropriate viewing, usage and retention policies, privacy algorithms that obscure personal details, while still allowing potentially threatening concealed objects to be revealed, will allow WBI implementations to satisfy security requirements without sacrificing (and perhaps enhancing) passenger privacy. We believe that this positive-sum paradigm can, and should be, the end goal of such airport security passenger screening technologies – security and privacy, not one at the expense of the other.”
later,
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
April 29, 2009 5:26 AM
.......................
Tim, tell us how TSA will ensure that MMW images will only be screened by same sex operators.
Will all checkpoints have enough machines so only males go through one machine and so forth?
Or will TSA have their secluded officers dance in and out of the viewing room depending who is up next for screening?
Will minors be screened in this manner? If so how does TSA justify the viewing of a childs naked image?
The public has no confidence that TSA will use privacy filters.
When asked TSA proponents refused to be screened and have their MMW images posted to this blog (Nico) and this refusal created certainty that TSA was again playing fast and loose with the truth.
To put it plainly "we don't trust you"!
The need to hide the person viewing these images tells me that the degree of detail these machines create is very fine indeed and is no less than a physical strip search.
April 29, 2009 3:02 PM
RB said:
The need to hide the person viewing these images tells me that the degree of detail these machines create is very fine indeed and is no less than a physical strip search.The resolution heavily depends on both frequency and signal processing. With good signal processing you can resolve much less than 1mm and get near photographic quality. Scrambling the image except for alarm area makes it possible to only display alarm area(s).
April 30, 2009 2:02 PM
Miller said...
RB said:
The need to hide the person viewing these images tells me that the degree of detail these machines create is very fine indeed and is no less than a physical strip search.
............................
The resolution heavily depends on both frequency and signal processing. With good signal processing you can resolve much less than 1mm and get near photographic quality. Scrambling the image except for alarm area makes it possible to only display alarm area(s).
April 30, 2009 2:02 PM
..........................
You may be perfectly correct on this point, however nothing TSA has done has earned them my trust.
Why would TSA degrade the image in any manner and make their job a bit harder?
I think the privacy filters they mention only obscure a person face, yet all details of anatomy remain.
The use of STRIP SEARCH MACHINES exceed any reasonable search that must be conducted by TSA.
May 1, 2009 1:47 PM
Some of you people kill me. You think you have all these rights. The right to this, the right to that. WE ARE AT WAR! You are the same people that never served your country, and yet protest all wars and so on. Then when this country is attacked your out protesting the government because they didn't do anything. It is a shame that we allow people that never do anything for their country to cry the loudest. God forbid something make you miss your golf game and protesting. IF this helps keep people same than thank God. I wish that the government would make every student spend at least four years in the military. That way they would grow up and understand what really happens around the world and how lucky we really are to live in the U.S. If you don't like what the U.S. does to keep people safe and don't have a better idea then shut up. IF you want to keep crying about your rights then move to France, or move to some other country.
May 3, 2009 4:13 PM
Mike said...
Some of you people kill me. You think you have all these rights. The right to this, the right to that. WE ARE AT WAR! You are the same people that never served your country, and yet protest all wars and so on. Then when this country is attacked your out protesting the government because they didn't do anything. It is a shame that we allow people that never do anything for their country to cry the loudest. God forbid something make you miss your golf game and protesting. IF this helps keep people same than thank God. I wish that the government would make every student spend at least four years in the military. That way they would grow up and understand what really happens around the world and how lucky we really are to live in the U.S. If you don't like what the U.S. does to keep people safe and don't have a better idea then shut up. IF you want to keep crying about your rights then move to France, or move to some other country.
May 3, 2009 4:13 PM
.........................
So Mike, tell us a little about how you have served your country.
Thanks.
May 4, 2009 10:37 AM
Mike said:
Some of you people kill me. You think you have all these rights. The right to this, the right to that. WE ARE AT WAR! You are the same people that never served your country, and yet protest all wars and so on. Then when this country is attacked your out protesting the government because they didn't do anything. It is a shame that we allow people that never do anything for their country to cry the loudest.Mike, I served one hitch in the military and got out once it was completed. Please don't confuse motion with work. Much of what TSA does is security motion not work. I do protest what TSA does outside of the keeping weapons, incendiary devices, and explosives off of aircraft.
May 4, 2009 11:08 AM
Mike, I'm a war veteran, I have the campaign ribbons. I oppose everything about the TSA. They not only do not keep us safe from terrorists, they make us less safe. I believe in liberty, which is why I think your suggestion that everyone be required to spend four years in the military in order to learn to love obedience instead of liberty is an abomination. Yes, we are at war, the people of the United States versus the authoritarian mindset behind the TSA. The United States was founded on freedom, and if you want a police state there are plenty around the world for you to choose from. I'm sure North Korea would be very happy to have you.
May 4, 2009 1:00 PM
Mike, why do you have so much hatred of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Our rights do not disappear when we conduct a war. Regardless, we're not actually at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not done so for a long, long, time.
When you say that we are at war, are you thinking of the occupation of Iraq that begun after we overthrew their government and assassinated their leader? Or maybe our use of military force to combat criminal organizations in Afghanistan?
If you believe that the operations that our military are currently conducting constitute our being "at war" then you must believe that we have been "at war" nearly non-stop since entering Korea in the 1950's. Do you believe that our Constitution has been suspended since then?
Consider whether we were "at war" during these times: Korea (1950-53); China (1945-46, 1950-53); Guatemala (1950-53, 1967-69); Indonesia (1950-53); Cuba (1959-1961); Congo (1964); Peru (1965); Laos (1964-73); Vietnam (1961-73); Cambodia (1969-70); Lebanon (1983-84); Grenada (1983); Libya (1986); El Salvador (1980's); Nicaragua (1980's); Panama (1989); Bosnia (1995); Sudan (1998); Afganistan (1998, 2001-present); Yugoslavia (1999); Iraq (1991-1999, 2003-present).
Do you really think we've been at war almost non-stop since 1953, or do you find our present military operations to be more significant than all those others?
Which rights do you think we should give up while we're out maintaining and extending the reach of our empire?
Sir, I believe you are being used as a tool by those who profit from war. Please consider whether you believe your and my rights should be in the hands of war contractors.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
May 4, 2009 4:10 PM
Quote from Mike: "Some of you people kill me. You think you have all these rights. The right to this, the right to that. WE ARE AT WAR!""Being at war" is NOT a reason to suspend rights. It's a shame you don't believe in the Bill of Rights, and that apparently, it should be suspended because we're at war.
We're not under martial law. "We are at war" is a tired statement that is just an excuse to take rights away.
"You are the same people that never served your country, and yet protest all wars and so on. Then when this country is attacked your out protesting the government because they didn't do anything. It is a shame that we allow people that never do anything for their country to cry the loudest."Got any proof that the people you're bagging on haven't served their country, or is this just inflammatory blather? What have YOU done?
Keep in mind there are many ways to serve the country. There are many working in the Intelligence Community who are civilians yet are very much protecting the nation.
Put up or shut up.
"God forbid something make you miss your golf game and protesting. IF this helps keep people same than thank God."Those silly Founding Fathers. They were idiots for protesting taxation without representation and other things the Crown did. Why didn't they just go along with it? Don't they remember everything that King George did for them?
"I wish that the government would make every student spend at least four years in the military. That way they would grow up and understand what really happens around the world and how lucky we really are to live in the U.S."I've been to many places in the world and know that we're lucky. It's why I'm voicing my opinion to ensure that we don't become like those government's we've gone to war against.
"If you don't like what the U.S. does to keep people safe and don't have a better idea then shut up. IF you want to keep crying about your rights then move to France, or move to some other country."If you don't believe in freedom of speech (hence you're telling people like me to shut up) and other rights our Constitution guarantees (note that is different than GRANTING as the Constitution is a LIMIT on the government - not the people), then perhaps you're the one who doesn't fit in America?
I hear North Korea's nice this time of year. They even do 10 year military requirements. Look how great that country is!
Robert
May 4, 2009 4:51 PM
@Mike: If you don't like what the U.S. does to keep people safe and don't have a better idea then shut up.
Please explain your basis for believing that what the TSA does keeps people safe. The Transportation Department, the Government Accountability Office, and the Homeland Security Department themselves have conducted many undercover tests and audits of screening effectiveness. What I've seen publicly reported from these tests gives me very little confidence in the effectiveness of the TSA's airport screening. The TSA is definitely "doing something," but that too often seems to be nothing more than security theater based on the notion that inconvenience and bullying somehow adds up to effective security.
Yes, I'm aware that we're "at war." I'm also aware of the serious threat from individuals who seek to use terrorist tactics to kill Americans. So I do want our government to take necessary, appropriate, and effective measures to protect us from that threat. However, I also want our government to respect our rights and our privacy, and to follow the laws and restrictions that apply to everyone. The concepts of due process and equal protection under the law (which notably includes the right of people to know the laws they're accountable for obeying) are uniquely American, and presumably part of what the TSA is supposed to be protecting from enemies who want to destroy America.
My complaint here isn't that the TSA is fighting the war and doing things they claim are "keeping people safe." My complaint is that they seem to place themselves above the law by operating under secret rules that are arbitrarily enforced and capriciously interpreted, and by demonstrating contempt for our rights and our privacy. I would certainly be willing to sacrifice a certain amount of my liberty and privacy if I had confidence that I was getting effective protection in exchange. But judging from the reported results of the tests and audits, the TSA doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of "keeping people safe." So I do not hesitate to express my objection to paying such a high price for so little real benefit. That is not something we should accept.
The previous administration seemed to strongly believe that "protecting America" somehow requires our own government to demolish much of what makes America worth protecting. That administration created the TSA, which apparently continues to embody this approach to fighting the Global War On Terror. We have a new president who has affirmed our commitment to the "American ideals," a commitment that seems entirely at odds with how the TSA continues its apparent goal of making America less free but not necessarily more safe. So I think it's about time for some accountability.
May 5, 2009 2:10 PM
Mike said:
"WE ARE AT WAR!... IF you want to keep crying about your rights then move to France, or move to some other country."
Let me ask you this Mike.
Would you say the same thing if our current President decided to make illegal the sale of guns in an effort to prevent them from getting in the hands of terrorists?
Or how about limiting free speech such that disagreeing with our President became a crime?
May 5, 2009 5:14 PM
To RB.
I served in the Air Force. Great Grand Father in WWI, Grand Father and His Brother and many other family in WWII. Uncle in Viet Nam, so on. I have numerous friends still serving. Same I guess as most proud families in the U.S. And yes some friends and family never came home alive.
To Ayn R Kellie
Quote “I think your suggestion that everyone be required to spend four years in the military in order to learn to love obedience instead of liberty is an abomination.”
To learn about their country, what must be done to keep it safe, and yes obedience. In your response you sound like you either hated the military, or you think we shouldn’t have a military. So if we need more people to defend our country then what. We ask for volunteers. What if no one volunteers? We do away with the military? Will you fight if your country ask or will you go to Canada. I bet your the type that would fight only when you feel it is just, meaning you wouldn't fight period. You also just proved my point above. Your freedom was paid for in blood, and yes everyone should have to contribute to their freedom!
To Phil:
Quote: “When you say that we are at war, are you thinking of the occupation of Iraq that begun after we overthrew their government and assassinated their leader? Or maybe our use of military force to combat criminal organizations in Afghanistan?”
Would you tell my friends and other Americans that have died that? Let me ask you this.
Between the first Iraq and second Iraq we had a treaty with Saddam. No fly zones and so on. On a daily basis that treaty was broken with our troops being engaged. If you served in the Military you would know that this is an act of war. We are not a weak nation. We are a Super Power. We have to protect our interest. If that means policing the earth and controlling the oil than so be it. What happens when the oil runs out and we have no new technology. Do you think we should have left Afghanistan and Iraq alone? War contractors? I know you must have these contractors along with soldiers to accomplish safety and freedom.
To Robert Johnson:
There are many ways to serve your country. Have you done any of them? What is your master plan for keeping our country safe. Because 9-11 is now in the past I guess terrorism is gone. There were just no more attacks planned, right. Are you that naive to think that since 9-11 there has been no more attempted attacks? The reason we have not had a major attack since is not for lack of them trying, it is because of these very tools you all complain about.
To George:
Same above applies. From what you seen or studies, the TSA and all departments suck at keeping us safe. We will have an attack in the future. The question will be how bad. Yet we have not had a major attack since 9-11 and it is not from lack of trying. You are right the Government should do more, but how can they when people like you are complaining on what they have already done. You complain, yet never provide a better solution. So tell us your master plan that will keep all your rights and keep us safe forever. Or do you think we should abandon all efforts, pull our troops back and everyone will love us. Question: Were there attacks against the U.S. before the first Iraq invation? If so why? Ask yourself that and accept that if you live in the U.S. you will be hated and attacks will happen. It doesn’t matter what you do, people will find a reason. For the Fanatic Muslims, we help the Jews after WWII. We are a country of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but we help Jews who have been at war since the exodus. That’s all the Fanatic Muslims need to carry out their holly war is the helping of the Jews, or the fact that the majority of us are Christians and Jews. Are you going to reason with them and stop the attacks?
For a final note:
We are a dominant power that tolerates more than any other through history. The Romans, Greeks, and so on would have destroyed and conquered most who have done or said certain things towards our country. We are tolerant, but it should only be to a point. Being the top dog means you will have to fight to maintain that from time to time. I think we have been very nice compared to most in history. Because of our tolerance, which is our way as a country, we have to have agencies and devices to defend us from those who live their lives to destroy us. It will mean that we will have to sacrifice some things. The only other two options are to destroy all who desire to destroy us, or sit back and let Americans die and pretend we are not at war. WAR is an attack or attempted attack upon us. This happens everyday! For those of you who think that we are at peace, then I guess you really do live in a shell. For those of you who think we should do nothing, that’s is why you are not in charge, because Americans would die.
May 6, 2009 4:47 PM
One more reply:
Quote:"Let me ask you this Mike.
Would you say the same thing if our current President decided to make illegal the sale of guns in an effort to prevent them from getting in the hands of terrorists?"
If the country was being attacked by terrorist using shotguns bought at the local gun store than yes. If this sacrifice saved American lives than I would make that sacrifice in a heart beat!!! Wouldn’t You?
May 6, 2009 4:54 PM
MIKE, you define the words feckless hack. As an officer who served this country in TWO wars, I will continue to question this government (and any other admin that comes along).
This technology is absurd. By the time it detected a real threat it would be too late, and let's play devil's advocate-let's say it does work from curb to cockpit-what about the drive up the curb? No matter what you do there will always be soft targets. Better to have an educated population than more government workfare cr@p...
May 7, 2009 2:59 PM
Mike,
I have served my country in the IC. I'm not saying which agency as I still support it as a contractor. Suffice it to say I actively support the mission.
It really is a shame to see you so willing to throw away the freedoms that you admit many people have spilt blood for. If someone's using shotguns bought at the local shop to promote terror, you don't punish the shop owner and everyone else that complied with the law - you punish the people using the guns improperly!
There are plenty of ways to secure airports without infringing on people's rights. They've been listed ad infinitum in this blog over the last 18 or so months. They're there. I've stated my ideas and many here have stated theirs. I'm not going to restate them because you showed up late to the party.
You can make the "we're at war" and unlike the Romans, Greeks, etc, blah blah arguments all you want. Those countries fell and what remains are mere shadows of what they were in ancient times. The fact is that we're the US. We're different from tyrants. We let people say what they feel. We don't oppress women or persecute people who believe or worship differently.
We don't maintain who we are if we give up who we are in the process. As a friend of mine states, "You can't uphold American ideals with unAmerican actions."
I'm not saying we stick our heads in the sand when defending ourselves. However, it is possible to defend ourselves and while maintaining our ideals. We haven't been doing that over the last 8 years.
Like I said, if you want to be one of those that trades liberty for safety, head over to some place like North Korea. They have very little crime and it's a safe place to live - as long as you don't cross the government. Ask the people there if they'd give up "safety" for freedom and see what they'd say. I think we know.
We can never be 100% safe. It's part of the risk of living in a free society. Risk can be mitigated, but the question is where does the tradeoff in liberties become unacceptable? TSA seems to think that there is no instance where the tradeoff becomes unacceptable. Otherwise, we would be talking about devices like this and strip searches just to ride a plane.
Robert
May 7, 2009 5:03 PM
Mike, it seems that you have a very loose concept of what freedom means. You think we can all be free as long as the chains say "USA". If the USA is a country of liberty then you cannot teach people about their country through mandatory military service, the obedicence you so desire.
You are right that I believe we should fight when the war is just. Which means I believe we shouldn't fight when the war is unjust, a concept you seem to have a problem with. Why do you so strongly support fighting unjust wars? And how can someone advance freedom by advancing servitude? Your jingoism is getting in the way of the concept of liberty.
I will always fight for liberty. I will never fight for statism. If the country demands (not asks) that I fight for an ujust war, I will neither serve nor flee. You seem to think that the only options are the cowardice of submissiveness or the cowardice of retreat. I will fight for liberty.
It has been shown that when the country is actually threatened people do line up in droves to volunteer. It is only when the war is political instead that a draft is resorted to. What makes you think that wars that do not defend our liberty are wars that defend our liberty?
May 7, 2009 5:43 PM
Mike, you didn't answer any of my questions. I'm happy to have this conversation with you, and I'll gladly answer your questions as soon as you answer mine. I'm not trying to pick on you, just trying to get a better understanding of your opinions, which seem to differ from mine. If we agreed, there would be nothing to discuss.
When you say that we are at war, are you thinking of the occupation of Iraq that begun after we overthrew their government and assassinated their leader? Or maybe our use of military force to combat criminal organizations in Afghanistan?
Are you aware that our Constitution grants only Congress the ability to declare war? When was the last time you are aware of Congress declaring war?
If you believe that the operations that our military are currently conducting constitute our being "at war" then you must believe that we have been "at war" nearly non-stop since entering Korea in the 1950's. Do you really think we've been at war almost non-stop since 1953, or do you find our present military operations to be more significant than all those others I listed?
Which rights do you think we should give up while we're out maintaining and extending the reach of our empire?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
May 7, 2009 6:01 PM
Mike said...
"Some of you people kill me. You think you have all these rights. The right to this, the right to that."
Yes, Mike, I think that. They taught me that in Junior High School Civics, and I still believe it. Notwithstanding the attempts of some government agencies to establish a police state.
"WE ARE AT WAR!"
With whom, please? There are so many undeclared wars going on, it's hard to know what you mean.
"You are the same people that never served your country, and yet protest all wars and so on. Then when this country is attacked your out protesting the government because they didn't do anything."
Any you know this ... how?
"It is a shame that we allow people that never do anything for their country to cry the loudest."
No, Mike, it's not a shame. It's what TRUE patriots fight and die for. What's a shame is: you don't seem to understand that.
"God forbid something make you miss your golf game and protesting."
I don't play golf, Mike.
"I wish that the government would make every student spend at least four years in the military."
I think everyone should spend a little time in government service. Doesn't have to be military service. Any sort of government service is fine. It's a nice way to show one's appreciation for the country.
"If you don't like what the U.S. does to keep people safe and don't have a better idea then shut up."
No, Mike. It isn't "my country right or wrong". The correct quotation is "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." (Senator Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872)
"IF you want to keep crying about your rights then move to France, or move to some other country."
No, thank you, Mike. In France one is guilty until proven innocent. I like it here in the U.S. where . . . . .
oh, wait . . . .
Irish
May 7, 2009 6:42 PM
Mike said...
"One more reply:
Quote:"Let me ask you this Mike.
Would you say the same thing if our current President decided to make illegal the sale of guns in an effort to prevent them from getting in the hands of terrorists?"
If the country was being attacked by terrorist using shotguns bought at the local gun store than yes. If this sacrifice saved American lives than I would make that sacrifice in a heart beat!!! Wouldn’t You?"
No. I would not give up one guaranteed freedom for any reason. I won't bargain with terrorists or traitors.
Irish
May 7, 2009 6:55 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home