Safety & Privacy Concerns Regarding the Millimeter Wave Whole Body Imager
We've received many questions on the safety and privacy of the Millimeter Wave Whole Body Imager. As you can see from the chart above, the Millimeter Wave emits a smaller dose than simply walking outside on a sunny day.I’ll quote a few noteworthy items from the Privacy Impact Assessment for TSA Whole Body Imaging. (PIA) I suggest you read the entire assessment for more information.
The Millimeter wave technology uses non-ionizing radio frequency energy in the millimeter wave spectrum to generate an image based on energy reflected from the body. The energy projected by the system is 100,000 times less than a cell phone transmission (.00000597 mW/cm2 for millimeter wave technology compared to 37.5 mW/cm2 for a cell phone)
The images created by whole body imaging technologies are not equivalent to photography and do not present sufficient details that the image could be used for personal identification.
While the equipment has the capability of collecting and storing an image, the image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators.
The TSA is not the first organization to use Millimeter wave technology. It's currently used in various government locations across the United States, as well as international aviation and mass transit environments including:
Domestic locations Federal Court House (VA), Colorado Springs Court House (CO), Department of Corrections facility (PA), Los Angeles County Court House (CA), Cook County Court House (IL)
International airports U.K., Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Thailand, Netherlands
The results in the first week of use at LAX and JFK speak for themselves.
LAX: 544 passengers were screened from 4/18 to 4/22 using Millimeter Wave technology. Only 18 passengers chose not to undergo the screening.
JFK: 1212 passengers were screened from 4/17 to 4/22 using Millimeter Wave technology. Only 33 passengers chose not to undergo the screening.
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
-----Update 5/25/2008-----7:00 PM EST-----
These are the signs that are displayed in front of the millimeter wave whole body imagers.
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
3:10 PM
Subscribe in a reader
133 Comments:
Bob, please post MMW images from one of TSA machines as has been requested many, many times.
Front and Rear please.
April 24, 2008 3:48 PM
two things:
1) post some real images of what a TSO will see when both a man and a woman walk through the detectors.
2) I think I will opt for a pat down as I no longer trust any initial assertion that X isn't harmful. (DDT and saccharin come to mind as safe at one time but not after further scientific research)
April 24, 2008 3:50 PM
Bob,
You didn´t really address any of my privacy concerns in this post. Telling me that the technology is adopted elsewhere and that few people refused it does not make me feel good about the frontal pictures of women I saw. I would like to be assured that:
1. Passengers are well informed that they have the option to refuse the scan, and will not be submitted to any extra hassle other than the pat down when they refuse. I suspect the reason that most people agree to the scans is because they think they will not be allowed to fly or will be mistreated and super searched if they refuse.
2. Passengers are well informed as to the nature of the images generated. I also believe that front and back scans of men and women should be posted on the scanner. And please choose random, normal, pictures (preferably of yourselves, taken that week), not the one you find least offensive of all.
3. Faces will be blurred - could you please provide a reference to the technology used for this process? It is not mentioned in the assessment document you provide a link to. Please do not answer this is classified. There is no reason for this technology to be classified. Terrorists cannot use face blurring for anything.
4. Officers who use these images inappropriately will be prosecuted. Please also provide procedures that will be adopted to ensure these officers are behaving. For example, will their activities be filmed, and will they be searched for cameras before entering their area?
5. The scans will ALWAYS be optional, and not become mandatory after a "trial" phase. I still remember when removing shoes was optional, and can see this new procedure going in the same direction.
6. In a decent amount of this trial phase you will publish actual data about how effective this technology is in detecting things not found though other procedures. Please remember that this costs a lot of our tax money, and many of us doubt if it is useful.
April 24, 2008 4:01 PM
Same old, same old.
Were the pax at LAX and JFK shown images, front and rear, of what the screener would be seeing before they decided to opt for the virtual strip search?
If not, your number are meaningless.
April 24, 2008 4:09 PM
Again, the TSA's logic doesn't work. I don't want to hear that only a few people opted out so it must be great. What if they had other reasons for not opting out (they didn't know they could, they weren't told they could, they were afraid to, etc)? The TSA does have an image of retaliating against passengers.
More importantly, can you share the third party tests that prove the safety of these devices? Are we sure they don't cause cancer, tumors, etc? Are they more safe or less safe than the current X-Ray technology or metal detecting technology used? How do they compare to the amount of radiation from a microwave, etc? That's the kind of data that tells us if its safe or not.
The TSA needs to move beyond PR as evidence and start actually trying to convince the American flying public (their bosses) with logic and fact.
April 24, 2008 4:33 PM
Resolution is roughly 1mm or .04 inches (1/32) approximately. It would be a grainy image if it weren't blurred by software and yes it does have the resolution to be able to identify people.
TSA please stop urinating on my shoes and telling me it is raining. That's a double insult. Lying while expecting me to be naieve enough to believe it.
Most likely they will classify the images as SSI so as to not be required to show those images. The man behind the curtain sure yucks it up at our expense.
April 24, 2008 4:37 PM
I have been told that passengers undergoing this screening must remove their wallets from their pockets when stepping into this machine.
Is that true?
Where are passengers supposed to put their wallets as they go through?
Are they allowed to leave the machine as soon as they see something happening to their valuables?
April 24, 2008 4:41 PM
The posted image is NOT a chart. At best, it is a cartoon. It provides absolutely no actual information.
April 24, 2008 4:51 PM
I saw the frontal female picture from the other thread! You can identify everything from the type of underwear, bra and breast shapes including nipples. I will NOT submit to being strip searched to enter an airplane.
April 24, 2008 4:59 PM
Is the only alternative presented to passengers refusing this device (who want to fly) a pat down?
April 24, 2008 5:04 PM
The numbers that "speak for themselves" are meaningless without more information. For example, were the passengers who agreed to millimeter wave scanning told something like "If you don't want us to pat down your body, we'll let you go through that nice friendly scanner over there. It will take an inoffensive picture that won't violate your privacy at all."? Or were they told "You can let Officer Buster (or Brunhilde) pat down your body, or let that machine over there give you an electronic strip search. If you want to fly today you'll have to choose one or the other."?
Unless the choice is an informed one, without the sort of spin we've seen in the TSA's blog posts, the numbers are meaningless. If they don't know that the millimeter wave scanner amounts to a strip search, they likely will choose it over being groped by Buster or Brunhilde.
The statements about millimeter wave scanners being deployed at courthouses and prisons are more frightening than persuasive. First, the Bush administration seems to be very keen on strip searching people. Second, it merely promotes the belief that the TSA treats its "customers" just like prisoners and criminals. Not very convincing PR, I'm afraid.
In the end it doesn't matter what we think of it. If we choose to fly, we also choose to be strip searched and/or to have our belongings confiscated at the whim of Buster or Brunhilde. Presumably we should just accept that and stop complaining, since it's the "new normal" in the (perpetual) Global War On Terror. But if that actually ever happens, I think it will be a very tragic day for the United States of America.
April 24, 2008 5:07 PM
TSA, why should we the traveling public trust you with anything? We've seen our luggage go from reasonably secure to insecure since you took over luggage screening with no one responsible for our luggage after we give it to TSA. We've got a liquids policy that defies science on several fronts. We've got out of control (possibly even criminal) TSO screeners doing pretty much anything they want to do to the traveling public all in the name of security and now you want to foist this technology on us?
Give us a break and for once in your miserable existance be honest with the traveling public. TSA you've rightfully earned the scorn and distrust by the American people. You've got to come clean with the American people on this and several other issues.
April 24, 2008 5:20 PM
I find it very interesting that, embedded the PIA document you linked to in your original post, Bob, is the exact same image that is posted in the 'Catch a Wave' thread. While it's nice to know where that image came from originally, neither address' the issue that was of primary concern in the 'Catch a Wave' thread-the FRONTAL images.
I am also quite disappointed that you would even try to use the #of passengers screened by MMW WBI @ LAX & JFK; surely you've been doing this long enough to know that unless you can provde, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those passengers:
1. Knew what their images would look like, front AND back in advance and
2. Knew screening by this technology was voluntary
these statistics wouldn't carry any weight w/your very skeptical readers.
Try again, please, Bob.
April 24, 2008 5:24 PM
Unfortunately I don't live anywhere near to these new machines. If I did, I would prepare pamphlets with the actual front and back pictures I have seen and an explanation saying the scan is not mandatory. I would then distribute them to people entering the security line. I think this experiment would certainly increase the number of persons refusing very significantly.
Any volunteers living in the LA or NY area???
April 24, 2008 5:27 PM
The image that is out there of a woman scanned with a “backscatter” X-ray, like that which is reportedly being used in Phoenix, is extremely detailed and revealing. There is NO WAY you can spin that. I can easily imagine an operator viewing something that piques their interest (and I do not mean for security reasons) and giggling or gawking, somehow capturing/saving the image for later viewing, telling a coworker “hey, check this out” or the operator leaving the station or asking a coworker to try to see what the person looks like. You can’t guarantee this won’t happen. You can’t deny it WILL happen.
April 24, 2008 5:28 PM
Found this CBS Story on the millimeter wave tech at Phoenix http://tinyurl.com/345vqc The image is small, but you see a frontal shot of a man and can make "see" just about everything. I don't particularly care if the screener can't see my face while it's happening, this crosses the line.
April 24, 2008 5:54 PM
Bob, now that you've been caught with your hand in the proverbial cookie jar, how are you guys going to spin this to your advantage? Tell us it is security at any cost? Tell us that it is SSI? Tell us to shut up and that it is for our own good? Perhaps tell us that you civilians have no idea of who you are dealing with? This is disgusting on the part of TSA.
April 24, 2008 6:01 PM
Some very easy questions were not answered:
Where are the front and back pictures?
Are there useful, clear and understandable informations at the airports that explain these machines?
(with all pro and cons)
Where to put and protect your personal belongings? (CC, Cash, ID's ...)
What about cleaning of the machine?
Are you allowed to stop a running screening?
Will the doors be locked?
Who is responsible for stolen items while you are in the box?
How long does the screening last?
You see, simple questions that were not answered!
So no useful information in your new blog entry.
Try again....
April 24, 2008 6:04 PM
You have entered a "No Fly Zone" with this lame PR spin. Post full frontal and rear scans. Ask newspapers around the country to publish them as a public service. Run TV commercials with the images at 6:00 pm during the news, or perhaps during family shows and ask for input from parents on having their children subjected to these scans.
This is a horrible invasion of privacy. The potential for mis-use is significant.
April 24, 2008 6:07 PM
Bob, I find the numbers coming out of LA and NY also to be misleading. How many of those people understood what they were getting into? You may have posted signs, but how many languages were they in? There are many people in both LA and New York who do not speak English well or at all, either because they are tourists or because they are recent immigrants or because they just don't. Foreigners in a foreign land don't tend to raise much of a ruckus when they're trying to get from point A to point B, choosing instead to go through the path of least resistance. What were the numbers coming out of Phoenix? Your strip search machine is in the Southwest Airlines terminal there.
Or perhaps the TSA deterred people from requesting pat down searches rather than virtual strip searches by making them wait. Let's see, I have 5 minutes to get to the gate, I know I'm not carrying anything and I'll pass this search with flying colors. I don't like it, but unless I want to wait 15 minutes not to be stripped down by a machine and miss my flight I'm going to have to put my dignity on a shelf and just do it.
As for posting what other countries do, bully for them. As sovereign nations they have a right to do what they see fit to do. If we as US Citizens choose to travel to those countries then we also choose to abide by those countries' rules. They do not answer to the American people. The US government (including the TSA), at least in theory, does. So far, at least from what I've seen here, we're telling you no -- and in no uncertain terms.
The fact that a few courthouses have chosen to try these scanners out does not make them any more palatable to the public at large. You cited 5 courthouses where they are in place. It will not be long before at least 5 privacy lawsuits are filed against those courthouses. It should take only slightly longer for the lawsuits claiming injury to show up.
I don't envy your job, Bob. You have the thankless task of trying to make BS smell like roses and no matter what you do it's still gonna stink. Get your bosses to come clean with us, give us the honest facts and information we want to know without the spin and let's have a real dialog here.
April 24, 2008 6:14 PM
Found a screenshot from CBS piece. It's a grainy video capture. http://twitpic.com/jx1 In the video, it's actually a 3D image the twirls around. Don't know if this is the same example as mentioned in the text below....
"Reporters were only shown an example of a female body image, which was a three-dimensional image of a very fit woman in her brassiere and underwear. TSA describes this as similar to a "fuzzy photo negative."
Privacy advocates say the images are more graphic than that.
"If you want to see a naked body, this is a naked body," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on technology and liberty.
Steinhardt also received a demonstration of the new machine, which he says shows the same graphic image as the backscatters.
"I continue to believe that these are virtual strip searches," Steinhardt said. "If Playboy published them, there would be politicians out there saying they're pornographic."
April 24, 2008 6:19 PM
Here's another photo:
http://tinyurl.com/5mwko9
and another:
http://tinyurl.com/6knzqj
and the sign requiring you to take everything out of your pockets:
http://tinyurl.com/5nhshm
April 24, 2008 6:33 PM
Bob,
Could you please answer all points posted at 4:01 PM, not only one?
Also, I thank you for posting a link to the modified version of the frontal view of a woman that the TSA finds acceptable. Could you please show us the study that determines that this image is considered acceptable by the public?
I do not find it acceptable at all, and in a fast study here in my workplace have determined that no women who have seen this image and 60% of men who have would prefer this to a pat down. I imagine my study group is smaller and less randomly chosen than yours, so I would very much appreciate seeing your data.
April 24, 2008 6:47 PM
More propaganda and lies from the TSA.
Where is the frontal unadulterated image? Where are the hard numbers from an independent source for the emissions from both backscatter and millimeter wave machines?
For that matter, where is your privacy act statement?
If you showed a full, un-obscured image to each participant of what they would be seen as to the operator, I'm sure your rate of refusal would skyrocket.
Good job TSA - keep deceiving the traveling public. When are you going to stop wasting money on this nonsense and invest in technology that will let us leave our shoes on and bring liquids with us?
April 24, 2008 7:12 PM
No, Bob, you do not post signs. You physically HAND your victims a picture - signs are useless, the TSA knows that, so don't say that people are informed because you've posted signs.
You guys just keep digging yourselves a deeper and deeper hole. The good thing about that is that one day it will collapse upon you.
April 24, 2008 8:20 PM
Hmmm... I've noticed Japan's on the list. You've put up a very high bar to compare yourself to in that case.
America: Arrive at security screening at least one hour before departure in order to get to your flight on time.
Japan: Arrive at security screening 15 minutes before departure, be on the plane in 5 minutes.
Not a pretty picture.
April 24, 2008 8:36 PM
"There is a sign located in plain view in front of the machine with an image and another really large sign in plain view explaining that it’s optional. "
Bob, would these signs you talk about be near the ones that state that ID is required to enter the checkpoint? Thats another TSA lie isn't it?
Where are the front and back images that have been requested. You guys already have said that they are non-offensive so lets have'em.
April 24, 2008 10:24 PM
TSA has apparently mis-respresented exactly how the images from the MMW WBI appear. Otherwise they should have been happy to promptly provide images as has been asked for.
I usually am against actions from organizations like the ACLU but in this case I dearly hope someone from one of these organizations will take action. If they do I will get my checkbook out and pay my share.
DHS/TSA has done more in its short lifetime to errode civil rights and cause harm to the constitution than any other agency in recent times. Yes we need security but not at this cost!
I have and will continue to let my elected members of congress know that I find what TSA is doing is unacceptable. I ask others to join me and make so much noise that ignoring this problem will be impossible.
My goal is for Bob and all the other DHS/TSA people out looking for a job because this agency has been shut down,
April 24, 2008 10:38 PM
Dear Blog Team,
The demonstrations about imaging technology only shows an image of a man from the rear as proof that frontal images will not show any intimate details. To further support the promise that intimate details are not shown, the viewing screen used by the TSA is carefully protected from view by the public. Given the track record of the TSA on "just trust us" issues, do you really feel yet another "just trust us but don't verify" is a way to increase public trust in the TSA? What measures are being taken to ensure that images from your new advanced technologies are not overly invasive and do not ever leave the TSA?
April 24, 2008 10:39 PM
Would you please post a MMW images of George Bush, his wife and daughters? How about yours, Bob? And all the top level TSA officers too. For that matter, let's post MMW images of all TSOs at the airports using these machines, and we'll see how long it lasts then.
This is a horrible invasion of privacy and I don't see how it can be at all legal or constitutional to tell innocent people that they must either be viewed naked or be felt up by a TSO just to get on a plane. Disgusting!
April 24, 2008 10:48 PM
Bob, I assume Kippie is paying you enough to take the heat from your fellow citizens because they are too afraid to take the heat. Actually, that translates into $149K per year in DC (capped, of course).
You people just don't get it. We, THE PEOPLE, are fed up with your fertilizer. Take out tax dollars and shove them up the posterior of the MWW.
Why are you afraid to publish the full frontal pictures of one of your colleagues that appeared in the LA Times last week?
April 25, 2008 12:06 AM
OK, I have read the Privacy Impact Assessment for this device. I have had as much, or more, experience in government that anyone in the TSA. (TSA, you'll just have to accept that on faith, unless you are presently tapping my phone and internet connection.)
This is the most poorly written PIA I have ever seen. I was going to say that you should be ashamed, but, since the TSA is not accountable, shame isn't even in your vocabulary.
Kip, I will fight you at the checkpoint. I will fight you in court. I will fight you in the halls of Congress. Kip, before I am done with you, I will be your worst nightmare. I guarantee it.
April 25, 2008 12:17 AM
Blogger Bob said…
There is a sign located in plain view in front of the machine with an image and another really large sign in plain view explaining that it’s optional. Passengers have been allowed to request a pat down in lieu of walking through the metal detector since the beginning, so I doubt this will cause much of a fuss.
Blogger Bob, do they have these at your airport?
Here is the wording for the sign that tells people they can opt out. I found it at the LA Times site.
21st Century Technology
Security Innovation Privacy
TSA is deploying Whole Body Imaging equipment at this checkpoint. The Whole Body Imager uses millimeter technology to detect metallic and non-metallic threats.
If you are directed to the Whole Body Imager but do not wish to be screened by the Whole Body Imaging equipment, notify the Transportation Security Officer and you will instead continue screening with alternative procedures such as a pat down.
Addition information about the Whole Body Imaging technology is available upon request and at www.TSA.gov
As you will notice the wording is far from informative. It says the device can detect metallic and non-metallic threats, but it does not say that the screener can see your boobs. Strip down to your birthday suit and I can do the same thing with my naked eyes. (no pun intended)
Here is the wording for the sign with the picture.
Procedures for Millimeter Wave Portal
REMOVE EVERYTHING from your pockets before entering.
Put items in the security bin or carry-on luggage.
This includes all paper, plastic items, pens and wallets.
Safety Information
Millimeter wave technology is safe for all travelers including children and pregnant women. The radio frequency energy it transmits is 10,000 times less than an average cell phone.
Please note the picture is NOT one from the MMW device, instead it is a disco man with his pockets turned inside out. I really expected somewhere on the sign for it to say "Keep on Truckin!!"
Blogger Bob, I really am hoping that your airport does not have one of these machines and you called an airport that does and asked them if any of the signs had a picture on it and they were confused what you meant or that the LA Times just did not run a photo of the sign you mentioned.
If there is a third sign that does show a REAL picture of a scanned body, please post it. BTW in order to believe that the sign is in place, please make the photograph so we can see some background. Sorry I don’t trust your management not to send you a dummied up photo.
April 25, 2008 2:14 AM
Whoa, Blogger Bob, hold the cell phone a sec. According to the PDF document and what you repeated on your blog post;
"The Millimeter wave technology uses non-ionizing radio frequency energy in the millimeter wave spectrum to generate an image based on energy reflected from the body. The energy projected by the system is 100,000 times less than a cell phone transmission (.00000597 mW/cm2 for millimeter wave technology compared to 37.5 mW/cm2 for a cell phone)
Now just yesterday that number was 10,000 (TEN THOUSAND) not 100,000 (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND).
The 10,000 number is the one stated on your Broke Disco Stu sign, it is also the number stated on this web TSA web page.
What is the correct number? And show your work.
April 25, 2008 3:15 AM
Anonymous said...
Resolution is roughly 1mm or .04 inches (1/32) approximately. It would be a grainy image if it weren't blurred by software and yes it does have the resolution to be able to identify people.
TSA please stop urinating on my shoes and telling me it is raining. That's a double insult. Lying while expecting me to be naieve enough to believe it.
Most likely they will classify the images as SSI so as to not be required to show those images. The man behind the curtain sure yucks it up at our expense.
If you have a problem with someone urinating on your shoes, you may want to get some of these.
April 25, 2008 3:25 AM
Having seen the front pictures of these scans, I have decided I will refuse them, however, I can understand some people may prefer them to being patted. It is thus imperative that we get an assurance from the TSA that the scans will ALWAYS be optional, and not become mandatory in the near future.
Also, I think the British way of doing the scans deals much better with privacy concerns. Instead of having someone unseen looking at your scan, and having the person being scanned in front of everyone, they send the persons selected to a private room with a same sex officer. The officer then does the scan in and analyzes it in front of the scanned person. If I were to undergo this scan, I would much rather be able to see the person analyzing it then have them hidden and possibly up to seedy activity in a "remote location".
Summing up: I suggest the TSA assure us scans will always be optional, and do them privately, where the person can see his own image, the way the British officers do it.
April 25, 2008 6:02 AM
Bob, can you help me out? When dealing with physiological effects of radiation, it's more common to use specific absorption rate (SAR) rather than power per area. SAR is measured in W/kg--the amount of power absorbed by a given amount of tissue.
As I recall, cell phones emit in the 0.3 - 1 W range. If I take your 37.5 mW/cm2 estimate, this implies a cell phone held 0.8 - 1.5 cm away from the head (i.e., 1 W divided by 4*pi*r^2 for 37.5 mW/cm2 gives a radius of 1.5 cm). So I guess that's a reasonable estimate of power, but it still doesn't address the SAR.
What's the SAR of the millimeter wave scanner? Alternatively, can you give me the FCC grantee code and product code for the device? Then I can just look it up in the FCC database (gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/).
April 25, 2008 9:31 AM
As recommended, I read the PIA, and I have a nitpick ...
Under item 7, "Principle of Security", DHS notes that millimeter wave images are "transmitted in a proprietary format that cannot be deciphered without the proprietary technology." With all respect, this is "security by obscurity" at its finest; it assumes that the images are secure because the format used to transmit the images is "secret" (or "proprietary"). Secret formats rarely remain secret for long; eventually, someone will figure them out, and then your defense is blown. (Look at how easily proprietary formats for music and video are broken on a daily basis.)
It would be better if the transmitted images, even if they are in non-obvious proprietary formats, were also encrypted using
well-tested, well-analyzed encryption protocols (of which there are many).
April 25, 2008 9:49 AM
Anonymous said... I think I will opt for a pat down…April 24, 2008 3:50 PM
By all means. Since the beginning, you have always been able to request a full body pat down.
Anonymous said... Passengers are well informed that they have the option to refuse the scan, and will not be submitted to any extra hassle other than the pat down when they refuse. I suspect the reason that most people agree to the scans is because they think they will not be allowed to fly or will be mistreated and super searched if they refuse. April 24, 2008 4:01 PM
There is a sign located in plain view in front of the machine with an image and another really large sign in plain view explaining that it’s optional. Passengers have been allowed to request a pat down in lieu of walking through the metal detector since the beginning, so I doubt this will cause much of a fuss.
Ned said... Is the only alternative presented to passengers refusing this device (who want to fly) a pat down? April 24, 2008 5:04 PM
Yes.
Anonymous said... The image that is out there of a woman scanned with a “backscatter” X-ray, like that which is reportedly being used in Phoenix, is extremely detailed and revealing. There is NO WAY you can spin that. April 24, 2008 5:28 PM
That is what the original backscatter image looked like prior to being adjusted. It is very revealing and the public did not accept it. Therefore, the TSA changed it to look like this.
Bob
TSA Eos Blog Team
By the way, check out our new Twitter Blog Team Update on the lower portion of the sidebar. It will help us announce quick updates that aren’t worthy of a blog post. April 24, 2008 6:19 PM
Edited to add updated backscatter link.
April 25, 2008 9:43 AM
April 25, 2008 9:53 AM
Again with the rear images. Bob, will you just tell us that you're never going to post a frontal image so we can move on? This is silly, and you're not tricking anyone by the way you're avoiding questions, so just say you're not going to answer it so we can move on to the next topic you won't answer.
April 25, 2008 10:00 AM
For Bob;
"There is a sign located in plain view in front of the machine with an image and another really large sign in plain view explaining that it’s optional. Passengers have been allowed to request a pat down in lieu of walking through the metal detector since the beginning, so I doubt this will cause much of a fuss. "
Do these signs have actual front and rear images that this machine displays to the screener?
Why will TSA not post those perfectly ok for school children images here?
Is the expectation that a lie repeated often enough eventually becomes the truth?
Does TSA have a code of ethics? I suspect that it does and you have violated them by posting false statements in this blog.
As a responsible citizen I think I must call for you to resign from government service!
April 25, 2008 10:36 AM
Wow, Bob, that was blatant.
Usually you bloggers stop posting after I post. This time you are playing "If I pretend I don't see it then it isn't there."
If that's your game, I'm not going away. Eventually my quesitons will spread to other commenters. I've even recorded them in my own blog (linked to through my user name).
April 25, 2008 11:08 AM
Put me down on the permanent "won't do it" list.
And if I get a jury duty notice and find they use one of those machines, they better have ways around it too.
Bet you'll see the number of people refusing to go thru it increase too.
Either find a way to get a totally passive device to work, or give up.
April 25, 2008 12:09 PM
From Peggy Noonan's column in today's WSJ on line:
"America is in line at the airport. America has its shoes off, is carrying a rubberized bin, is going through a magnetometer. America is worried there is fungus on the floor after a million stockinged feet have walked on it. But America knows not to ask. America is guilty until proved innocent, and no one wants to draw undue attention. America left its ticket and passport in the jacket in the bin in the X-ray machine, and is admonished. America is embarrassed to have put one one-ounce moisturizer too many in the see-through bag. America is irritated that the TSA agent removed its mascara, opened it, put it to her nose, and smelled it. Why don't you put it up your nose and see if it explodes? America thinks.
And, as always: Why do we do this when you know I am not a terrorist, and you know I know you know I am not a terrorist? Why this costly and harassing kabuki when we both know the facts, and would agree that all this harassment is the government's way of showing "fairness," of showing that it will equally humiliate anyone in order to show its high-mindedness and sense of justice? Our politicians congratulate themselves on this as we stand in line.
All the frisking, beeping and patting down is demoralizing to our society. It breeds resentment, encourages a sense that the normal are not in control, that common sense is yesterday. Another thing: It reduces the status of that ancestral arbiter and leader of society, the middle-aged woman. In the new fairness, she is treated like everyone, without respect, like the loud ruffian and the vulgar girl on the phone. The middle-aged woman is the one spread-eagled over there in the delicate shell beneath the removed jacket, praying nothing on her body goes beep and makes people look."
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
You ain't fooling anybody, TSA.
April 25, 2008 12:13 PM
Our we required to remove our wallets when we enter this machine?
Where do we put them?
Are we allowed to immediately exit the machine and run after our wallet if we see it being stolen?
April 25, 2008 12:42 PM
Wow, you folks know how to make a guy feel loved. :) Contrary to popular belief, I will do my best to answer what I can as soon as I can.
Here are a few answers to some of your questions.
The rear millimeter wave image is the only image that has been released. Therefore, that is all I can show you. It is displayed on our blog as well as the checkpoints using the MMW.
There are two signs in front of the millimeter wave. One shows the back image. The other explains the MMW and informs passengers of their option for a pat down.
Personal belongings are kept in a bin, in clear view, with no other passengers nearby. There is no opportunity for somebody to steal something based on the set up.
The machine is cleaned nightly or as needed.
The screening lasts 45 -60 seconds and you cannot stop screening once it has begun.
As far as the doors being locked, if you are referring to the control room, yes the door is locked. If you are referring to the millimeter wave, it does not have doors.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA Eos Blog Team
April 25, 2008 12:43 PM
"The screening lasts 45 -60 seconds and you cannot stop screening once it has begun."
Oh, so once again the TSA has been less than truthful with us - look at the video on the TSA's website titled something to the effect of "see how MMV technology detects threats."
The actors are in and out of the machine in less than 10 seconds.
And why has the frontal picture not been released? Because TSA knows it would cause an uproar.
April 25, 2008 12:54 PM
I see you are making your national tv debut this weekend on 'Good Morning America', Bob, according to your twitter (I'll refrain from 'twit' comments for now, btw). Two burning questions in response to this:
1. What tie will you be wearing?
2. Since GMA is filmed in NYC, home of one of your spiffy new MMW's @ JFK, will the segment feature a live demo of the machine & the images created? I'll even let you pick the model, but the front image MUST be shown. Don't care about the settings or all the other SSI (super secret info); pictures will suffice.
April 25, 2008 12:58 PM
Chris Boyce said...
OK, I have read the Privacy Impact Assessment for this device. I have had as much, or more, experience in government that anyone in the TSA. (TSA, you'll just have to accept that on faith, unless you are presently tapping my phone and internet connection.)
This is the most poorly written PIA I have ever seen. I was going to say that you should be ashamed, but, since the TSA is not accountable, shame isn't even in your vocabulary.
Kip, I will fight you at the checkpoint. I will fight you in court. I will fight you in the halls of Congress. Kip, before I am done with you, I will be your worst nightmare. I guarantee it.
April 25, 2008 12:17 AM
First of all Chris Boyce you are not very bright. Threatening a Federal Offical isn't the smartest thing to do.
I'll bet you are all talk because you want to sound big on the blog. it won't work. As many have said the TSO's on here make their point that TSA shouldn't exist. You on the other hand make us passengers who really want to make ligimate complaints sound like we are the idiots.
April 25, 2008 1:14 PM
bob said "Wow, you folks know how to make a guy feel loved. :)"
Bob, Your agency really knows how to make a citizen/traveler feel loved :)
April 25, 2008 1:41 PM
Trollkiller, thank you for providing us the link to the LA Times site where we could see the signs that greet the traveler to the MMW strip search machine.
Bob, I ask again, where are the non-English versions of this sign? The sample that Trollkiller linked to came out of LAX -- Los Angeles -- you would have expected it to at least be in English and Spanish there. In LA, I would have also probably expected to see Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and Mandarin.
Do you really think that as many people would have agreed to go through the scanner if they knew that it would look under their clothing and that someone in another room would have a peek at their nude form? Did you provide each and every person who passed through the scanner a front and back image of what the person looking at the image would likely see? If you didn't, then you have effectively duped each and every person who agreed to walk through the machine into agreeing to a strip search. Nice con job TSA.
April 25, 2008 1:42 PM
Bob said...
Wow, you folks know how to make a guy feel loved. :) Contrary to popular belief, I will do my best to answer what I can as soon as I can.
Here are a few answers to some of your questions.
The rear millimeter wave image is the only image that has been released. Therefore, that is all I can show you. It is displayed on our blog as well as the checkpoints using the MMW.
There are two signs in front of the millimeter wave. One shows the back image. The other explains the MMW and informs passengers of their option for a pat down.
Hey Bob, for what it is worth we still love ya... it's your bosses and their rules we ain't real happy about.
As aggravating it is for us, it must suck for you. We ask something simple like a front view image and you can't deliver because your keepers have not decided we are worthy to view such a thing.
As I posted earlier, neither sign that I saw shows the rear MMW image.
Sign 1
Sign 2
So please do me a favor and show the sign you are talking about.
I still want to know what the real number is on the power this machine puts out. One of the TSA's source says it is 10,000 times less powerful than a cell phone, the other says it is 100,000 times less powerful.
April 25, 2008 1:43 PM
Anonymous said... Bob, Please also provide procedures that will be adopted to ensure these officers are behaving. For example, will their activities be filmed, and will they be searched for cameras before entering their area? April 24, 2008 4:01 PM
Filming would be a bad choice. If you’re filming the TSO, you are filming the individuals being screened.
Anonymous said... It would be a grainy image if it weren't blurred by software and yes it does have the resolution to be able to identify people. April 24, 2008 4:37 PM
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. The faces are blurred. Computer software senses the face and places a face blur on the resulting whole body image. The settings can only be changed by the manufacturer and not the TSA. We will not be able to identify people based on the images we see.
Alan said... I have been told that passengers undergoing this screening must remove their wallets from their pockets when stepping into this machine. Is that true? Where are passengers supposed to put their wallets as they go through? Are they allowed to leave the machine as soon as they see something happening to their valuables? April 24, 2008 4:41 PM
Yes, everything must be divested and will be in clear view of the passenger. As far as somebody stealing something, I’ll tell you what I’d do. I’d point at the thief and yell at the top of my lungs that they’re stealing my property.
Trollkiller said... Blogger Bob said…Blogger Bob, do they have these at your airport… Please note the picture is NOT one from the MMW device, instead it is a disco man with his pockets turned inside out. I really expected somewhere on the sign for it to say "Keep on Truckin!!" Blogger Bob, I really am hoping that your airport does not have one of these machines and you called an airport that does and asked them if any of the signs had a picture on it and they were confused what you meant or that the LA Times just did not run a photo of the sign you mentioned. April 25, 2008 2:14 AM
My airport does not have a MMW. However, I did contact Nico at LAX who has been observing this operation for the last week. He confirmed the signs are there. One sign has the 21st Century info you posted and the other has an actual picture (not the drawing) of a rear image from the MMW. They are both posted in front of the MMW.
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 25, 2008 1:43 PM
TSO brings gun to work, keeps job.
Well, I certainly feel safer!
April 25, 2008 2:04 PM
If you're traveling alone with a child (or even a pet) how are they supervised when you're in the machine? Who's responsible?
Also, I don't take much heart in the fact that my face will be blurred yet my whole body is exposed. If the stripper is wearing a mask, it's still a peep show.
Finally, you said, "Filming would be a bad choice. If you’re filming the TSO, you are filming the individuals being screened."
????? There's a VERY simple solution to this, just point the camera at the TSO from behind the screen.
April 25, 2008 2:04 PM
To Anonymous at 1:14 p.m.:
You are the one who is not very bright.
Chris Boyce never said he was going to "threaten" anyone. There are ways to "fight" that don't threaten, such as by speaking out at a checkpoint when we see screeners acting improperly.
April 25, 2008 2:06 PM
Unbelievable that a TSA screener attempts to sneak a gun past security... http://www.gadling.com/2008/04/25/tsa-screener-caught-sneaking-gun-through-x-ray-isnt-fired/
April 25, 2008 2:09 PM
Bob, of course you can film. You just put the camera on the wall behind the monitor. You film hte actions of the TSO, not what's on the monitor. Seems simple enough for me.
As for the signs, I'd believe the pictures from the LA Times website, which are clearly not a MMW image, over Nico's word right now, quite frankly.
I understand no frontal images have been released so you can't show us (lemme guess, SSI?), but you have to know that's not going to make us believe anyone at TSA when they say the images are harmless and could be shown in a pre-school.
April 25, 2008 2:23 PM
Blogger Bob said...
My airport does not have a MMW. However, I did contact Nico at LAX who has been observing this operation for the last week. He confirmed the signs are there. One sign has the 21st Century info you posted and the other has an actual picture (not the drawing) of a rear image from the MMW. They are both posted in front of the MMW.
Great, ask Nico to take a photo of the sign that has the MMW image so we can all see what it looks like.
A cell phone picture will be acceptable until you guys can get a real photographer on it.
April 25, 2008 2:40 PM
Just noticed the sign says "alternative screening procedures such as a pat down." What other alternative proceedures are there? Anything beyond what's already done? If I saw this at an airport, I would worry what those other proceedures might be and get bullied into the scanner.
A pat down is one thing. A visual inspection under my clothing is another. The TSA probably think it's best to have people use the new fancy tech, so there may be an effort her to be vague on purpose.
April 25, 2008 3:13 PM
Bob said...
Wow, you folks know how to make a guy feel loved. :)
Bob it's not about love.
It's about being truthful.
TSA has said the images are so unoffensive that they can be view by a young child.
We have asked many times for you to post images, front and rear view, yet either you cannot or will not do so.
I do not believe for a second that images have not been made. The manufacturer must have demonstration images, TSA needs images for training purposes yet none are available for use here.
So what do you expect reasonable intelligent people to think? That your being truthful and upfront?
Something smells bad here and it's not my feet!
I truly believe that you have caused severe damage to your personal self by being a spokesperson for TSA. I hope it was worth it.
April 25, 2008 3:24 PM
Bob, you are in the TSA. You have contacts within the organization. Please do us all a favor and release frontal images of a male and a female.
Us, the tax payers, are obviously requesting this information in order to be able to make an informed decision.
April 25, 2008 3:29 PM
My goal is for Bob and all the other DHS/TSA people out looking for a job because this agency has been shut down,
That's not a good goal. We need the TSA, or something like it. And we need people like Bob-- remember that Bob and his colleagues are just implementing rules, policies, and procedures that their bosses create. The bullies are merely doing what their bosses encourage them to do, whether actively or not. It's the bosses who believe we can't handle the truth about electronic strip searches, so they order patently absurd PR to spin it into something palatable.
Airport screening could serve a useful purpose as part of an overall intelligently-conceived system to reduce the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, we don't have anything like that. The TSA is part of a Homeland Security bureaucracy haphazardly thrown together in reaction to numerous failings related to 9/11. There was no plan or overall coordination, just reaction headed by top officials chosen for political loyalty rather than competence. As a result, everything is slipshod and ad-hoc (e.g., the War on Liquids, Toiletries, and Shoes), with the holes, seams, and failures covered up behind a shroud of secrecy and lack of accountability in the hope that nobody notices.
What we see at airports is just the tip of the iceberg. Kip and his bosses apparently feel they have to make airport screening maximally intrusive, and treat everyone like a criminal or prisoner, because they're relying on it as the sole barrier against another 9/11. That's because there's no coordination (or competence) in the sprawling Homeland Security bureaucracy, just squabbling fiefdoms whose main goal is to expand their power and to avoid blame for failures. That's exactly the environment that produces what we see at airport checkpoints. They're incapable of doing it better-- or doing it right, as audits and tests continually show.
Again, I don't want the TSA shut down. What I do want is the TSA's top management replaced with competent people who recognize that airport screening is merely the final "layer" of a system that emphasizes stopping terrorist threats long before they get near an airport. Accordingly, they implement measures at airports that are cost-effective, accountable, and protect the rights and privacy of the overwhelming majority of passengers who do not threaten aviation. Until that happens, we're stuck with what we have now.
April 25, 2008 4:14 PM
Us, the tax payers, are obviously requesting this information in order to be able to make an informed decision.
I think you might be missing the point. What informed decision can we make. If we're selected for secondary screening, we have a choice of being groped by a TSO or strip searched by a millimeter wave scan. Either one is humiliating and embarrassing violation of privacy befitting a convicted felon. It's not really a choice at all.
The only informed decision we really can make is to go Greyhound.
April 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Bob, the villagers are gathering outside of TSA's castle. They've got an axe to grind with the residents of that castle. You've got a major fecal storm on your hands. Please answer the questions and perhaps the villagers will quiet down and disperse on their own.
April 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Anonymous said... It would be a grainy image if it weren't blurred by software and yes it does have the resolution to be able to identify people. April 24, 2008 4:37 PM
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. The faces are blurred. Computer software senses the face and places a face blur on the resulting whole body image. The settings can only be changed by the manufacturer and not the TSA. We will not be able to identify people based on the images we see.
The machine has the resolution to identify people. The operator's software had better be pretty secure (which most first or second or third generation software isn't) so as to prevent an operator from adjusting the resolution by doing a CTRL-ALT-F5 for instance.
April 25, 2008 4:25 PM
I truly believe that you have caused severe damage to your personal self by being a spokesperson for TSA. I hope it was worth it.
I think this is the real problem here. Installing electronic strip search machines in airports is one thing. But the TSA's apparent belief that they can get people to accept it better if they lie about it is by far more offensive than having to choose between being groped and being electronically strip searched.
It's obvious that TSA screening is an unpleasant process for everyone involved. Having some assurance that we're getting something useful and effective for the price we're paying in lost privacy and dignity would certainly make the process less offensive. Unfortunately, the TSA's secrecy, condescension to the public, and now outright lying only increases the discomfort-- and can only force the conclusion that whatever we're getting from the TSA is not worth what we're paying and sacrificing for it.
The real problem is that the TSA seems to have so much contempt for the people it supposedly calls "customers" that they feel the need to continually hide behind "security" and spew lies to avoid accountability. That's a much bigger issue than whether electronic strip searches invade privacy.
April 25, 2008 4:30 PM
Remove everything from my pocket, including paper?
I carry cash when I fly. Sometimes several hundred dollars... or more.
There's no way in heck I would remove it from my pocket and put it in a bin, just so I can be herded through this device. A wad of 20's and hundreds left unattended in a bin is just inviting theft.
No way. I'll keep the cash in my front pocket like I've done for years (with no questions), and subject myself to a pat down like I'm a common criminal about to be arrested.
This is getting nuts. This is no longer the country I remember and loved growing up. I used to love to fly. Not anymore. I firmly believe that driving myself is the only way to travel now, even if it takes longer. The hassle is too great.
April 25, 2008 4:36 PM
That's exactly the environment that produces what we see at airport checkpoints. They're incapable of doing it better-- or doing it right, as audits and tests continually show.
I think this statement fully supports my desire for TSA to be shutdown.
As TSA now exist they are incapable of doing it right.
Sometimes you just have to start over, this is one of those times!
April 25, 2008 5:03 PM
Jim Huggins said... As recommended, I read the PIA, and I have a nitpick ... Under item 7, "Principle of Security", DHS notes that millimeter wave images are "transmitted in a proprietary format that cannot be deciphered without the proprietary technology." With all respect, this is "security by obscurity" at its finest; it assumes that the images are secure because the format used to transmit the images is "secret" (or "proprietary"). Secret formats rarely remain secret for long; eventually, someone will figure them out, and then your defense is blown. (Look at how easily proprietary formats for music and video are broken on a daily basis.)It would be better if the transmitted images, even if they are in non-obvious proprietary formats, were also encrypted using
well-tested, well-analyzed encryption protocols (of which there are many). April 25, 2008 9:49 AM
Jim,
The kind folks at TSA's Office of Process & Technology provided the following answer for you:
"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shares your concerns about the safety of encryption of images on equipment. Please be assured that the TSA has been aware of this and similar vulnerabilities, but cannot comment on how we are addressing it.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us and your desire to contribute to TSA’s mission of protecting our Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movements for its people and commerce."
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 25, 2008 5:32 PM
Millimeter wave scan tech in England - they get (and need!) metal plates to obscure their genetialia. CNN Video.
They also get to face their same sex screener in a private room. Why shouldn't we be allowed to monitor the process ourselves? It's better than having a mysterious stranger in another room. That really does make it like a peep show. I think identities are obscured in those situations too.
April 25, 2008 5:43 PM
From the Department of Fabrication, Obfuscation and Lying at TSA:
"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shares your concerns about the safety of encryption of images on equipment. Please be assured that the TSA has been aware of this and similar vulnerabilities, but cannot comment on how we are addressing it.
Bob, all this says is that there are additional problems other than the obvious ones: a) of which you are aware; b) which have not been corrected; and c) which you refuse to tell us about.
Yet you still somehow seem surprised when we don't take the TSA at its word.
April 25, 2008 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...
TSO brings gun to work, keeps job.
Well, I certainly feel safer!
April 25, 2008 2:04 PM
A 30 day suspension? Did he get the gun back or was it confiscated? Did he have a CCW permit? Were LEOs called over? Was he given the 'process' like the rest of us would?
Honest mistake?
Color me not amused and realizing that once again TSA protects its own from any repercussions (30 days for a gun IMHO is a mere tap on the wrist).
April 25, 2008 6:12 PM
This is unbelievable! Bob's post at 9:43 AM had a link this morning to a very disturbing frontal scan of a woman. You can find the same image if you search Google Images for "backscatter X-ray".
Bob's link has now changed to a drawing only, without any actual scan!!!
I didn't think this blog had much damage control (certainly does not look like it from the posts), but between this and the attempt to distract us with cute puppies, I have completely changed my mind.
April 25, 2008 6:19 PM
Anonymous said... This is unbelievable! Bob's post at 9:43 AM had a link this morning to a very disturbing frontal scan of a woman. You can find the same image if you search Google Images for "backscatter X-ray". Bob's link has now changed to a drawing only, without any actual scan!!!
I didn't think this blog had much damage control (certainly does not look like it from the posts), but between this and the attempt to distract us with cute puppies, I have completely changed my mind.
April 25, 2008 6:19 PM
If I were trying to hide something, I wouldn't put a note at the bottom of the post that I edited the link. :) I also wouldn't be posting and replying to your comment.
Just as you are confused about the image, I thought others would be as well. That's why I changed the photo.
The split photo of which you speak had the adjusted outline backscatter image that PHX uses on the left side. The image on the right side is what used to be used until the TSA had the manufacturer adjust the image.
The image I posted was confusing and could lead people to think we were still seeing extremely revealing photos at PHX. That's not the case.
So, I linked to an example of what our TSOs see. Not what they used to see.
That's all. If you want to see the old image, it's still out there. Google away.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA Eos Blog Team
April 25, 2008 6:48 PM
I just uploaded the three signs we use in front of our Millimeter Waves as an update to this post.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 25, 2008 7:13 PM
Why does the sign ask people to remove paper from their pockets when entering this machine? Does that include cash?
Also, when will you post images taken from the front side of a person? Why have such images not been included on the signs posted by this machine?
April 25, 2008 7:19 PM
Bob said...
I just uploaded the three signs we use in front of our Millimeter Waves as an update to this post.
Thanks,
Hey Bob, thanks for getting the images up. One problem, the third image, that shows what the screener sees is bogus or corrupted.
There is a huge "cut out area" where the screener image is. This cutout covers some of the wording on the sign.
Secondly if I am reading your file nomenclature right, that sign goes on the backside of the sign just above it.
April 25, 2008 7:24 PM
Alright, what is with the obvious obfuscation in the third sign there? What's whited out, exactly?
April 25, 2008 7:42 PM
Bob: Thanks for getting the reply from the OP&T.
I wish I had a way to ask this question without sounding obnoxious ... but I have to try. (And I realize you may have to relay the question onwards ... so be it ...)
The OP&T stated: Please be assured that the TSA has been aware of this and similar vulnerabilities, but cannot comment on how we are addressing it.
If indeed TSA is aware of this vulnerability, then why does the original PIA tout the "proprietary format" as evidence of the security of the system, rather than a vulnerability? This makes the PIA look downright silly ... almost as if TSA is trying to justify its design decisions rather than evaluate them objectively.
Bob, can you get someone from TSA to comment on these seeming contradiction?
April 25, 2008 8:00 PM
I just uploaded the three signs we use in front of our Millimeter Waves as an update to this post.
Thanks. Seeing those signs convinces me that I'd rather be groped by one of your gentle TSOs than be scanned (assuming I still have that choice in the future).
"Maximum Privacy." "Advanced Security." And that old familiar image of a scanee from the back (could that be the only unclassified millimeter wave scan image?). Even if I didn't figure out what you're trying so carefully to obfuscate and spin around (i.e., the fact that the machine is a STRIP SEARCH), I would still be afraid of the scanner. Not because of the invasion of privacy, but because I have to put my wallet in a bin where anyone could grab it in half a second.
I could perhaps survive the loss or theft of my carry-ons. It's just a matter of time and money. I can always buy a new camera and replacement clothes, go to an urgent care clinic to replace my prescription medications, and then wait six months for my insurance company to send me a check for the depreciated value of what was stolen. But I'd be in very very deep trouble if my wallet disappeared while my naked body was being non-offensively photographed for the cover of Reader's Digest. There doesn't seem to be anything to assure me that the TSA will be looking after my wallet (and other belongings) while I'm being strip searched. That's a bigger concern than the invasion of privacy.
You might want to pass that along to your superiors. I suspect that the problem of protecting wallets never came up during all the classified meetings where the TSA worked out the secret protocols for millimeter wave strip searches (and the approach to selling the public on it). That's a major flaw, and exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from an agency that has a tunnel-vision view of "security."
April 25, 2008 8:31 PM
Bob,
In respect to your 6:48 PM post, I am having a hard time believing that the cartoon your prior link points me to is what screeners actually see with backscatter scans in Phoenix. Are you sure that is an actual software altered scan and not an artist's rendering? It would help me to be convinced if you:
Posted front and rear pictures of the person scanned beside their actual scan.
Posted pictures with a person carrying some kind of concealed weapon. I don't see how the cartoon you show could help screeners find anything!
I also would like to chime in with everyone else about seeing front and back pictures of millimeter wave scans of both men and women on the information posters and on this site. I have found them on the internet and the frontal picture of a woman is unacceptable to me.
Finally, I want to reinstate that the British address privacy concerns much better than the TSA. People are scanned in private areas with same sex screeners who analyze the image with the person scanned present. Much better than having to stand with your arms up for show in public and have an unknown person elsewhere looking at your naked body.
April 26, 2008 6:09 AM
Honestly, all of you with TSA issues, why don't you just be thankful to the people who have made sure you haven't been blown up yet in a plane? Let's all be in this together and be appreciative patriots.
April 27, 2008 8:38 AM
"Lauren said...
Honestly, all of you with TSA issues, why don't you just be thankful to the people who have made sure you haven't been blown up yet in a plane? Let's all be in this together and be appreciative patriots.
April 27, 2008 8:38 AM"
Do you remember the quote: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"? Save the flag waving for someone who doesn't remember Tailgunner Joe's little witch hunt.
With a little "help" from some of the inspectors at the FAA, those planes could fall out of the sky without the efforts of terrorists.
April 27, 2008 9:26 AM
Lauren said on .April 27, 2008 8:38AM ..
Honestly, all of you with TSA issues, why don't you just be thankful to the people who have made sure you haven't been blown up yet in a plane? Let's all be in this together and be appreciative patriots.
***********************************
The one's responsible for keeping the planes safely in the skies are the pilots & mechanics, not anyone connected w/the TSA. TSA's own Red Team tests have shown, multiple times, that anyone who really wanted to bring a bomb thru a checkpoint has upwards of 80% or higher chance of success.
Questioning the government is the highest form of patriotism there is. Not questioning those in charge is a hallmark of communist countries like China, Cuba, & the old Soviet Union, Lauren.
April 27, 2008 10:47 AM
Bob, is the third sign that you posted accruate?
Seems to have some material missing.
April 27, 2008 1:37 PM
Lauren said...
Honestly, all of you with TSA issues, why don't you just be thankful to the people who have made sure you haven't been blown up yet in a plane? Let's all be in this together and be appreciative patriots.
You are right it is time to thank the patriots. Thank you CIA, thank you FBI, thank you NSA, thank you NIC, thank you NCTC, thank you NRO, thank you NGA, thank you DIA, thank you Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, thank you to any working agency I may have missed, thank you President Bush, and thank you to any TSO that is using their brains and good manners.
And a special thanks to all the patriots that know that we own our government and our future, the patriots that demand excellence and accountably.
Another special thanks to the patriots that demand security but not at the price of freedom.
April 27, 2008 1:47 PM
Yo Bob, when you gonna fix that graphic? BTW I still want to see a photo of it in place at the airport.
April 27, 2008 2:35 PM
Trollkiller said...Yo Bob, when you gonna fix that graphic? BTW I still want to see a photo of it in place at the airport. April 27, 2008 2:35 PM
TK,
I converted the PDFs to JPGs. No sweat. But when I upload them to the blog, they turn from blue to orange.
The big white space you are seeing is not a cover up. That's pretty funny though... What you can't see is an outline of a MMW machine with the image being projected.
The only words that are missing is "with millimeter".
I have an e-mail out to somebody I hope can fix this. It probably won't happen until Monday.
Also, no promises, but I have asked for a photo of the signs from both LAX and JFK. We'll see...
OK, back to my weekend! :)
Bob
TSA Eos Blog Team
April 27, 2008 3:09 PM
Blogger Bob said...
I converted the PDFs to JPGs. No sweat. But when I upload them to the blog, they turn from blue to orange.
I thought that was a PDF to JPG conversion, I have had the same thing happen to me. What I do is just turn it back to the Art dept. and tell them to fix it. I think what they do is basically recreate the PDF in Pit Stop or some other fancy tool I don't have on my computer.
If you get a good fix on the problem, help a brother out and post the fix.
Ok the race is back on....
April 27, 2008 5:06 PM
Bob,
Could you please:
1. Post front and back images of actual millimeter wave and backscatter scans of men and women, side by side with the picture of the person.
2. Address the question of the English versus TSA way to do the scan - several of us think the British (private room, face to face with the same-sex officer who analyzes the scan) way is better. Would the TSA at least consider this a possibility?
April 27, 2008 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...
Bob,
Could you please:
Address the question of the English versus TSA way to do the scan - several of us think the British (private room, face to face with the same-sex officer who analyzes the scan) way is better. Would the TSA at least consider this a possibility?
The TSA is evaluating the MMW device as a primary screening device. I think their long term game plan is to have everybody walk through this thing.
April 28, 2008 10:33 AM
Bob or other Bog Team members.
Would you please address why frontal images from the MMW Imager have not been made available.
Surely if the images are as non-offensive as you say the posting of these pictures could not in any way compromise any security concerns.
Also are there any discussions of moving the peson viewing the images to a position that the person being view can see the person doing the viewing. I don't care for the idea of a peep show booth and would prefer to be in contact with the person viewing, of course only after having seen with my eyes the output of this machine.
Until then I will have to submit to patdowns.
April 28, 2008 11:11 AM
mW/cm^2 isn't energy, it is energy per unit area. And cell phone antennas (5cm^3) are 400,000 times smaller than your walk-in gizmo (2m^3). Maybe you are giving people 4 times the dose of radio frequency radiation that a cell phone emits.
Are you sure you aren't quoting the doses that your TSOs are getting from working near these booths, rather than what someone inside the booth might get?
And as for your dose of RF being safe, can you prove safety to the folks who believe in a vaccine-autism link? Or to those that think high voltage electric transmission lines cause cancer? Or for that matter, can you prove that TSA is actually deterring terrorists?
April 28, 2008 1:16 PM
ollkiller said...Yo Bob, when you gonna fix that graphic? BTW I still want to see a photo of it in place at the airport. April 27, 2008 2:35 PM
Hey Boss... :)
The graphic should be fixed later today. I just posted a picture of the signs in place at JFK. Enjoy...
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 28, 2008 5:07 PM
Bob said...
Trollkiller said...Yo Bob, when you gonna fix that graphic? BTW I still want to see a photo of it in place at the airport. April 27, 2008 2:35 PM
Hey Boss... :)
The graphic should be fixed later today. I just posted a picture of the signs in place at JFK. Enjoy...
Bob
If that is the way they are placed at the airport, I see no problem with them except for the lack of a front picture and the very soft sell wording.
“robot images”? Is R2D2 in the house?
Most people fear the unknown, I honestly feel if the people knew what they will look like before going into this thing they would still opt in because it is faster than a pat down.
Seriously, the TSA management needs to understand that we are not children, we can handle the truth and that is what we want.
I do have a problem with the changing power factor, one document says 100,000 times less powerful, the signs and the website say 10,000 times less powerful. Could you check the reason for the discrepancy?
Tell whomever (or is it who ever) that got you the photo, I said thanks.
And of course thank you, Blogger Bob for posting it.
April 28, 2008 6:52 PM
I just uploaded the corrected posters.(Thanks Neil)
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 28, 2008 6:57 PM
Ok first of all, Thanks for answering my questions! I appreciate this.
But one more question is coming up:
During a secondary all your belongings are being searched. Does this happen to your belongings in the bin WHILE you are being scanned in the MMW?
Oh, and still please provide pictures from front and back of one person from a MMW that is used
THX
April 28, 2008 7:03 PM
Do we have to remove paper money from our pockets if going through this machine? If so, why?
April 28, 2008 7:28 PM
Joe Physicist said... Bob, can you help me out? When dealing with physiological effects of radiation, it's more common to use specific absorption rate (SAR) rather than power per area. SAR is measured in W/kg--the amount of power absorbed by a given amount of tissue.
As I recall, cell phones emit in the 0.3 - 1 W range. If I take your 37.5 mW/cm2 estimate, this implies a cell phone held 0.8 - 1.5 cm away from the head (i.e., 1 W divided by 4*pi*r^2 for 37.5 mW/cm2 gives a radius of 1.5 cm). So I guess that's a reasonable estimate of power, but it still doesn't address the SAR.What's the SAR of the millimeter wave scanner? Alternatively, can you give me the FCC grantee code and product code for the device? Then I can just look it up in the FCC database (gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/).
April 25, 2008 9:31 AM
Joe,
The FCC database information for the L3 Millimeter Wave Whole Body Imager can be found here.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 29, 2008 9:45 AM
Do we have to remove paper money from our pockets if going through this machine? If so, why?
April 29, 2008 11:48 AM
Joe Physicist said... Bob, can you help me out? When dealing with physiological effects of radiation, it's more common to use specific absorption rate (SAR) rather than power per area. SAR is measured in W/kg--the amount of power absorbed by a given amount of tissue.
Joe,
While I was eating my Captain Crunch this morning, the answer came to me.
The SAR does not apply to millimeter wave devices.
According to the Federal Communications Office of Engineering and Technology publication, “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”,“For portable devices operating at frequencies above 6 GHZ special considerations are necessary. The localized SAR criteria used by the FCC, and specified in ANSI/IEEE 1992 standard, only apply at operating frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz. For portable devices that operate above 6 GHz, (e.g., millimeter-wave devices) localized SAR is not an appropriate means for evaluating exposure.
(Thanks to OSHE for answering this) :)
Bob
TSA Eos Blog Team
April 29, 2008 1:10 PM
Bob,
Thank you for correcting the posters. Now all you owe us are the front and back pictures and men and women scanned. We all want to see them, and will continue to think they are inappropriate if you continue to hide them from us.
April 29, 2008 1:56 PM
For a posting that purports to address privacy concerns, you're doing a horrible job.
Why can't you comply with repeated requests of the taxpayers on this forum and post a series of frontal images?
Also, answer the questions about whether paper money needs to be removed from people's pockets, and if so, why.
April 29, 2008 2:13 PM
Bob said the following in his post of 4/15/08: "Millimeter wave will allow our TSOs to view a noninvasive image of a passenger revealing any items that were not divested. These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool."
Ok Bob, any number of people have asked for some evidence of your statement.
Why will you not show images from this machine and let the public decide just how little detail they show.
So I ask again, please post front and rear view images of both a male and female so we can determine the truth of your statement.
Ignoring the question only cast doubt on your truthfulness.
April 29, 2008 2:25 PM
How long is that thing hanging down between the legs of the person in the image?
To me, it looks about half as long as the distance from the waistband to the cuff of his tighty-whities.
April 29, 2008 11:07 PM
From the front page . . .
JFK: 1212 passengers were screened from 4/17 to 4/22 using Millimeter Wave technology. Only 33 passengers chose not to undergo the screening.
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
-----Update 5/25/2008-----7:00 PM EST-----
These are the signs that are displayed in front of the millimeter wave whole body imagers.
Bob
So Bob - where did you get your time machine?
April 30, 2008 2:46 AM
JFK: 1212 passengers were screened from 4/17 to 4/22 using Millimeter Wave technology. Only 33 passengers chose not to undergo the screening.
Bob
Did they know what their image would look like?
Bob, I can only come to a couple of conclusions, your statement regarding the MMW images is in fact not true and this would be a false statement by a public offical or no images exist. I have to discard the later as being very unlikely, you do seem to have a rear image.
So where are the front and rear images from a MMW WBI?
April 30, 2008 12:48 PM
Trollkiller said... Whoa, Blogger Bob, hold the cell phone a sec...The energy projected by the system is 100,000 times less than a cell phone transmission (.00000597 mW/cm2 for millimeter wave technology compared to 37.5 mW/cm2 for a cell phone)Now just yesterday that number was 10,000 (TEN THOUSAND) not 100,000 (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND)...What is the correct number? April 25, 2008 3:15 AM
TK,
While getting the sour cream stain out of the tie that you so dearly love, an e-mail popped into my box from OSHE. (Thanks OSHE)
The power density of the older millimeter wave system was 10,000 less than the power density of a cell phone. However, tests on the new systems revealed the power density of 1:100,000 less than a cell phone. Because the 10,000 is conservative, L-3 did not change their literature. However, from a scientific point of view, the current systems are 100,000 less than a cell phone. Therefore, the number in the TSA public affairs guidance remained as 10,000.
And now you know the rest of the story...
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 30, 2008 3:41 PM
And now you know the rest of the story...
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
April 30, 2008 3:41 PM
No Bob we do not know the rest of the story. How about the part of the story where you said the MMW WBI images were ok for pre-school and you have been requested to post both male and female front and rear images. This issue is at least as important to the public as the safety of the machine.
You won't even address the image question, so how can you expect anyone to believe anything you post in the future? Right now you have zero credibility!
The question is simple, the images are either ok or they are not.
You can clear this up in just a moment by doing the right thing and putting the images up.
April 30, 2008 10:23 PM
Folks,
Can we all lay off of Bob on the whole "post the images" rant? Bob has said that he doesn't have access to any other image files that he can post. I'm sure he's working on getting some additional images, along with permission to post them, working up his chain of command.
Bob can't post what he doesn't have. Continuing to rant about that won't help him get the files any easier.
It's far more productive to argue about something we can actually do something about, like Bob's choice in neckties. :)
May 1, 2008 8:11 AM
Jim Huggins said...
Folks,
Can we all lay off of Bob on the whole "post the images" rant?
Ah, no Jim we can't. Bob made the statement that the images are ok for pre-school. For him to make this claim suggest that he has seen these images, so they must be available.
Bob has either told us something that is not true or he and others in TSA know the result of posting these images.
The way I see it Bob either must retract his statement and we will know the truth or must post the images and we will know the truth.
Not posting the images also is a very strong indication that his statement is not true.
So no I will not lay off until either Bob retracts his statement or a pretty darn good explanation of why they will not post the images comed forth.
The ball is in the TSA court.
May 1, 2008 9:20 AM
Anonymous writes:
For him to make this claim suggest that he has seen these images, so they must be available.
Someone may have shown him a physical copy of an image, but not given him the digital file. Or he may have seen an image on an actual display screen, but not been given the ability to capture that image into a digital file.
Just because he's seen the image doesn't mean he has a file he can share with us.
Hey, I'd like to see the images, too. But there are plausible reasons for not posting the images that are a lot less obnoxious than some of the theories I've seen here.
May 1, 2008 9:34 AM
@ Jim Huggins.
No, we cannot lay off Bob about the images. They go to the very heart of the matter. TSA keeps telling us we must trust them. Unfortunately their track record keeps proving them wrong. At this stage the TSA needs to *prove* to us that we can trust them when they talk to us.
Thus, if they say the images are so super safe, then they should be able to post them.
Ideally I would like to look over the TSO's shoulder while I am being scanned so that I can see my own image (and the TSO's reaction).
If the TSA does post the pictures, the level of trust we can invest in them goes up a notch. Currently the trust level has gone down a notch (maybe to mauve levels?). (BTW, my trust level is currently so low that I would like not only pictures from the manufacturer, but also an "action shot" with the device operating.)
Talking of colors, why is the TSA still sitting at Orange when DHS has dropped back to yellow more than a month ago?
May 1, 2008 9:51 AM
Jim Huggins said: "Hey, I'd like to see the images, too. But there are plausible reasons for not posting the images that are a lot less obnoxious than some of the theories I've seen here."
What reasons?? Not having electronic copies is not a reason. We have been asking for the images for long enough to allow time to get them.
I am still waiting for those scans!!
May 1, 2008 10:49 AM
Just because he's seen the image doesn't mean he has a file he can share with us.
An agency as large as DHS/TSA probably has the resources available to create these images.
Is is very apparent that DHS/TSA will not post the images because of what the public will see.
May 1, 2008 11:01 AM
While the national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow, the threat level for all domestic and international flights is High, or Orange.
Jon
TSA Eos Blog Team
May 1, 2008 11:15 AM
Jon, in response to the following clarification:
While the national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow, the threat level for all domestic and international flights is High, or Orange.
Jon
It really does not matter what color of the rainbow you select on any given day to try to scare a gullible public, the cat's already out of the bag that your bosses manipulate the terror threat level for their own political purposes Read the USA Today Article Here
Even so, it would not matter whether the so-called threat level were flashing red, there is still no excuse to abrogate civil liberties in this country. Lincoln tried to do it during the Civil War and Congress slapped him down. Roosevelt did it to the Japanese during WWII and we have borne the shame of it ever since.
The TSA does not want to show us what the person behind the curtain will see because it will shock the conscience of the people. I can only imagine the scene in any heartland airport when a mouthy mother discovers that she and her brood will be subject to a strip search so they can fly off to visit grandma because her 11 year old daughter had the temerity to forget to take off her charm bracelet and it made the metal detector go off. Multiply that scene by as many people as have to go through seconary screening per day and well you have quite a problem on your hands.
May 1, 2008 2:28 PM
Blogger Bob said...
TK,
While getting the sour cream stain out of the tie that you so dearly love, an e-mail popped into my box from OSHE. (Thanks OSHE)
The power density of the older millimeter wave system was 10,000 less than the power density of a cell phone. However, tests on the new systems revealed the power density of 1:100,000 less than a cell phone. Because the 10,000 is conservative, L-3 did not change their literature. However, from a scientific point of view, the current systems are 100,000 less than a cell phone. Therefore, the number in the TSA public affairs guidance remained as 10,000.
And now you know the rest of the story...
Bob
TSA EoS Blog Team
oh nooes not the tie!!!!
Great what kind of testing did they do? What equipment and methods were employed?
You answered the power issue but I would still like to know what frequency/power the wave is. The patent for the device lists a range of frequencies from "about 200 MHz to about 1 THz".
From what I am finding, radiation in those ranges can be dangerous.
What method did the TSA or L3 use to determine safety?
May 1, 2008 2:49 PM
Just because he's seen the image doesn't mean he has a file he can share with us.
I have a little trouble believing that TSA does not have a complete set of MMW images available.
For starters, a rear image has been posted on this Blog. Do you really think when that image was made that a full range of images were not made?
The manufacturer of this machine had to have something to demonstrate to DHS/TSA senior leaders and purchasers the capabilities of this machine. Do you even suspect for a minute that images were not made for a sales brochure or demonstration purposes?
The bottom line as I see it while possibly a bit harsh is this;
Bob made a statement on behalf of TSA and put his name to it.
Many people have challanged Bob to clairfy or prove his statement. I believe that Bob cannot do so. The reason remains unclear.
I also believe that Bob has violated the ethnics guidelines of his agency by makeing a false statement and has set himself up for future problems. If his statement is proven to be false I can only see one outcome for Bob.
Since Bob or his superiors will not settle the matter I am forced to get an answer from any means available to myself. The surest path for me is with assistance from my congressional representatives so I will communicate with the staff of my Senators and request an investigation.
I feel sorry that Bob put his name to this but he knew what he was doing.
TSA is attempting nothing less than an electronic strip search without any due process.
May 1, 2008 2:54 PM
Well you TSA Bloggers make your fancy post about MMW Privacy and Safety and when asked to support your claims that privacy is not an issue your coward out and just stop particpating in your own blog.
I think this demonstrates very well what TSA, TSA Bloggers and anyone connected with TSA really thinks about public opinion.
I am really disappointed in your lack of committment to the public.
You probably wont post this but thats ok, a good part of America thinks TSA is pretty much useless like I do.
May 2, 2008 2:52 PM
Does anyone else think the one diagram looks strikingly similar to the one picture of a prisoner at Abu Ghraib? (The one in which the guy was hooded with wires attached to his fingers.)
May 2, 2008 8:58 PM
Hello - anyone at TSA . . . it isn't 5/25/2008 yet.
Credibility needs at least good editors.
May 3, 2008 1:45 AM
The images are already out there. frontal view
May 4, 2008 9:51 PM
"Millimeter wave will allow our TSOs to view a noninvasive image of a passenger revealing any items that were not divested. These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody."
Blogger Bob posted the words quoted above.
My question to Blogger Bob, do you stand by these remarks regarding the MMW images?
If so why will you not post front and rear images that have been asked for so many times? Why will you not discuss this issue?
Blogger Bob= Zero Credibility
May 5, 2008 11:40 AM
Hey, Bob
As a musician, you can probably understand this:
"Lets see what the MMW can do when it is cranked up to 11!
sorry to Spinaltap...
May 5, 2008 4:14 PM
Post the frontal views and this issue might go away. Then again if the frontal views are as revealing as we suspect.....
May 5, 2008 7:35 PM
Miller said...
Post the frontal views and this issue might go away. Then again if the frontal views are as revealing as we suspect.....
It would still go away after a very small flurry. I think most people will find the image revealing and then make the conscious decision that having a random TSO see their hoo-hoo is not as bad as having a random TSO "grope" them.
SHOW THE DAMN IMAGE!!!
May 6, 2008 12:36 PM
what's a robotic image?
May 6, 2008 3:37 PM
I think most people will find the image revealing and then make the conscious decision that having a random TSO see their hoo-hoo is not as bad as having a random TSO "grope" them.
SHOW THE DAMN IMAGE!!!
If the images are as revealing as I suspect I don't want anyone except my Doctor seeing the images. I really don't want some TSO pervert looking at images of children.
When TSA comes clean on this issue then a reasonable decision can be made but not until that time.
Still wondering when Bob will stand up and retract his remarks. Bob?
POst the Images
May 6, 2008 4:39 PM
I think most people will find the image revealing and then make the conscious decision that having a random TSO see their hoo-hoo is not as bad as having a random TSO "grope" them.
..................................
If the images are not like TSA and Blogger Bob says they are then no I do not want some airport screener looking at my image.
One step further, if the images are as revealing as feared then I surely wouldn't have any confort in a TSA employee viewing images of children. That is just wrong.
Until TSA resolves my concerns regarding the MMW WBI then I see no option but to force the issue in every way possible.
TSA has a very simple resolution.
Demonstrate that the images are like they and Blogger Bob posted here. Safe for the cover of Readers Digest, even ok for Preschool children to view.
Looking at revealing images of children is not acceptable.
May 6, 2008 9:43 PM
Trollkiller wrote:
It would still go away after a very small flurry. I think most people will find the image revealing and then make the conscious decision that having a random TSO see their hoo-hoo is not as bad as having a random TSO "grope" them.
SHOW THE DAMN IMAGE!!!
It is likely that many people would decide "it's ok" after seeing the revealing images. What that means is that by withholding the images the TSA is making this into a bigger problem than it would otherwise be.
Once again their obsession with secrecy and their contempt for the public are doing them more harm than outright honesty would in the first place.
May 7, 2008 11:04 AM
you need to post the pictures. people need to know what is going on. i read many articles that say the exact opposite. post the pictures you got from the person.
April 15, 2009 12:20 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home