New Imaging Technology at Cleveland Hopkins Airport
With all of the comments on the TSA Blog about this technology, I just had to share the link to this article.Check out this interesting read on Cleveland’s testing of new imaging technology:
Full-body airport images not pretty, but not porn: Connie Schultz
(To read more about new imaging technology at TSA, click here.)
(To read more about new imaging technology at TSA, click here.)
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
TSA Blog Team
Labels: backscatter, Blogger Bob, imaging technology, millimeter wave
posted by Bob at
1:57 PM
Subscribe in a reader
98 Comments:
Bob, what steps is TSA taking to ensure that every passenger TSA wants to strip-search with these machines knows they can decline?
Why is TSA implementing a screening technique that mandates people be separated from their possessions?
Why is TSA moving forward with this, after the House voted overwhelmingly against allowing TSA to use these strip-search machines as primary screening devices?
When will you post, on this blog and at each of these machines, an example of the images these machines generate at the same size and resolution the operator sees?
August 5, 2009 3:08 PM
Bob,
Is there procedures in place to safeguard the person's carryons?
Does EVERYTHING (including wallets) have to come out of the pockets?
The scanner takes up to 30 seconds to get a picture. And then the person has to wait for the OK from the TSO in the back room to radio the scanner TSO. Add on the time in line waiting to enter the scanner. The carryons are left for quote a while.
August 5, 2009 4:28 PM
I would like to see the signage for these devices placed immediately in front of the devices not along with all the other signage cluttering the cattle lane before the document check.
I would also like the TSOs to be required to point out the signage and inform the passenger that they are free to decline and what that would entail. That would be more like informed consent than what is currently in place today.
Do I expect this to happen, nope.
August 5, 2009 4:34 PM
Was the concept for this hardware written by TSA or by pick-pockets?
Somebody needs to give the TSO manning the right-hand ID checker position at 0900 Aug 3 of SEA's northern checkpoint some kind of kudos for knowing that a brown US passport is legit. It was rather nice to not be accused of having a forged passport... this time.
August 5, 2009 4:45 PM
Is it not discriminatory that passengers transiting certain checkpoints must submit to either a virtual strip search or a pat down, while passengers transiting other checkpoints within the same airport are not faced with such a choice?
August 5, 2009 4:59 PM
Ya' know, Bob, if the TSA were comfortable with instituting this technology, you and the powers that be would not be posting threads about it and asking newspapers to do stories about it whenever it arrives at another airport.
Says an awful lot when you do that.
August 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Bob, I think you are caught in a lie here. The Cleveland newspaper columnist writes: “In addition, the Cleveland, Rochester, N.Y., and Burbank, Calif., airports are trying out a newer model called a backscatter, which uses low-dose X-rays.”
I am thinking back to your April 15 blog post. Remember, that post when you wrote, “Millimeter wave will allow our TSOs to view a noninvasive image of a passenger revealing any items that were not divested. These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody.”
Then ANONYMOUS came on and commented: “TSA's own Susan Hallowell went through this device as a test (see link). You'd really post that in a pre-school (coming from the administration that freaked out about part Janet Jackson's nipple)?? Here's the photo and link:
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/11/airport_porn.php”
AND YOU RESPONDED, BOB:
“Nice try. That image is what the Backscatter is capable of. The TSA adjusted the image to look like this. The millimeter wave is the machine we are deploying which is a different machine than the Backscatter. (signed) Bob, TSA EoS Blog Team, April 19, 2008 3:35 PM”
So Bob, when this Cleveland newspaper columnist writes that Cleveland, Rochester and Burbank have BACKSCATTER machines, doesn’t that mean you were wrong when you said TSA is not deploying BACKSCATTER, only MILLIMETER WAVE machine?
Bob, we can’t trust anything you write. In fact, back on April 19, 2008, that’s EXACTLY what winstonsmith wrote: “I'm sure you're a nice guy and all and wear spiffy ties and such, but why should I or anyone else believe you or anyone else from the TSA?”
Winstonsmith was right then, and I am right now. When you said TSA was sticking with “pre-school-friendly” millimeter-wave machines, and would never deploy those nasty “nice try” backscatter machines, you were not telling the truth. Why should I or anyone else believe you?
August 5, 2009 8:58 PM
TSA claims that only the operator of the strip-search machines will be able to see the image, yet allowed a reporter in to watch TSA use the machines? What's the procedure for getting an invitation to hang out and watch TSA take naked pictures of people traveling by air?
August 6, 2009 12:23 AM
Well, so much for the sanctity of the virtual strip search image viewing booth.
We now know that the reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Connie Schultz, was allowed into the booth to view the images.
Bob, when passengers give "informed consent" to being virtually strip searched they DO NOT give consent to being viewed by every Tom, Dick and Harry that the TSA is trying to impress.
All the individuals who allowed this reporter into the booth should be fired forthwith and the program must be stopped because we now know (as if we did not already) that the TSA CANNOT be trusted.
August 6, 2009 7:34 AM
Bob, you already linked to this article. It's pretty lame journalism. Connie talks about being able to see every wrinkle and fold of a person's body, but then goes on to say the images are not porn. Her given reason? Because we are all ugly. Basically, she is confirming what we have been saying all along, that your agents who are locked away in a hidden room have access to images of our naked bodies, and the only assurance we have that these images won't leave that room is yours, and your assurances aren't worth much around here.
As anonymous 3:08 says, you need to share full resolution, unmodified images generated by the scanner machines. Preferably of some of the blog team. Put your money where your mouth is. Show us EXACTLY what the operator sees, not some tiny thumbnail image. As it is, the only information we've got is what you've chosen to share, and that's just not good enough.
August 6, 2009 10:17 AM
Blogger Bob, I want to see the signage for the backscatter. I would also like to see photos of the signage on location.
August 6, 2009 11:37 AM
Bob,
In the referenced article, Connie herself states: "After seeing images of real humans on the scanner screens, I've modified my response:
Ew. Ew. "
Please tell us who besides the TSO is allowed in the viewing booth? I wasn't aware that reporters and the general public were allowed to observe passengers being virtually disrobed.
August 6, 2009 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...
I would like to see the signage for these devices placed immediately in front of the devices not along with all the other signage cluttering the cattle lane before the document check.
I would also like the TSOs to be required to point out the signage and inform the passenger that they are free to decline and what that would entail. That would be more like informed consent than what is currently in place today.
Do I expect this to happen, nope.
___________________________________
Good, I am glad that you do not expect this to happen!
There are signs placed directly in front of the machines.
And TSA does not have to hold the persons hand and say, "lets read this sign, now do you want to do this?" The sign is there and that is all of the resposibility that TSA has to take. Now if you chose to read it or not is not TSA's problem.
August 6, 2009 1:09 PM
Does EVERYTHING (including wallets) have to come out of the pockets?
Unfortunatelly everything does have to come out of the pockets. Now although it takes a few seconds for the picture to be cleared, the passenger only stands in the machine while the picture is taken. They are then directed to stand off to the side where their property is in their site. And usually that is only for a couple of seconds. So you can see it coming out of the machine and you can go grab it soon after. It is no different than someone who has to go through the pat down process or hand wand because of a medical implant.
August 6, 2009 1:13 PM
Somebody needs to give the TSO manning the right-hand ID checker position at 0900 Aug 3 of SEA's northern checkpoint some kind of kudos for knowing that a brown US passport is legit. It was rather nice to not be accused of having a forged passport... this time.
___________________________________
Wow, congratulations! You must feel like such a victim every other time that you fly.
August 6, 2009 1:15 PM
Is it not discriminatory that passengers transiting certain checkpoints must submit to either a virtual strip search or a pat down, while passengers transiting other checkpoints within the same airport are not faced with such a choice?
___________________________________
Nah, I don't think so, but nice try!
August 6, 2009 1:16 PM
Ya' know, Bob, if the TSA were comfortable with instituting this technology, you and the powers that be would not be posting threads about it and asking newspapers to do stories about it whenever it arrives at another airport.
Says an awful lot when you do that.
___________________________________
Seriously!! All you people do is wine and complain about how you are left out and you want all of the information in the world handed to you. So TSA has newspapers write articles and the news does stories so that the public can be informed. And you complain about that. Figures!!
August 6, 2009 1:20 PM
TSA claims that only the operator of the strip-search machines will be able to see the image, yet allowed a reporter in to watch TSA use the machines? What's the procedure for getting an invitation to hang out and watch TSA take naked pictures of people traveling by air?
___________________________________
That is correct only the operator will see the image. The only way that the news papers were allowed behind the scene is if there was an anonymous volunteer having their picture taken.
August 6, 2009 1:27 PM
All the individuals who allowed this reporter into the booth should be fired forthwith and the program must be stopped because we now know (as if we did not already) that the TSA CANNOT be trusted.
___________________________________
You people should write childrens books! You have such wild imaginations.
August 6, 2009 1:29 PM
Bob, when will TSA provide the public with exactly the same quality of images produced by the Strip Search Machines that a screener sees?
Remember one of your TSO's posted on this blog that the image is the same as seeing a person in the nude. Hardly suitable for a child.
Will TSA continue to insist on using Strip Search Machines on children and young teens? How can TSA justify taking nude pictures of children.
When will Nico prove that these Strip Search Machine images are safe for viewing young children. It was his claim, why would he hide after making a claim like that?
The House of Representatives has legislation in works that will limit the use of Strip Search Machines to secondary screening. Why is TSA pushing the issue by using Strip Search Machines as a means of primary screening?
If the Congress does mandate that Strip Search Machines can only be used as a means of secondary screening should not purchasers of these machines be held liable for the cost of buying equipement that has not been authorized for use?
Since there is legislative action moving through the congress should TSA suspend any further deployment of the Strip Search Machines until the matter is settled?
Since you didn't see fit to post my first query that did comply with posting all guidelines I will continue the same line of questioning until you do post.
Is this government operated blog operating outside of the Constitution? Are you afraid of the First Admendment Bob?
Would suppression of speech not violate your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?
I think the answer is clear that yours and the TSA's goals here are anything but open, free discussion.
August 6, 2009 1:35 PM
It never says she viewed "Passengers" images. Maybe she watched a TSO give a demonstration?
Some need to stop jumping to conclussions and slamming TSA just because they say they are concerned about the rights of others and hate all things government.
August 6, 2009 1:55 PM
Wow. Some sure are quick to make up their minds on what they think they and others know. (Some)
Before you grab all of your farming implements and storm the gates asking for the heads of the officers involved, you might want to know this:
The images that Connie viewed were TSA employees who volunteered. No passengers were viewed. In fact, no passengers were even allowed to be screened by the Imaging Technology until Connie had left the viewing room.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
August 6, 2009 2:21 PM
Bob scores!
TSA Blog: 1
FlierSquawk: 0
Bob is right that some of you really, really think you have it all figured out. This is just proof that you want to stick it to the TSA and that you have no desire to be productive.
August 6, 2009 2:34 PM
How are the images are transmitted to the "remote location"? This creates an opportunity for hacking.
Why are the images viewed by TSA officers in a remote location and not in front of the scanned passenger, but in an area secluded from the general public, as is done in Heathrow?
And more importantly, why use technology that generates an image (unacceptable to many of us), does not scan the whole body (body cavities are not viewed), and is therefore useless?
Remember the tampon paradox: if you can see a tampon using this technology, it is too invasive and should not be used. If you cannot see a tampon, it cannot detect necessary threats and should not be used. No technology that generates images of persons should be employed in the name of airport security.
August 6, 2009 3:28 PM
"So TSA has newspapers write articles"
August 6, 2009 1:20 PM
.......................
So how much did TSA pay for this article?
August 6, 2009 3:44 PM
A couple of hours earlier, Bob posted:
The images that Connie viewed were TSA employees who volunteered. No passengers were viewed. In fact, no passengers were even allowed to be screened by the Imaging Technology until Connie had left the viewing room.
Bob,
I tried really hard to reconcile what you (TSA) did in your desire to roll out the red carpet for the reporter with your own Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for
TSA Whole Body Imaging, dated Oct 17, 2008, as amended.
Regretfully, I can't resolve the actions you took to allow the reporter into the booth while the screener was viewing images. The specific paragraph I'm having a hard time with is Paragraph 5 on Page 8. I quote for your convenience:
Principle: DHS should use PII solely for the purpose(s) specified in the notice. Sharing PII outside the Department should be for a purpose compatible with the purpose for which the PII was collected.
TSOs sitting in the remote viewing room are the only persons to see the WBI images that appear on the screen transiently for the purpose of identifying any potential threat items. The TSOs at the screening location and the supervisory TSO overseeing their actions are prohibited from entering the remote room and viewing the images on the screen. Once any anomaly is resolved, the image is deleted, and therefore cannot be used for any other purpose or shared with anyone. The images will not be used in any other context inside DHS and will not be shared outside of the Department.
I would like you to task the appropriate individuals to clarify these apparent inconsistencies in the PIA and what happened:
1. How is the decision to allow a reporter in the room with the screener viewing images compatible with:
"Sharing PII outside the Department should be for a purpose compatible with the purpose for which the PII was collected." and,
"The images will not be used in any other context inside DHS and will not be shared outside of the Department."?
2. Who authorized a deviation from this policy stated in the same paragraph: "TSOs sitting in the remote viewing room are the only persons to see the WBI images that appear on the screen transiently for the purpose of identifying any potential threat items."? Under what authority or regulation did this individual authorize the deviation? I did not read anything in the PIA allowing for waivers or deviation.
3. How does a member of the citizenry request a privilege similar to that granted to the reporter?
Thank you in advance.
August 6, 2009 4:17 PM
Bob sez: The images that Connie viewed were TSA employees who volunteered. No passengers were viewed. In fact, no passengers were even allowed to be screened by the Imaging Technology until Connie had left the viewing room.
That's what you say, Bob. That's not at all what Connie the Reporter sez:
I looked at the images that were on the screens, in the private rooms. I also walked through the back-scatter screener and observed others walking through the millimeter-wave scanner.
Connie Schultz
Columnist
No mention of TSA volunteers there. Why should we believe you, Bob. You are the guy who said in April 2008 that the backscatter screener would NOT be deployed, and now, yup, here it is.
August 6, 2009 4:51 PM
"Bob scores!
TSA Blog: 1
FlierSquawk: 0
Bob is right that some of you really, really think you have it all figured out. This is just proof that you want to stick it to the TSA and that you have no desire to be productive."
Scores by...what criteria, exactly? He stated something that absolutely NONE of us can verify as a fact.
August 6, 2009 4:59 PM
"The images that Connie viewed were TSA employees who volunteered. No passengers were viewed. In fact, no passengers were even allowed to be screened by the Imaging Technology until Connie had left the viewing room."
Bob, assuming this is true -- and given your and TSA's track record, that is a pretty big assumption -- why was Ms. Schultz allowed to see the images generated by this machine at the same size and resolution its operators see, when you refuse to do so on this blog, and ignore all requests to do so?
August 6, 2009 5:35 PM
Bob, since you've allowed Connie Schultz to see the images these machines generate at the same size and resolution the operator sees, why won't you do so on this blog?
August 6, 2009 5:36 PM
Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
Bob sez: The images that Connie viewed were TSA employees who volunteered. No passengers were viewed. In fact, no passengers were even allowed to be screened by the Imaging Technology until Connie had left the viewing room.
That's what you say, Bob. That's not at all what Connie the Reporter sez:
I looked at the images that were on the screens, in the private rooms. I also walked through the back-scatter screener and observed others walking through the millimeter-wave scanner.
Connie Schultz
Columnist
No mention of TSA volunteers there. Why should we believe you, Bob. You are the guy who said in April 2008 that the backscatter screener would NOT be deployed, and now, yup, here it is.
August 6, 2009 4:51 PM"
------------------
I read the interview linked to. No where did I see this statement at all:
"I also walked through the back-scatter screener and observed others walking through the millimeter-wave scanner."
Did you read a different interview then I did?
August 7, 2009 10:44 AM
Chris Boyce said...
3. How does a member of the citizenry request a privilege similar to that granted to the reporter?
Start a blog or website and become a reporter like me.
Blogger Bob, as a reporter I would like to request access to the private room so I can see first hand the resolution the WBIs are capable of producing. I will bring my own model with a full model release.
Let me know when you will be in Jax, Tampa or Miami.
August 7, 2009 11:26 AM
Trollkiller said...
Blogger Bob, I want to see the signage for the backscatter. I would also like to see photos of the signage on location.
I see this every time I fly, signs informing passengers of what to do, what to pack, what electronics to remove out of their bags, and they still stand with a plasible look wondering why are their bags beign checked.the signs are their, just READ,
August 7, 2009 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller said...
Blogger Bob, I want to see the signage for the backscatter. I would also like to see photos of the signage on location.
---------------
I see this every time I fly, signs informing passengers of what to do, what to pack, what electronics to remove out of their bags, and they still stand with a plasible look wondering why are their bags beign checked.the signs are their, just READ,
What airports and can you do me a favor the next time you fly, take a picture of the signage. Please use a wide enough field to show the placement.
Are you flying out of airports that use the backscatter, if so I would appreciate a close up picture of that signage.
Email your pics to mmw@rebelmodel.com please include airport, date and time.
Thanks.
August 7, 2009 12:56 PM
I have a feeling no matter what happens this machine will never be your only option for screening checkpoints. Just like currently you can opt out of the WTMD for a HHMD search you will probably always be able to opt out of the body scanner for a WTMD, HHMD, or full body pat down (incase they junk the other tech to make space). But this is all just speculation because I have no idea where they are going with this machine. All I know is that even if I wasn't a TSO, I still wouldn't have any problem using the machine. Also I am not sure if they have already thought of this or not but TSA does already do this with some machines. They will probably set up the scanner to only bring up an image when the scanner alarms on an item on the passenger. But the truth is, you can ALWAYS not go through the scanner that will never change, we will always have other methods to screen YOU just don't ruin it for the other 500,000 people who would rather not be touched, have metal implants, or would just like to get through faster.
August 7, 2009 1:04 PM
"why was Ms. Schultz allowed to see the images generated by this machine at the same size and resolution its operators see, when you refuse to do so on this blog, and ignore all requests to do so?"
Could it be that the images you requested cannot be produced as TSA has said that they cannot save the images and they go away once the passenger has left the machine? Or do you think TSA is lying again, thereby making ANY answer they (TSA) give suspect?
August 7, 2009 1:38 PM
"I looked at the images that were on the screens, in the private rooms. I also walked through the back-scatter screener and observed others walking through the millimeter-wave scanner."
As these two areas, the private room and the millimeter scatter machine, are seperate areas and not within sight range and, in fact, seperated by walls, why do you think she did both at the same time?
August 7, 2009 1:41 PM
"signs informing passengers of what to do, what to pack, what electronics to remove out of their bags, and they still stand with a plasible look wondering why are their bags beign checked.the signs are their, just READ,"
Nobody is denying there is signage at the airports. What most of the questions here concern is the PLACEMENT OF THE WBI signs and the readability of the signs. For instance, we have heard that at BWI they are at the beginning of the "papers please" line and NOT in close proximity to the WBI.
However, we also know that TSA signage reads that one can't have more than 3 oz. of liquid in a container when, in fact, the limit is 3.4 oz.
So even if the signs are available and are read by the flying public, they are often misleading.
And PS, what good does a sign about what to pack do when you're already at the security checkpoint?
PPS: what does plasible mean?
August 7, 2009 1:48 PM
TSOWilliamReed said...
I have a feeling no matter what happens this machine will never be your only option for screening checkpoints. Just like currently you can opt out of the WTMD for a HHMD search you will probably always be able to opt out of the body scanner for a WTMD, HHMD, or full body pat down (incase they junk the other tech to make space). But this is all just speculation because I have no idea where they are going with this machine. All I know is that even if I wasn't a TSO, I still wouldn't have any problem using the machine. Also I am not sure if they have already thought of this or not but TSA does already do this with some machines. They will probably set up the scanner to only bring up an image when the scanner alarms on an item on the passenger. But the truth is, you can ALWAYS not go through the scanner that will never change, we will always have other methods to screen YOU just don't ruin it for the other 500,000 people who would rather not be touched, have metal implants, or would just like to get through faster.
August 7, 2009 1:04 PM
..........................
I don't trust TSA to maintain other means to screen.
The Strip Search Machines should be outlawed.
If not outlawed outright then only used for secondary screening.
When TSA starts being truthful with the public then perhaps some degree of faith in what is said by TSA and their spokespeople will be accepted.
August 7, 2009 2:16 PM
"Could it be that the images you requested cannot be produced as TSA has said that they cannot save the images and they go away once the passenger has left the machine?"
I don't know what it could be, since Bob refuses to answer this question. It's like TSA has something to hide.
August 7, 2009 2:17 PM
See, the question I can't seem to get an answer to is this:
WBIs are being promoted as a better alternative to patdowns. I can understand that. For passengers who are regularly subjected to patdowns because of implants, wheelchair usage, etc., this makes a lot of sense.
But most of the time, when I transit a checkpoint, I'm not subject to a patdown. I walk through the WTMD without alerting, pick up my carry-ons, and head out. (Well, I'm usually shuffling out because my pants are falling down without my belt and getting tangled in my stocking feet because I'm still carrying my shoes, but you get the idea.)
In these pilot studies, like here at Cleveland, it appears that all passengers are being required to submit to either WBI or a patdown (their choice). Since I'm not usually subject to either, this seems like a loss of privacy to me. Sure, I can choose which way I lose my privacy, but I wouldn't have been subject to either procedure at other airports.
Is TSA's eventual plan to make WBI/patdowns mandatory for all passengers?
August 7, 2009 2:17 PM
Jim Huggins said...
WBIs are being promoted as a better alternative to patdowns.
-----------------------
I cant address the rest of the post Jim, but as far as this one sentence is concerned I think I can.
WBI's are a better alternative, in the security sense. They allow us to see the things that a person is concealing that metal detectors cannot detect. Metal detectors have their limitations, as do the WBI’s, but metal detectors have more of them. They are an increase in the ability of the TSA to detect prohibited items and prevent them from boarding an aircraft.
August 7, 2009 3:58 PM
An anonymous poster gave the following applause to a particular TSO:
"Somebody needs to give the TSO manning the right-hand ID checker position at 0900 Aug 3 of SEA's northern checkpoint some kind of kudos for knowing that a brown US passport is legit. It was rather nice to not be accused of having a forged passport... this time."
To which an anonymous poster snarked:
" Wow, congratulations! You must feel like such a victim every other time that you fly.
I think the original poster was pointing out an improvement in the quality of training received by TSO's at the Seattle International Airport. This is a "good" thing.
August 7, 2009 4:02 PM
Jim Huggins said...
See, the question I can't seem to get an answer to is this:
WBIs are being promoted as a better alternative to patdowns. I can understand that. For passengers who are regularly subjected to patdowns because of implants, wheelchair usage, etc., this makes a lot of sense.
But most of the time, when I transit a checkpoint, I'm not subject to a patdown. I walk through the WTMD without alerting, pick up my carry-ons, and head out. (Well, I'm usually shuffling out because my pants are falling down without my belt and getting tangled in my stocking feet because I'm still carrying my shoes, but you get the idea.)
--------------
I understand how you feel Jim. I have always flown right through security no problem even before I worked for TSA. Truth is I never really carry anything onto the airplane with me except for a book and a psp. So now when I fly I also have to be subject to this search. However, it doesn't bother me at all. There are also thousands of other passengers that feel the same way. Lots of people would rather be scanned then touched any day. People with metallic implants love it. But as a TSO I have a question for Bob. With these machines will passengers with Pacemakers be able to be scanned since its a different type of technology from the metal detectors? I am sure there are alot of passengers out there tired of full body pat downs because of their pacemaker.
August 7, 2009 5:29 PM
"Lots of people would rather be scanned then touched any day."
And many, many more than that would rather not be groped by a TSO nor have the government take naked pictures of them or their children. And TSA has completely failed to provide any actual need to do either for the vast majority of passengers. Remember: The only "success story" these strip-search machines have had is keeping 0.6 ounces of lotion off of an airplane.
August 8, 2009 12:01 AM
The following appeared on FlyerTalk this morning. Although it is not about the subject at hand, WBI in CLE, it is about the duplicity of the TSA, the way it either ignores or twists law and fails to address questions asked of it:
I just read a 4.14.09 posting by Francine Kerner, TSA Chief Counsel, appearing under the TSA blog entitled "Traveling With Large Amounts of Cash." I am concerned and somewhat offended by the failure of TSA's Chief Legal Counsel to actually answer the simple question posted, ". . . why such a question is posed and whether a passenger is required to answer." Her posting incorrectly and misleadingly implies that citizens are required to answer such questions by the TSA. Ms. Kerner was under no obligation to answer a legal question from the public, but once she has chosen to publish a response in her capacity as an Attorney for a governmental entity, she is ethically bound to not mislead the questioner, be it affirmatively or through omission. There is no reason to assume that Ms. Kerner is not competent, however, as any lawyer with any experience in this area knows the correct answer to the question she claims to address, it is difficult to view Ms. Kerner's response as other than intentionally misleading and thus a violation of professional ethics.
August 8, 2009 11:13 AM
If a person declines the Strip Search Machine at Cleveland Hopkins will they get a retalitory secondary screening like at SFO that are being reported?
Thought this Strip Search was voluntary? Or is this TSA's way of making it the lessor choice of two evils?
August 9, 2009 5:25 PM
The stripsearch machines need to be made mandatory for every passenger at every checkpoint. How else would we REALLY know what every pax is carrying?
I want to see what I look like on the screen. With my 8-pack abs, I bet I look hot :-)
August 9, 2009 5:38 PM
"Remember the tampon paradox: if you can see a tampon using this technology, it is too invasive and should not be used. If you cannot see a tampon, it cannot detect necessary threats and should not be used. No technology that generates images of persons should be employed in the name of airport security.Instead of posting this every on every topic, why dont you think of ways to help TSA, like as in the whole point of this blog?
Come up with some ideas and help them out :P
August 9, 2009 6:02 PM
Dear Anonymous who asked for ways to help,
We have posted repeatedly many suggestions - look around. Related to the subject at hand, I have no objection to metal detectors and traces scanners, which do not generate images and can detect threats even within body cavities or folds.
August 10, 2009 8:17 AM
Hey friends,
This story would seem to indicate that the MMW and Backscatter won't make airplanes safe...
Thoughts or opinions?
"A 500 lbs. inmate at a Texas prison was able to sneak a gun past guards after cleverly using his fat flab to his advantage.
The fatty felon smuggled an unloaded 9mm pistol past several frisks and searches, by wedging the gun between his fat folds, reports the Houston Chronicle."
Bold mine.
August 10, 2009 9:17 AM
"Instead of posting this every on every topic, why dont you think of ways to help TSA, like as in the whole point of this blog?
Come up with some ideas and help them out :P"
Ideas:
1. End the ID checks that do nothing to make anyone safer.
2. End the shoe carnival that does nothing to make anyone safer.
3. End the liquids farce that does nothing to make anyone safer.
4. Return these idiotic machines to the manufacturer.
The first three would make security checkpoints run much more smoothly and make everyone happier. The fourth should be done in the name of basic decency, a quality TSA has shown it lacks time and again.
August 10, 2009 11:08 AM
"I want to see what I look like on the screen. With my 8-pack abs, I bet I look hot :-)"
I got a 1 pack ab. and it's a dunlap: Dunlap over my belt. Not so hot, but if a screener wants to look, ...ehhh...
August 10, 2009 11:56 AM
"And TSA has completely failed to provide any actual need to do either for the vast majority of passengers."
Strap a thin sheet of explosives around your chest, back, or leg. Wear normal clothes. That metal decetor you walked through will not pick up the explosive. You have a good chence at not being patted down.
THAT'S why this machine is needed.
August 10, 2009 11:59 AM
I *can't stand* these things. They're slower. They invade your privacy to an almost shocking degree. And allow me to guess - they're even more expensive, right?
Thanks for having this weblog TSA and I appreciate the work you do but please, let's find another way to get it done. These things are fine for luggage but not for my or my wife's body.
August 10, 2009 2:21 PM
This week marks 3 years of TSA's War on Water.
Late last year TSA promised the end of the War on Water was coming in 2009, but since then we've heard nothing but silence.
For three years, passengers have put up with TSA banning virtually an entire state of matter, not because that state of matter is a threat, but because TSA is too inept to determine if it is a threat. We have put up with inconvenience, loss of personal property, delays, and a non-trivial number of liquid-related TSO power trips (e.g., confiscating breast milk, formula, etc.) to avoid the negligible risk of someone attempting the difficult task of mixing liquid explosives airside. (all the while smuggling truly dangerous solid explosives remains too easy)
Confiscating water and toothpaste oversteps TSA's mandate to screen out weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. What statute allows TSA to confiscate harmless items because TSA is too inept to distinguish them from threats? What's next, banning clothes?
The credibility of the 8/06 plot and the plotters fell apart in court, making the inept wannabe shoe bomber look professional. Yet the War on Water continues.
The wannabe plotters (criminals, but incompetent ones) were arrested, there never was a threat against domestic USA flights, and any professional terrorists would choose a more reliable and stable solid explosive. Yet as a CYA and to "do something" in response to the news, TSA subjected and continues to subject hundreds of airports and millions of domestic travelers to this insanity.
The threat of liquid explosives did not begin in August of 2006, or even 2006. A nitroglycerin device on Philippine Airlines 434 (1994) killed one person. The 1994 threat of larger attacks, which was real, was appropriately handled through good police work and disrupting/arresting the terrorists, not harassing and inconveniencing millions of law-abiding passengers. But it took the creation of the power-tripping reactionary TSA to trigger something as absurd as the War on Water.
From the beginning, TSA could have proportionately dealt with the threat by increasing random ETD swabs on liquid containers to test for nitrates, high-concentration peroxides, etc. But instead TSA chose an invasive and annoying ban, and slipped in a completely irrelevant all-shoes-off policy at the same time for good measure. Three years later, and the aviation threat level still remains at Orange, apparently to keep fear whipped up among passengers. Countless TSO hours are wasted looking for toothpaste and lipstick on the x-ray instead of looking for actual threats, and the high failure rates for detecting bombs and guns reflect this stupidity.
It is long past the time to end this insanity and abolish the War on Water. The TSO effort that goes to confiscating toothpaste and lipstick should be redirected at more reliable screening for real threats--guns, large knives, and (solid) bombs and increased use of proven and effective ETD technology. Doing so would actually increase security while restoring a small piece of the traveling public's liberty and dignity.
August 10, 2009 4:00 PM
It is long past the time to end this insanity and abolish the War on Water. The TSO effort that goes to confiscating toothpaste and lipstick should be redirected at more reliable screening for real threats--guns, large knives, and (solid) bombs and increased use of proven and effective ETD technology. Doing so would actually increase security while restoring a small piece of the traveling public's liberty and dignity.
August 10, 2009 4:00 PM
+1
August 10, 2009 5:42 PM
http://www.thermalmatrixusa.net/applications_airlinesecurity.aspx
WBIs have been criticized as “virtual strip searches,” because the machines display the anatomical features of the passengers being screened. This has led to protest on multiple fronts. Privacy advocates are urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to suspend the technology. In addition, one U.S. Congressman is calling for WBIs to be banned.
“Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane,” said Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R). While the Transportation Safety Administration has considered WBIs as mandatory for all airline passengers, Chaffetz is working to stop the practice.
“Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies as a pre-requisite to boarding an airplane,” Cheffetz said.
.........................
Bob continues to state that the MMW images do not depict such detail.
And he wonders why the TSA's truthfulness is being questioned.
Show the real images, exact detail, exact size.
August 10, 2009 8:48 PM
"Show the real images, exact detail, exact size."
TSA's refusal to do so, after dozens and dozens of requests, speaks volumes.
August 10, 2009 11:42 PM
NoClu said...
Hey friends,
This story would seem to indicate that the MMW and Backscatter won't make airplanes safe...
Thoughts or opinions?
"A 500 lbs. inmate at a Texas prison was able to sneak a gun past guards after cleverly using his fat flab to his advantage.
The fatty felon smuggled an unloaded 9mm pistol past several frisks and searches, by wedging the gun between his fat folds, reports the Houston Chronicle."
A couple thoughts . . .a WTMD should catch this . . . a good massage by the guards would catch this . . . at 500 pounds he's have two boarding passes, if not three and that ought to merit a extra pass or two through TSA's kabuki process.
August 11, 2009 2:30 AM
Bob, in the interest in personal privacy if I wear Gold Lame will the MMW Strip Search Machine properly image my naked body?
Secondly, how can TSA justify taking NAKED PICTURES of CHILDREN?
I thought there were laws about child porn! Is TSA exempt?
August 11, 2009 10:29 AM
Ok, Bob.
Why is my question about lame and cloth of gold being supressed?
Did I actually hit upon a real actual weakness of your system?
Or did I recently get you mad at me? (more mad than usual)
August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
"The fatty felon smuggled an unloaded 9mm pistol past several frisks and searches, by wedging the gun between his fat folds, reports the Houston Chronicle."
A couple thoughts . . .a WTMD should catch this . . ."
Yes, a WTMD would pick this up, but not full body imaging. Airports substituting WTMD for elevtronic strip-searchers for primary screening are actually making us less safe!
August 11, 2009 3:39 PM
Now Bob, this is silly.
First you supress the post with the question. Then you allow the post asking about you supressing the post.
What is the effect of wearing Lame or Cloth of Gold on your virtual strip search machines?
Is it possible that a resurgence of disco could defeat your virtual strip searches?
August 11, 2009 4:55 PM
Quote from Anonymous: "Strap a thin sheet of explosives around your chest, back, or leg. Wear normal clothes. That metal decetor you walked through will not pick up the explosive. You have a good chence at not being patted down.
THAT'S why this machine is needed."
No, that's why the PUFFER is needed. Least intrusive means of screening should be used. Not the most.
August 11, 2009 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...
"The fatty felon smuggled an unloaded 9mm pistol past several frisks and searches, by wedging the gun between his fat folds, reports the Houston Chronicle."
A couple thoughts . . .a WTMD should catch this . . ."
Yes, a WTMD would pick this up, but not full body imaging. Airports substituting WTMD for elevtronic strip-searchers for primary screening are actually making us less safe!"
-------------------------
It actually depends on the gun. Not all will be picked up by a walk-through-metal-detector. Can you figure out which you can have tucked under your shirt and not alarm the walk-through?
August 11, 2009 7:16 PM
Anonymous said...
"Bob, in the interest in personal privacy if I wear Gold Lame will the MMW Strip Search Machine properly image my naked body?
Secondly, how can TSA justify taking NAKED PICTURES of CHILDREN?
I thought there were laws about child porn! Is TSA exempt?"
This is such a distortion of truth, and a twisting of words that besides this respons to call you out on being less than honest, your question doesn't deserve a reply.
But I do wonder, when children are examined either by hand, eyes, or CAT scan, x-rays for medical reasons, is that child porn too, in your twisted opinion?
August 11, 2009 7:19 PM
RB said...
"It is long past the time to end this insanity and abolish the War on Water. The TSO effort that goes to confiscating toothpaste and lipstick should be redirected at more reliable screening for real threats--guns, large knives, and (solid) bombs and increased use of proven and effective ETD technology. Doing so would actually increase security while restoring a small piece of the traveling public's liberty and dignity."
Oddly enough, in 2008, in China, another terrorist used an unopened can of soda to attempt to down a plane. But no, no terrorist ever try to use liquids to kill people.
August 11, 2009 7:21 PM
Trollkiller said...
"Chris Boyce said...
3. How does a member of the citizenry request a privilege similar to that granted to the reporter?
Start a blog or website and become a reporter like me.
Blogger Bob, as a reporter I would like to request access to the private room so I can see first hand the resolution the WBIs are capable of producing. I will bring my own model with a full model release.
Let me know when you will be in Jax, Tampa or Miami."
----------------------------
As a reporter, you should know this is the incorrect avenue to request access to TSA. As a reporter you should know that DHS/TSA, as with all other government agencies, have specific departments that handle request by the media. Are you sure your a reporter? Or just someone who claims to be?
However, maybe Bob can point you in the right direction. But I would think that as a reporter you wouldn't need basic help like this, that you would be able to find your own way around.
Don't be surprised if your request for access is denied on the grounds that you do not represent a legitimate medial agency. But I am sure that if you are denied, to you it will be proof that TSA has something to hide, right?
And if you do represent a legitimate media agency, why in the world are you wasting your time asking on this blog instead of asking the proper TSA department?
August 11, 2009 7:31 PM
This is such a distortion of truth, and a twisting of words that besides this respons to call you out on being less than honest, your question doesn't deserve a reply.
But I do wonder, when children are examined either by hand, eyes, or CAT scan, x-rays for medical reasons, is that child porn too, in your twisted opinion?
August 11, 2009 7:19 PM
......................
Anon, just what words did I twist?
What truth did I distort?
One of the TSO's who post on this very blog said that the MMW STRIP SEARCH MACHINE images are just like looking at a person naked. I am only asking why TSA would image children when they know STRIP SEARCH MACHINES show such detail.
Germany banned these machines in their airports just for these privacy reasons, are they liars also?
Prove me wrong Anon.
Other privacy advocates have spoken out about how revealing these images are.
Even TSA's Nico went into hiding when challenged to prove how tame these images are, he's in hiding so deep that he is part of this blog in name only.
TSA needs to box up these STRIP SEARCH MACHINES and return them to the makers.
Anyone in TSA who images a child should be charged with a crime!
August 11, 2009 9:50 PM
Would the founding fathers approve? I can't imagine. Didn't they make a big deal about illegal search and siezure?
August 12, 2009 12:13 AM
These units cost just over $100,000each but the basic magnetometer (metal detector) is just over $10,000. Considering the $30,000,000 we have already spent post 9/11 and considering the Federal government will have a deficit of over $1,400,000,000 in 2009 alone is this really the best use of tax payer money? Really?? How much is enough?
August 12, 2009 12:17 AM
@Anonymous: "Oddly enough, in 2008, in China, another terrorist used an unopened can of soda to attempt to down a plane. But no, no terrorist ever try to use liquids to kill people."
So what, did he shake it vigorously and expect to blow up the plane? Imagine his surprise when the soda can just shot a fountain in his face!
Earl
August 12, 2009 12:34 AM
Anonymous said...
RB said...
"It is long past the time to end this insanity and abolish the War on Water. The TSO effort that goes to confiscating toothpaste and lipstick should be redirected at more reliable screening for real threats--guns, large knives, and (solid) bombs and increased use of proven and effective ETD technology. Doing so would actually increase security while restoring a small piece of the traveling public's liberty and dignity."
Oddly enough, in 2008, in China, another terrorist used an unopened can of soda to attempt to down a plane. But no, no terrorist ever try to use liquids to kill people.
August 11, 2009 7:21 PM
.......................
Sorry Anon, I can't take credit for someone elses work.
I just copied part of another Anons post from August 10, 2009 4:00 PM and gave it a +1.
Messed up by not quoting and seperating the various remarks.
August 12, 2009 7:48 AM
Earl Pitts said...
@Anonymous: "Oddly enough, in 2008, in China, another terrorist used an unopened can of soda to attempt to down a plane. But no, no terrorist ever try to use liquids to kill people."
So what, did he shake it vigorously and expect to blow up the plane? Imagine his surprise when the soda can just shot a fountain in his face!
Earl
August 12, 2009 12:34 AM
...................
Must have been one of those extra explosive sugar free types.
So if a can of soda is so dangerous then why can aircraft crew bring them on and I can't?
TSA is to Security as Death Valley is to Fishing.
August 12, 2009 8:03 AM
Anonymous wrote:
Oddly enough, in 2008, in China, another terrorist used an unopened can of soda to attempt to down a plane. But no, no terrorist ever try to use liquids to kill people.
Nobody ever said that terrorists or other bad guys didn't try to use liquids to kill people.
I think you're referring to a March 7, 2008 incident where a woman tried to light gasoline carried in soda cans in the lavatory. From what little the Communist Chinese have told us, it appears the woman evaded security screening, but in general it was a poorly conceived and bungled attack attempt.
Lot's of things can be used to try to kill people. Belts, ties, trousers, ballpoint pens, glass. Should we ban all of these too?
The solution to airport (and general) security isn't to keep banning items and annoying innocent citizens; the end result of that is inevitably passengers flying in hospital gowns under sedation and strapped to their seats. The solution is to do good police work, arrest the bad guys, and punish them harshly enough to deter future attacks.
August 12, 2009 10:38 AM
"Quote from Anonymous: "Strap a thin sheet of explosives around your chest, back, or leg. Wear normal clothes. That metal decetor you walked through will not pick up the explosive. You have a good chence at not being patted down.
THAT'S why this machine is needed."
No, that's why the PUFFER is needed. Least intrusive means of screening should be used. Not the most."
I agree with your "least intrusive" idea. Problem is that the Puffers, while working really well in a sterile testing area, didn't perform well when out in the dusty and dirty checkpoint environment. Too many alarms, which leads to further screening, more pat downs, bag searches, wasted time. Kinda dumb of TSA to buy a whole bunch of these only to find this our AFTER they bought them.
August 12, 2009 11:35 AM
"when children are examined either by hand, eyes, or CAT scan, x-rays for medical reasons, is that child porn too, in your twisted opinion?"
Doctors and nurses are trained, licensed medical professionals. TSA screeners are not. Also, X-rays and CAT scans do not generate nude images.
August 12, 2009 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...
"when children are examined either by hand, eyes, or CAT scan, x-rays for medical reasons, is that child porn too, in your twisted opinion?"
Doctors and nurses are trained, licensed medical professionals. TSA screeners are not. Also, X-rays and CAT scans do not generate nude images.
August 12, 2009 12:12 PM
......................
Doctors and nurses contribute to society whereas TSA takes away from society.
August 13, 2009 8:51 AM
@Anonymous: "I agree with your "least intrusive" idea. Problem is that the Puffers, while working really well in a sterile testing area, didn't perform well when out in the dusty and dirty checkpoint environment. Too many alarms, which leads to further screening, more pat downs, bag searches, wasted time. Kinda dumb of TSA to buy a whole bunch of these only to find this our AFTER they bought them."
True. So why not fix them and get them right rather than scrapping them for something more intrusive and doesn't really fix the problem? It'd be money better spent and a lot more justifiable than WBI.
Earl
August 13, 2009 12:01 PM
Earl Said…
True. So why not fix them and get them right rather than scrapping them for something more intrusive and doesn't really fix the problem? It'd be money better spent and a lot more justifiable than WBI.
Earl
--------------------------------
Because the puffers nor the WTMD can detect ceramic knives or many other things that are prohibited.
http://tinyurl.com/qub8zx
http://tinyurl.com/lyfv5k
http://tinyurl.com/qa7fy2
August 13, 2009 2:13 PM
Ron's right. The puffers cannot detect things that are prohibited yet not dangerous, like our lethal four ounce bottles of water.
August 13, 2009 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...
As a reporter, you should know this is the incorrect avenue to request access to TSA. As a reporter you should know that DHS/TSA, as with all other government agencies, have specific departments that handle request by the media. Are you sure your a reporter? Or just someone who claims to be?
However, maybe Bob can point you in the right direction. But I would think that as a reporter you wouldn't need basic help like this, that you would be able to find your own way around.
Don't be surprised if your request for access is denied on the grounds that you do not represent a legitimate medial agency. But I am sure that if you are denied, to you it will be proof that TSA has something to hide, right?
And if you do represent a legitimate media agency, why in the world are you wasting your time asking on this blog instead of asking the proper TSA department?
I am not requesting access to the TSA, I am requesting access to see the Nude-o-scope in action. I am also requesting Blogger Bob to be the TSA representative to show it to me.
Media departments are fine and well if you want regurgitated answers to questions. A real reporter on the other hand gets the real story by bypassing the PR professionals and seeking information from the source. Ask an oil refinery's PR department about pollution and you will get a song and dance, on the other hand investigate the pollution sites and the people it effects and you will get the real story.
Never use a media department if you want the truth.
While Blogger Bob is a PR shill for the TSA, he is my PR shill. We have a history that would cut through a lot of the song and dance. He knows where I am coming from and I know where he is coming from.
As for "legitimate", yep as legitimate as CNN, AP, or any other media company.
August 15, 2009 12:20 AM
Earl Pitts said...
"@Anonymous: "I agree with your "least intrusive" idea. Problem is that the Puffers, while working really well in a sterile testing area, didn't perform well when out in the dusty and dirty checkpoint environment. Too many alarms, which leads to further screening, more pat downs, bag searches, wasted time. Kinda dumb of TSA to buy a whole bunch of these only to find this our AFTER they bought them."
True. So why not fix them and get them right rather than scrapping them for something more intrusive and doesn't really fix the problem? It'd be money better spent and a lot more justifiable than WBI.
Earl"
------------------------
You seem to assume puffers can be "fixed" to work in a real-world environment. Why would you assume that?
As I understand it you basically need a dust free environment to work a puffer successfully. Where can we find that?
August 17, 2009 11:20 AM
RB said...
"This is such a distortion of truth, and a twisting of words that besides this respons to call you out on being less than honest, your question doesn't deserve a reply.
But I do wonder, when children are examined either by hand, eyes, or CAT scan, x-rays for medical reasons, is that child porn too, in your twisted opinion?
August 11, 2009 7:19 PM
......................
Anon, just what words did I twist?
What truth did I distort?
One of the TSO's who post on this very blog said that the MMW STRIP SEARCH MACHINE images are just like looking at a person naked. I am only asking why TSA would image children when they know STRIP SEARCH MACHINES show such detail.
Prove me wrong Anon. "
------------------
Yeah, I said that, this is the same anon. This post your replying to and the one your referrence are both mine.
And I explain that I have never worked or even seen this machine in person. I also explain that I over estimate things all the time, on the side of caution, and that i specifically thought of what might be the worst this machine could do - see people naked. Does it, I don't know. Like I said, I've never worked on these machines.
I explained all this, but you chose to ignore it, like you do lots of things, and use what I specifically said was an exageration as "proof". Again, you twist words to try to make your point. To me thats the same as lying. Your not being honest.
But I suspect you will keep using my over-exageration as something a TSA employee said as proof of what these machines can do to further your arguments.
Its not honest on your part.
Oh, I over-exagerate how much my vacations will cost me too, on the side of caution. I over-exagerate how long it will take me to drive somewhere, so I'm not late. ETC... I do it alot, sorry.
August 17, 2009 11:36 AM
Trollkiller said...
"Anonymous said...
As a reporter, you should know this is the incorrect avenue to request access to TSA. As a reporter you should know that DHS/TSA, as with all other government agencies, have specific departments that handle request by the media. Are you sure your a reporter? Or just someone who claims to be?
However, maybe Bob can point you in the right direction. But I would think that as a reporter you wouldn't need basic help like this, that you would be able to find your own way around.
Don't be surprised if your request for access is denied on the grounds that you do not represent a legitimate medial agency. But I am sure that if you are denied, to you it will be proof that TSA has something to hide, right?
And if you do represent a legitimate media agency, why in the world are you wasting your time asking on this blog instead of asking the proper TSA department?
I am not requesting access to the TSA, I am requesting access to see the Nude-o-scope in action. I am also requesting Blogger Bob to be the TSA representative to show it to me.
Media departments are fine and well if you want regurgitated answers to questions. A real reporter on the other hand gets the real story by bypassing the PR professionals and seeking information from the source. Ask an oil refinery's PR department about pollution and you will get a song and dance, on the other hand investigate the pollution sites and the people it effects and you will get the real story.
Never use a media department if you want the truth.
While Blogger Bob is a PR shill for the TSA, he is my PR shill. We have a history that would cut through a lot of the song and dance. He knows where I am coming from and I know where he is coming from.
As for "legitimate", yep as legitimate as CNN, AP, or any other media company."
----------------------
So what your saying is you do not represent a legitimate media agency. That your a lone-gun-man kind of reporter on the internet, right? You have press credentials, right? Awww, no? Most likely, no.
I agree you have a relationship with blogger Bob on this blog. We all do. I guess we are special. I have no idea if you have had personal contact with him, yet that does not matter.
Despite what you claim, you are still requesting access to TSA, even if it is at an airport to view their security devices.
And sorry, you do not need to lecture anyone here about where they get their information. Who are you to tell people the value or lack of value of their information? Sort of dictatorial of you to do so, in my opinion.
Send you request through the proper department. Maybe they will humor you.
August 17, 2009 8:10 PM
RB said...
"Anonymous said...
"when children are examined either by hand, eyes, or CAT scan, x-rays for medical reasons, is that child porn too, in your twisted opinion?"
Doctors and nurses are trained, licensed medical professionals. TSA screeners are not. Also, X-rays and CAT scans do not generate nude images.
August 12, 2009 12:12 PM
......................
Doctors and nurses contribute to society whereas TSA takes away from society."
-------------------------------
In your opinin, right?
Or do you really believe, as the original post implied, employees at TSA specifically want to look at children nude? You really can't be serious. If you think that, you have let your hatered of TSA take you down an irrational path that logic and common sense can not follow, and if so it is pointless to have a rational conversation with you.
August 17, 2009 8:15 PM
@Anonymous: "You seem to assume puffers can be "fixed" to work in a real-world environment. Why would you assume that?
As I understand it you basically need a dust free environment to work a puffer successfully. Where can we find that?"
Hence why they should be sent back to the labs and fixed thru more testing and development.
I've seen puffers working just fine in other nations and they don't seem to have the issues that ours have. Why can they get them to work and we can't?
If TSA wants to develop it, they can. It might mean they have to focus less on strip search machines and others, but why would they focus on real security when they can put on a good show with new uniforms and strip searchers?
Earl
August 17, 2009 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...
So what your saying is you do not represent a legitimate media agency. That your a lone-gun-man kind of reporter on the internet, right? You have press credentials, right? Awww, no? Most likely, no.
I agree you have a relationship with blogger Bob on this blog. We all do. I guess we are special. I have no idea if you have had personal contact with him, yet that does not matter.
Despite what you claim, you are still requesting access to TSA, even if it is at an airport to view their security devices.
And sorry, you do not need to lecture anyone here about where they get their information. Who are you to tell people the value or lack of value of their information? Sort of dictatorial of you to do so, in my opinion.
Send you request through the proper department. Maybe they will humor you.
You get your stories your way, I will get mine my way. If I wish to speak to anyone, I talk to that person. I do not need to go through a PR department.
BTW keep an eye out for my interview with Blogger Bob. (It may take a month or so as sometimes these things move slowly)
As for access to the MMW, that has been agreed on but the powers that be placed some stipulations on the access. I feel the stipulations and the reasoning behind them to be reasonable. It will take a few weeks to get it all hashed out and then we have to schedule.
The scheduling will depend on Blogger Bob's work load, travel plans etc. So don't hold your breath waiting on the MMW story, I would hate for you to turn blue and pass out.
August 18, 2009 12:07 AM
Anon TSA-defender,
We don´t care if the model of puffer has to be changed or a different type of trace chemical detection system is used (such as swipes). What we are saying is that detection of trace chemicals aids security and is not invasive, while WBI are horribly invasive and do not add toward security.
August 18, 2009 7:31 AM
Anon said.....
In your opinin, right?
Or do you really believe, as the original post implied, employees at TSA specifically want to look at children nude? .........
August 17, 2009 8:15 PM
....................
I am saying that TSA is screening children in a manner that displays their nude bodies.
The manner of screening is extremely invasive and demeaning, so much so that this type of screening has been outlawed completely in at least one country.
Our own United States Congress has legislation in work that would limit MMW Strip Search Screening to secondary use only yet TSA in its bullheaded, self righteous manner continues to deploy MMW Strip Search Machines even while the public and privacy groups protest.
I think the average TSO is to much of a sheeple to protest and just follows orders blindly and will not take a stand against what they know is wrong.
So Anon, do you think its ok to take nude images of children?
August 18, 2009 9:22 AM
"Or do you really believe, as the original post implied, employees at TSA specifically want to look at children nude? You really can't be serious."
Then why is TSA implementing a screening system that mandates children either be photographed nude or groped by a screener? Whatever TSA's intent, the end result is screeners looking at nude pictures of children or grabbing those children. It is shameful and disgusting and does nothing to make anyone at all safer.
August 18, 2009 12:09 PM
Bubbaloop said...
Anon TSA-defender,
We don´t care if the model of puffer has to be changed or a different type of trace chemical detection system is used (such as swipes). What we are saying is that detection of trace chemicals aids security and is not invasive, while WBI are horribly invasive and do not add toward security.
August 18, 2009 7:31 AM
..........................
I have to believe that whoever sold the Puffers to TSA made some kind of claim that these machines were suitable for the intended use.
Why not hold the company that sold these machines accountable and require that the machines are configured to do what was promised?
If they can't make their machines work then they should never again be awarded any kind of contract by the government.
Who wants to be that TSA Contracting Officers bought the puffers on a no bid contract?
Bet cha!!
August 18, 2009 2:21 PM
RB said...
"Anon said.....
In your opinin, right?
Or do you really believe, as the original post implied, employees at TSA specifically want to look at children nude? .........
August 17, 2009 8:15 PM
....................
I am saying that TSA is screening children in a manner that displays their nude bodies.
The manner of screening is extremely invasive and demeaning, so much so that this type of screening has been outlawed completely in at least one country.
Our own United States Congress has legislation in work that would limit MMW Strip Search Screening to secondary use only yet TSA in its bullheaded, self righteous manner continues to deploy MMW Strip Search Machines even while the public and privacy groups protest.
I think the average TSO is to much of a sheeple to protest and just follows orders blindly and will not take a stand against what they know is wrong.
So Anon, do you think its ok to take nude images of children?"
--------------------------
I goto my YMCA 3 to 4 times a week after work (in the afternoon). I almost always see nude children (boys, as I am male). The end result of me going to exercise is that I see nude male children. Maybe sounds creepy to type/say it, but it is in no way my intent when I go. I exercise, I sweat, I shower and change in the dressing room.
At the same time I work with men who have served from Viet Nam onwards in all of our conflicts. They have all encountered adults that use children and women to kill others through explosives or other weapons.
At the same time I personally have screened several families where the young child (under 3) had a concealed wepon on their body or in the luggage, and the adult parent (in both cases the father) really protested as to why we are screening a child. As it turned out, they hid the weapon on their children thinking we wouldn't screen them. One was a gun, the other a knife.
But you asked what I think, and I will answer. I would like to offer a wide variety of screening methods available to passengers as they see fit. But no, I see nothing wrong with using these machines on children. The men and women I work with are in my experience professional, caring people, almost all who have had or currently have children, so they understand the concerns of passengers in this matter. I will be happy for our passengers who want these machines when we get them at our airport.
August 18, 2009 9:00 PM
At the same time I personally have screened several families where the young child (under 3) had a concealed wepon on their body or in the luggage, and the adult parent (in both cases the father) really protested as to why we are screening a child.
..........................
Are you claiming that these screenings happened while working for TSA?
Please enlighten, what kind of weapons are you saying you found?
August 18, 2009 10:29 PM
RB said..
"At the same time I personally have screened several families where the young child (under 3) had a concealed wepon on their body or in the luggage, and the adult parent (in both cases the father) really protested as to why we are screening a child.
..........................
Are you claiming that these screenings happened while working for TSA?
Please enlighten, what kind of weapons are you saying you found?"
-----------------------
This is part of your problem RB. You don't read what people say and then you respond. If you read my original post, I say exactly what two items I found.
No, I am not claiming this happend while I worked at TSA. Its a fact that these incidents happened at TSA while I was (and currently am) employed there.
In the case of the gun the father was arrested. It was a tiny pistol stuffed into the childs clothing. The parent carried the child through the WTMD and alarmed. When I began to screen the father he wanted to hand the child over to the mother who did not alarm. I did not allow this, and screen the father and child while he held the child. The child was maybe around 1 or so, sill wearing diapers, but also a tiny a shirt. The mother was eventually able to leave with the children. I do not know if she left with another plane or simply left the airport.
In the case of the knife, it was "artfully concealed" in a tiny pink suitcase that the child had. You know the ones I mean? It had a picture of a unicorn on it. How do I know it was concealed? The knife was taped to the rail of the inside of the bag in an attempt to hide it while it went through the x-ray. The man also admitted he had gotten it through the Knoxville airport like that. However, attempting to smuggle a weapon through a federal checkpoint is a crime. But the airport police allowed both parents to go, which is up to them.
In both cases, the father protested why were we screening or searchings a childs luggage? That itself is not suspicions. Lots of parents protest that, not knowing a few people do bad things with their children.
Its also important to note that TSA has found guns and bullets stuffed into teddy bears and the like over the years. Many people, sadly, attempt to use children or the childs property to do such things. And I am not even talking about drugs at all.
But just so you can rest assured, I would NEVER think a child would do such a thing. Suchs acts are ALWAYS the actions of an adult. Personally, I think its pretty sad we have to check children becasue of things like this.
I believe from your respons that you would never do such a thing, and a hesitant to think that other adults would do it either. All I can say is that it is surprising what some parents do. Note, this is not an every day occurance. But how do we know which children to screen and which to not screen? We don't, so we have to screen them all. Yes, sad.
August 19, 2009 2:42 PM
Anon said in part...
This is part of your problem RB. You don't read what people say and then you respond. If you read my original post, I say exactly what two items I found.
.........................
I missed the part where you said what was found. My bad, will try harder.
It does seem that these items would have been found using screening methods that have been used for years. So the invasive screening that MMW brings to the party is not indicated in these cases.
Now, for a parent to stash a weapon in a kids clothing, diaper bag are what have you is just wrong and the parent should have the book thrown at them.
Anon, I am not anti-law. I firmly believe in the rule of law, good order and discipline and try to lead my life by those standards.
I do not agree with TSA's security at any cost mantra and will use all legal tools to fight such efforts.
Freedoms that our acestors paid for and even people like me who served 23 years in the military come at a very high cost and deserve our attention that they are preserved for our children.
TSA in my opinion is working to take away some of those liberties. By intention or not I don't know but I cannot stand by idle and will do all I can to stop the slide down the slope.
Freedom is worth more than a few airplanes crashed into buildings.
August 20, 2009 4:41 PM
RB said...
"Freedoms that our acestors paid for and even people like me who served 23 years in the military come at a very high cost and deserve our attention that they are preserved for our children.
TSA in my opinion is working to take away some of those liberties. By intention or not I don't know but I cannot stand by idle and will do all I can to stop the slide down the slope.
Freedom is worth more than a few airplanes crashed into buildings."
-----------------------
Right now I will only respond to part of what you said.
You seem dismissive of those who have also served this country, and believe in what TSA does. Why is that? You are not the only one who has given themselves to this country.
I support what TSA does, and like you I will fight to support TSA with every legal resources I have too, including writing congress when I fell necessary.
I do not believe TSA has taken away any liberties. Someone say so does not make it so. I believe TSA is attempting to preserve our liberties and freedoms.
Regarding what you think of the value of freedom... that is your opinino to be so dismissive on the value of life. I noticed you only wrote in terms of buildings and planes, no people - fathers, mothers, children, friends, who are lost when terrorist attack. Maybe that makes it easier for you to say so? I do not know, and I do not mean this to be an attack on you. Just do not forget this is not about planes and buildings. I can care less about those things, and I would not work at TSA if TSA were just to protect that. Its the people inside that matter to me, and to TSA.
August 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home