Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

2.20.2009

Pilot Program Tests Millimeter Wave for Primary Passenger Screening

This week, TSA began testing MMW technology in the place of a metal detector at Tulsa International Airport to assess passenger throughput and acceptance.

Currently, 18 airports have millimeter wave equipment installed at checkpoints in a “secondary” screening configuration, which means that metal detectors are still the primary method of screening passengers. At these airports, randomly selected passengers and those requiring secondary screening can be screened by millimeter wave technology as a non-invasive alternative to a pat-down from an officer.

In Tulsa, instead of walking through the metal detector, passengers will go directly through the millimeter wave machine. A passenger can opt not to go through the unit, but will go through the metal detector and get a pat-down instead. Signage at the checkpoint informs travelers about the technology and lets them know that using it is voluntary. We’ve included one of the signs below.


So far the pilot seems to be going well, as noted in an article in USA Today. In the first three days of primary MMW at Tulsa, 3,780 passengers have been screened using the technology and only 8 people have opted for the metal detector and a pat-down.

In addition to the security benefit of whole body imaging – it can detect metallic and non-metallic threat items – the technology also reduces the need to pat-down passengers with hip replacements, prosthetics and other surgical implants. At airports without Whole Body Image machines, when passengers alarm the metal detector, the alarm must be resolved through a hand-held metal detector and a pat down. This often takes two to four minutes as opposed to about 15 seconds with millimeter wave.

For every person who is hesitant to go through the millimeter wave portal for whatever reason, there are 100 people with metallic surgical implants that are rejoicing. Here is a quote from Thomas Frank’s USA Today Article:

“For passengers with metallic hips or knees, the scanners were a relief from metal detectors, which invariably sound alarms that lead to pat-downs. ‘I walked through, raised my arms and was done,’ said a beaming Larry Brenden, 43, of Albuquerque. ‘I was like, what, no pat-down?"

And yes, whenever we talk about whole body imaging we get lots of comments and questions about privacy. We suggest checking out 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl’s commentary on millimeter wave or this article by the producer of Ms. Stahl’s segment. For anyone just hearing about millimeter wave and wanting to know more, please read Blogger Bob’s two previous MMW posts: [link 1] [link 2]. The short version: the technology is completely safe, WBI images are never transmitted, printed or stored, the officer at the machine cannot see the image and the officer viewing the image cannot see the passenger.

In the next two months, the pilot program will expand to San Francisco, Las Vegas, Miami, Albuquerque, and Salt Lake City.

If you have the chance to go through a millimeter wave machine – in primary or secondary – please share your thoughts here on the blog.

- Poster Paul


EoS Blog Team

**Update:

TSA’s partnership with European civil aviation authorities has also had a significant impact on TSA’s decision to begin the Primary MMW pilot. A Primary MMW trial at Schiphol airport in the Netherlands has been underway since late 2006. Prior to TSA’s pilot program, TSA technology experts met with Dutch civil aviation authorities and technology experts to discuss the process and recent results.

***Addendum:

Including the above, three signs will be on display at the security checkpoint for airports participating in the Primary MMW pilot. See the other two below. All three are currently on display at Tulsa.


Labels: ,

157 Comments:

Anonymous Sandra said...

Since you would not publish my comments when I first posted them earlier today, I shall try again:

Quotes from USAToday re MMW machine at Tulsa:

“Some passengers Thursday said they wished the TSA had posted signs near the body scanner with a reproduction of the image. "I might not have wanted to go through if I had seen that," said Susanne Nicklas of Grove, Okla. "I'm 72, and I don't have the figure I used to." “

Bob and Paul, you’ve indicate to us in the past that these diabolical machines are well signed. Are they or aren’t they? The following quote from the same article indicates they are not:

“Signs at the Tulsa checkpoint explain that "use of this technology is optional." White, the TSA spokesman, said the signage emphasizes that passengers can skip the scanners because the agency wants to gauge passenger preference. "We're not trying to hide anything," White said. Images from the body scanners are on the TSA website, www.tsa.gov.”

Do you expect passengers to go to the TSA website before deciding whether or not to go through the MMW?

In April you posted a picture of alleged signage. To bring forward a thought posted on FT: “Interesting to note that the terminal is totally empty. Makes one wonder if the signs were put up, photographed and then removed.”

In light of the new administration's de-emphasis on the "war on terror", your link to the Stahl segment is ill-conceived as is the link to the article. Did any of you even bother to read the comments attached to each as well as to the USA Today article? The TSA is a hated agency and there is NOTHING that you can do to change people's minds other than to dissolve yourselves.

You just dig your hole deeper and deeper.

February 20, 2009 6:38 PM

 
Anonymous HappyToHelp said...

Good blog post. I'm sure this is going to be a hot topic.

Have a good weekend everybody.

-H2H

February 20, 2009 8:49 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Seriously, when I go through one o' them machines I'd love to get a printout of my pic - 8x10, front and back would be fine, don't need any wallet size...

I'd even be willing to pay for 'em. :o)

Tom (1 of 5-6)

February 20, 2009 10:23 PM

 
Anonymous Eric said...

Uh, WHERE does that sign say that it is voluntary?

February 20, 2009 11:45 PM

 
Blogger Gunner said...

You people really do go insane when an article comes out that mentions you.

You go even nutsier if it is not critical.

If you spent nearly as much time reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights as you do USA Today, you would understand why you are more despised than the ownership of the Arizona Cardinals.

February 21, 2009 12:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few points:

Can someone please address why the people in the USA Today article seem not to have access to the posters with the pictures?

Can someone please explain why the person seeing the image cannot be seen by the person screened?

Why aren't the passengers able to see their own images? That is the only way they can be assured that the images are not what they consider pornographic.

What measures are being taken to ensure that the images, while being transmitted, are not hacked into?

Is the person analyzing the images on camera, so we know what he/she is doing with his/her hands?

How do you justify the use of this technology in face of the tampon paradox (if it can't see a tampon it is ineffective, if it can, it is too invasive)?

Why invest in an ineffective technology instead of puffers? There are no loopholes when detecting traces of chemicals, and no privacy concerns either!

Did you not assure us that MMW was not going to be a standard in years to come, just an option for secondary pat downs??

February 21, 2009 4:17 AM

 
Anonymous Emille Inchirieri said...

This is indeed a good thing. The new screening technology enables security personnel in being more efficient which leads to safer flights.

February 21, 2009 6:00 AM

 
Anonymous txrus said...

Poster Paul, while cherry-picking comments from Thomas Frank's USA Today article, seems to have missed this one (which, btw, I had previously submitted to the Blog):

"Some passengers Thursday said they wished the TSA had posted signs near the body scanner with a reproduction of the image. "I might not have wanted to go through if I had seen that," said Susanne Nicklas of Grove, Okla. "I'm 72, and I don't have the figure I used to."

So, again, how do you explain the disconnect between this comment above & both your statement, & Blogger Bob's before you, that signs w/the images would be posted for travelers to see BEFORE going thru the virtual strip search machines? And no, Spokesperson White's statement that they are available on the TSA website is NOT the same thing.

February 21, 2009 9:28 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Quick question ... do you have any sense as to how fast, or slow, this method of screening will be compared with traditional methods? It seems like most people will take a little longer, but there will be speed-ups in other cases where you don't have to perform patdowns. I'm wondering how those two offset. (Which is why, of course, you're doing the pilot study, I presume ...)

February 21, 2009 11:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous #542 said...

I actually think this is a great idea. If this would become the norm would we be able to leave our jackets on?

February 21, 2009 11:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a simple question...If an air traveler does not want to be imaged (Millimeter Wave, Backscatter x-ray, etc.) or patted down, will he/she be prohibited from air travel in the US?

If so, can the TSA come up with a solution that will allow access to air travel without one having to compromise his/her personal definition of modesty and propriety?

February 21, 2009 5:10 PM

 
Anonymous Brian said...

It is a good technology, can prevent many disasters before they happens.

February 21, 2009 10:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I witnessed the device in use in Tampa Airport (TPA) this past weekend. A person was singled out for the screening. The traveller was not told what they were being subjected to, what it was for, or what the results would indicate, but to simply go through the device.

February 22, 2009 12:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When these machines were first introduced, we were assured they were an option for a pat down in secondary. We were assured they were not going to become the norm.

What has changed?

February 22, 2009 4:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms. Stahl's producer wrote in the article:

"Yes, love handles and buxomness were very clear, but we saw no private parts, not even outlines."

Perhaps she needed glasses because I can see nipples on the female subject's breasts and the male genetalia very clearly.

February 22, 2009 7:45 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall's SO said...

It is mind-blowing that you chose to link both the 60 Minutes segment and the producer's writing to this thread and believe that they would prove whatever point it is that you are trying to make. Instead, the segment and the article, together with the comments, all show the TSA to be a joke.

Jeffrey Rosen in his article "Man Made Disaster - Six years on, the Department of Homeland Security is still a catastrophe" wrote

"Before World War II, people understood that life was fraught with risk, and presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt could challenge the public to be brave in the face of uncertainty and danger. Today, by contrast, we have come to believe that life is risk-free and that, if something bad happens, there must be a government official to blame. The Department of Homeland Security--with its doomed quest to give Americans the illusion of total security--is the ultimate monument to our anxious age. The biggest contribution Barack Obama could make in the realm of homeland security has nothing to do with port screening or security cameras or federal budgets. Perhaps our new president instead can lead us to rediscover the sense of self-reliance that we long ago forgot how to find within ourselves."

February 22, 2009 8:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now seeing our naked bodies has become part of the mainstream checkpoint inspection, and not just an alternative to pat-downs for those of us who are unlucky enough to get secondary screening. Lovely.

How about some of us taping plastic letters to write interesting things on our bellies: "Not a terrorist", "do I look good to you?", "why can´t I see you naked?"

February 22, 2009 8:52 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you continue to promote the lie that the scanners are "voluntary"? They're not, and you know it. Either you go through the scanner, or you go through the even more intrusive patdown. That's really not a choice.

The fact that you're expanding this to MIA means I'm exclusively flying out of FLL for the foreseeable future. If you happen to expand it to FLL I'll start flying out of Palm Beach or Fort Myers.

February 22, 2009 9:21 AM

 
Anonymous Al Ames said...

So, when are we going to see the innocuous pictures of Nico's family? He said he was comfortable enough for his wife and 5 kids to go thru. Yet he wasn't comfortable posting the scans.

If Nico isn't comfortable posting the scans of his own family to show us they're ok (after all, he sees no issues with the scans), why should we believe TSA that that's "all" they're seeing and that the images aren't actually stored?

On another note, how well is the option explained to people? I've seen reports that the signs aren't really there. And I can tell you from what I've seen at the D gates at BWI, there isn't a sign like that.

If people really knew that they were being strip searched and saw the images, how many do you think would be comfortable with the process?

TSA is just adding more inefficiency to the process. Patdowns should only be given to resolve an alarm or if actually warranted. What TSA is proposing at TUL isn't really a choice: you're either going to get felt up or strip searched. It's like asking the condemned how they want to die: by lethal injection or firing squad? Either way, they're going to get it.

Could TSA just once do something that isn't invasive and borderline unconstitutional?

Al

February 22, 2009 8:15 PM

 
Anonymous Randy said...

You guys are so sad. You post a controversial subject on Friday afternoon right before you turn the office lights off.

Why not just wait until Monday morning so that you can start clearing the posts you know will come flying in.

February 23, 2009 12:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very serious change of operational procedures. These machines were previously used for secondary screening only, and, supposedly (although not very well publicized) as an option versus a pat down. Now you are virtually strip searching everyone. Have you thought of the implications of this? You have a fully hackable database of images of naked people. You can say the images are seen with a filter not to be invasive as much as you like - unless I can see them, I can´t be sure they are what you say.

Stop the MMWs now. They are for show exclusively. Any smart terrorist knows that they can´t see into body cavities. In fact, using them instead of metal detectors allows terrorists to once again think of bringing metal weapons into airplanes...

February 23, 2009 7:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous #542 wrote"

"I actually think this is a great idea. If this would become the norm would we be able to leave our jackets on?"

No, jackets and shoes are off and you still have to dump ALL your stuff into bins.

February 23, 2009 9:12 AM

 
Anonymous Ronnie said...

Those of you complaining about signs need to wake up and look around you. There are signs about this machine everywhere. We are REQUIRED to post them. I suspect most of you have selective reading ability to go along with selectinve hearing.

All airports have signs about liquid restrictions, signs about computers and other items that need to come out of the bags, signs about prohibited items, signs about taking off shoes and outer garments. Some airports even run a constant video at the checkpoint about these things.

We get so tired of hearing "do I have to take my laptop out?" or Do I have to take off my coat?". And in case you are wondering, the lines run slower when we have to unpack items from the bags and re-run them thru the x-ray because the people in front of you didn't read the signs, watch the video or listen to the anouncements either.

Stop being selective about the signs and read them ALL. They are there for a reason and will speed you thru the checkpoint.

That being said, this machine is a great way to speed up the lines at the checkpoints. TSOs are not tied up with so many wandings and pat-downs (that you seem to despise) and can spend more time efficiently divesting to get you thru the metal detector the first time. There would be more TSOs available for bag checks (tho hopefully fewer would be needed) and if there were more TSOs available, maybe we could open another lane or two to speed things up even more... see how that works?

I do dozens of wandings and pat-downs every day and I am constantly asked "do you have one of those x-rays here so I don't have to go thru this?" I also inform people that it is available if they wish to use it. Sadly, we only have one of these machines at DEN, and I very much look forward to getting more.

Ronnie TSO DEN

February 23, 2009 9:18 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

MMW machines reportably cost around $170,000.00 each. How many of these invasive machines will be required to outfit the whole country?

It has been stated on this blog that TSA does not have the resources (cost to much) to screen airport workers each time they enter the secure area yet they have the resources to buy machines that will bust the budget, slow down checkpoints even more all while existing tools do an adequate job.

The current methods must be effective as has been pointed out so many times on this blog that no terrorist acts have happened since TSA was brought on the sceen.

Not to mention how this very blog assured us that submission to MMW screening would be optional.

Let us not forget Nico's words. Safe for viewing by young children.

As soon as Nico post images of his family will be proof that TSA is being truthful about the quality of the images this machine displays. AS we all know, truth and TSA can rarely be used in the same sentence.

Until that time I will refuse a strip search by any means at the hands of TSA.

February 23, 2009 9:53 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie,

You are the reason so many of us despise TSOs. Please quit your job so the image of this institution can have a fighting chance.

February 23, 2009 9:59 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

Ronnie said...
Those of you complaining about signs need to wake up and look around you. There are signs about this machine everywhere. We are REQUIRED to post them. I suspect most of you have selective reading ability to go along with selectinve hearing.
.........................
Ronnie, have you ever taken a look at a checkpoint from a view of a passengers eyes?

What I see is a mass of people. Signs, mostly at waist level are blocked by this mass of human flesh.

We are all moving along while getting our stuff ready, focused on trying to control, remove, consolidate and follow the line.

Who has the ability to read the signs even if they were viewable while doing all of those other things?

Then there is the noise around checkpoints. Many people talking, TSO's giving instructions, and speakers blairing unintellegable messages.

I'm pretty sure the problem is not selective reading by travelers but more of a problem of selective intelligence by TSA.

February 23, 2009 10:02 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

With the roll out of MMW WBI's there will no longer be an reason to not screen TSO's and other airport workers. The metal badge will not be a problem.

All for security of the aiplanes, right?

February 23, 2009 10:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie, it is human nature to NOT read signs, especially in a stressful situation such as a checkpoint. The TSA of all organizations should be aware of that. Perhaps they are and are taking advantage of that knowledge.

The TSA needs to find other ways to let people know about the MMW so that they give their "informed consent" to be strip searched.

Certainly few, if any, people know that it is optional. However, as another person pointed out an "option" between being felt up and strip searched is no option at all.

February 23, 2009 10:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you first proposed these, the MWW was an alternative to a patdown in secondary, now it seems that the alternative is either a metal detection and a physical patdown or your virtual patdown.

Liars.

February 23, 2009 10:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie, please share the name of your supervisor so that I can file a complaint regarding your lousy attitude toward citizens traveling by air. If you do not post this information, I will contact the airport directly.

February 23, 2009 10:55 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Anonymous hit on something when he/she wrote "Ronnie, it is human nature to NOT read signs, especially in a stressful situation such as a checkpoint. The TSA of all organizations should be aware of that. Perhaps they are and are taking advantage of that knowledge."

We are being used and abused at checkpoints and all the blame is being putting on us, the passengers. That's the way it always is with an abuser.

February 23, 2009 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Ronnie said...

I would agree with you about some of the signs being posted at body level. However, many signs are posted in the line that you claim moves so slowly. There is no excuse for not taking a minute or two to look and read them. Most people are not "busy" getting ready to go thru screening until the very last minute when they get to the tubs. Funny how people can't find and read a sign the size of a stop sign but they sure find the little tiny 3x5 marker thats says "wait time 20 min from this point".

So you now admit to knowing the signs are there....

The noise at the checkpoint...we are giving instructions to people on how to divest (often from several yards away) because they didn't read the signs you already know are there. And yes, sometimes we do have to compete with the instructions being given over the PA because the traveler did not listen to them in the first place.

So now you admit to knowing the instructions are given via PA...

And as for being "human nature not to read signs", well that's just wrong. We read signs all day long. I won't accept that as an excuse.

The MMW WBI will speed things up and make everyones experience much more pleasant. Just be sure to read the sign in fromt of it.

Ronnie TSO DEN

February 23, 2009 11:08 AM

 
Anonymous NoClu said...

So far the pilot seems to be going well, as noted in an article in USA Today. In the first three days of primary MMW at Tulsa, 3,780 passengers have been screened using the technology and only 8 people have opted for the metal detector and a pat-down.

So, my questions are:
A) were there full size, full resolution sample pictures of the images made available to passengers? If not, how could they make an informed choice?
B) Have you read the comments after the aforementioned USA Today article? Me thinks a lot of people aren't as compliant as your passengers in Tulsa.
C) Did you test to see how much time this procedure cost/saved? It might tell you something about trying to use it at higher volume airports during peek [sic] times.
D) Will you please post a full resolution, full size image of both a male and female human so that we may judge the appropriateness of said pictures?
E) What was the experience of children under 18 during the Tulsa experiment? Were they sent through the MMW machines?
How many secondary pat-downs were necessary after people went through the MMW?
F) How long are images saved in these machines? If they are not, are the machines capable of saving images? If not, why not? Wouldn't saved images be important if you really got a bad guy attempting to smuggle some bad thing through security?

YUCK. Please work on better, less intrusive technology.

February 23, 2009 11:29 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/24/germany-xray.html?ref=rss


Germany rejects full-body scans at airports

'Offence against human dignity'


An undated file photo of a scan shows a person carrying a knife on his back while standing in the new security scan at Schiphol airport, Netherlands. (Schiphol Airport/Reuters)German airports will not implement the use of full-body scanners that reveal outlines of passengers' bodies under their clothes, even if the European Union authorizes their use, said the interior ministry Friday.

"I can tell you in all clarity that we will not take part in this nonsense," Gabriele Hermani, a spokeswoman for the interior ministry told a news conference on Friday.
....................
Germany got it right!

It's time to end the joke called TSA!

February 23, 2009 11:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Requiring people to either be groped or seen naked is disgusting.

February 23, 2009 12:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Setting aside the issue that these virtual strip search machines are a gross invasion of privacy, I have three questions:

1) Why do we have to take our shoes and outerwear off to go through them? Isn't one of the supposed advantages of this technology that it can see through clothes so that we don't have to go through the shoe carnival and jacket charade?

2) Why does TSA insist on continuing to lie that they do not store the images? Unless TSA stores the images, they have no way to justify additional searches (or lack thereof) in the event of an investigation (due to either passenger complaint or a breach), and unless TSA stores the images, they have no evidence to give to the police to use against a smuggling passenger in court. Plus there's no way such a technology would be designed to be unable to store the image, as TSA has attempted to claim.

3) Why does TSA insist on hiding the image viewing screener in a secret closet where they can make fun of passengers, get inappropriate enjoyment from the process, etc. The screener viewing the images should be in plain public site, with his back to a wall so that his screen is not viewable by the public. Passengers should have the choice to see face-to-face the person who is getting to see them naked. The screener shouldn't be in a private room where they can get away with inappropriate behavior, taking personal photographs of the images, etc.

February 23, 2009 1:00 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

From www.TSA.gov

Passenger privacy is ensured through the anonymity of the image. The officer attending the passenger cannot view the image, and the officer viewing the image is remotely located and cannot see the passenger. Additionally, the image cannot be stored, transmitted or printed and is deleted immediately after being viewed. Finally, the facial area of the image has been blurred to further ensure privacy.
.......................
If the image must be deleted then that says the image has already been recorded on to some media.

I find little comfort in anything TSA says. Example, TSA.GOV says 3.0 oz of liquids to this day. Is that information wrong? Not if you believe the offical TSA website.

Any group with so little regard for truth and accuracy cannot be trusted when making statements like the one posted above.

The MMW program must be stopped now!

February 23, 2009 1:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ronnie said without knowing...

All airports have signs about liquid restrictions, signs about computers and other items that need to come out of the bags, signs about prohibited items, signs about taking off shoes and outer garments. Some airports even run a constant video at the checkpoint about these things.

The signs are wrong. Even the additional MMW signs say liquids over 3 ounces must be disposed of. That is not fair to the public you serve. You give false information and good hearted people will throw things away that they do not have to. Shame on you TSA.

That being said, this machine is a great way to speed up the lines at the checkpoints.

All of us still have to take off jackets and even more out of our pockets now. This will slow things down more. This I think is to just staff checkpoints with less people but make the lines even longer.

-James

February 23, 2009 3:13 PM

 
Anonymous Jonathan said...

Exellent post :)

February 23, 2009 4:54 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

One paragraph of Ms. Stahl's producer's article reads:

"TSA has run into the "security vs. privacy" buzz saw before, when its screeners were criticized for overly aggressive pat-downs of women travelers. Now, with the bad publicity about the body scanners, TSA is cutting back on installing the machines.

IOW, keep right on complaining loudly and all the time.

That paragraph ended with the sentence:

"But security experts say TSA should take on the fight against critics of the "peeper."

Please name these security experts, TSA. As well, provide us with links to their writings so that we might read them ourselves. While you are doing that, please make certain that these "experts" are independent experts and not on your payroll or any DHS/TSA advisory committees.

February 23, 2009 5:00 PM

 
Blogger tsmithca said...

TSA – Kiddie Porn & Trauma

After traveling through Tulsa’s airport this morning with my two young daughters, I am very concerned about the new TSA screening method. I think we should all be concerned about unsupervised government employees viewing near naked photos of our young children. How long will it be before salacious pictures of young children from TSA employees’ cell phone cameras are on the internet?

If you choose not to participate – or the child is too small, as was my seven year old, the alternative method is a very thorough (and I mean very thorough) pat down that is traumatizing to the child.

Parents beware – this is bad for families.

February 23, 2009 7:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Stop the MMWs now. They are for show exclusively. Any smart terrorist knows that they can´t see into body cavities. In fact, using them instead of metal detectors allows terrorists to once again think of bringing metal weapons into airplanes...

February 23, 2009 7:54 AM

hahahahaha. ok ummm where to begin... Im trying to picture a fully loaded IED crammed up someones toosh. You know that the entire thing would have to be assembled right? Who do you think is going to connect all the wires to the explosive, to the detonator, to the switch, to the power source? Maybe if the shoved a tnt stick in their can they would be more successful. Even more funny is the metal weapons gig. ouchie! oh and LEAVE BOB ALONE!!!!!! im talkin to you RB -_- Ive never seen someone complain so much...

February 24, 2009 1:20 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Ronnie wrote:

"And as for being "human nature not to read signs", well that's just wrong. We read signs all day long. I won't accept that as an excuse."

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. People might "read" signs all day long but people do not process the information they read.

February 24, 2009 7:45 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RB wrote about the Germans taking the decision to not use this technology. Good for them!

I took the time to read the comments in the article to which RB linked and found this one to be one that we all should consider:

"The Germans are smart. They've already been down the slippery slope of authoritarian governments and they know where that leads."

February 24, 2009 8:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many people here are asking why the images are analyzed in a hidden location. I think this is a very legitimate question which is being ignored.

By keeping the persons analyzing images hidden, the TSA is:

- avoiding accountability for inappropriate behavior

- transmitting data, making it vulnerable to hacking

- making sure the public does not know what kind of image is generated

These are points that HAVE to be addressed.

February 24, 2009 8:17 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

! oh and LEAVE BOB ALONE!!!!!! im talkin to you RB -_- Ive never seen someone complain so much...

February 24, 2009 1:20 AM

When the fruit of the tree is starting to rot I have no choice but to harvest the bounty.

February 24, 2009 9:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I primary screening is now either a virtual strip-search OR groping, what is a secondary screening? Rectal exam??

February 24, 2009 9:36 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vouyerism in the name of security. What next?

February 24, 2009 10:05 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

Ronnie said...
I would agree with you about some of the signs being posted at body level. However, many signs are posted in the line that you claim moves so slowly. There is no excuse for not taking a minute or two to look and read them. Most people are not "busy" getting ready to go thru screening until the very last minute when they get to the tubs. Funny how people can't find and read a sign the size of a stop sign but they sure find the little tiny 3x5 marker thats says "wait time 20 min from this point".

So you now admit to knowing the signs are there....

The noise at the checkpoint...we are giving instructions to people on how to divest (often from several yards away) because they didn't read the signs you already know are there. And yes, sometimes we do have to compete with the instructions being given over the PA because the traveler did not listen to them in the first place.

So now you admit to knowing the instructions are given via PA...

And as for being "human nature not to read signs", well that's just wrong. We read signs all day long. I won't accept that as an excuse.

The MMW WBI will speed things up and make everyones experience much more pleasant. Just be sure to read the sign in fromt of it.

Ronnie TSO DEN

February 23, 2009 11:08 AM

........................
Ronnie, I'm sorry that you lack the capacity to understand that the signs at checkpoints are often obscured by people standing in line. If they are placed in such a manner as to be block by people standing in line they serve little purpose.

I am also sorry that you lack the capacity to understand that with all of the noise and other activities at the checkpoints that verbal messages are also hard for some of us to hear. Some of us have hearing impairments, yet you seem insensative to that issue.

Would it not be more helpful for someone traveling to know before hand exactly what is expected of them?

Would it not be more helpful if the information on the signs communicated correct information?

Would it not be more helpful to inform travelers beforehand just how revealing these new "Strip Search" machines really are?

Would it not be more helpful for TSO's to actually know their jobs and stop confiscating things that are not prohibited?

Would it not be more helpful for TSA to be upfront and honest with the public just once?

I see TSO's like yourself as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

February 24, 2009 10:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If "WBI images are never transmitted", how do they get to the "remote location" in which they are viewed?

February 24, 2009 10:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tsmithca,

Could you please describe the kind of pat-down your daughter got?

Was everyone there with kids getting the same treatment?

Could someone from TSA explain what is standard procedure for young children (let us say under 6-7) when these virtual strip-machines are used as a primary screening tool?

Are maxi-pads visible? Colostomy bags? Mastectomy bras? Tampons? Push-up bras? Corsets?

If you answered yes to any of the above, is that not going too far?

If you answered no, isn't that a sign this is an inefficient screening technique?

How can you tell the difference between an ordinary gel-filled bra insert and prohibited liquids/gels with an image?

Why can't we stick to detecting metal and chemical traces, without uselessly virtually undressing people?

What kind of real threat to aviation (a plastic knife is not a threat to aviation) can these things detect that would go undetected with a puffer + metal detector?

February 24, 2009 10:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "security experts" who think this is a good idea are the ones who make money off of it.

February 24, 2009 11:36 AM

 
Anonymous Fed up with FEDS said...

@ Ronnie TSO DEN

"And as for being "human nature not to read signs", well that's just wrong. We read signs all day long. I won't accept that as an excuse."

a) We don't have to give you an excuse.

b) Read 'Traffic' by Tom Vanderbilt and try again.

c) You're attitude, as an EMPLOYEE OF THE PEOPLE, is unbelievable. YOU and others like YOU are the problem. Please go away.

February 24, 2009 1:33 PM

 
Anonymous Forget_the_Drama_Give_me_the Trauma said...

And as for being "human nature not to read signs", well that's just wrong. We read signs all day long. I won't accept that as an excuse.

Ronnie it maybe time that you actually go take a college level psychology and such as you are the one that is wrong and that this theory has been proven over and over and over and over ad nauseam. Then again i have a degree in psychology and emergency medicine so i know this all to well


as for the MMW until there is a study (not done or paid for by TSA) that says there is no molecular damage done by this machine i wont go anywhere near it. Sorry im not interested in increasing my chance of cancer


beyond that until all screeners are screened every time they enter the sterile area to the same standard as passengers . Sorry the "background" check doesn't cover it because Alvin Crabtree is still on the job after willfully bring a loaded gun into the checkpoint and hasn't been fired nor charged like every other person that brought a gun though the checkpoint. Then also lets not forget the screener who was caught attempting to sell a 50K broadcast camera and over 250K of other stolen items while a employee of TSA. Then fianlly until TSA can pass a red team test 100% without cheating and doing the job the were chartered to do. you wont catch me anywhere near this 4th amendment violation, and if I am patted down and your screener does anything inappropriate or unprofessional they will need medical attention and I will dog a prosecutor to prosecute to the max extent of the law to make a example out of the screener.

President Obama you said you where going to change government how about starting with TSA

February 24, 2009 1:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Al Ames said...
why should we believe TSA that that's "all" they're seeing and that the images aren't actually stored?
___________________________________

Why would TSA store pictures? Each airport has thousands of passanger everyday. What purpose would it serve to save all of the pictures? It really wouldn't make sense. If the pictures were saved, which I am sure they are not, there would be no way to know which passenger belongs to which body. I don't know I am not as arguementative as other people on here. I say, who cares.


If people really knew that they were being strip searched and saw the images, how many do you think would be comfortable with the process?
___________________________________
Again this is why the person viewing the photo's is in another room. Is it really invasive if you can not put a name or a face to the photo? I personally don't think so.

February 24, 2009 2:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop the MMWs now. They are for show exclusively. Any smart terrorist knows that they can´t see into body cavities. In fact, using them instead of metal detectors allows terrorists to once again think of bringing metal weapons into airplanes...
___________________________________
Don't write comments when you are totally uneducated on the topic!

February 24, 2009 2:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has been stated on this blog that TSA does not have the resources (cost to much) to screen airport workers each time they enter the secure area
___________________________________

Where does it say this? I have never seen it and I don't believe it.

February 24, 2009 2:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what is to stop someone from putting "bomb juice" or other dangerous substance into a container marked "Milk" or "Baby Formula" ?

If the answer to that question is that liquids are subjected to secondary screening to determine that they are what the labels say they are, why can't ALL liquids going through the checkpoint be checked in that way?

3-1-1 is looking pretty nonsensical, lately.

February 24, 2009 2:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Plus there's no way such a technology would be designed to be unable to store the image, as TSA has attempted to claim.
___________________________________

Really, you must be one smart person to make such an assumption. And you are so smart that you don't think that you need evidence to back it up.
I don't know, this is just my opinion, but I think that if an image needs to be saved it may be an option. Such as someone trying to get something through a checkpoint that is contriband. But why in the world would every single image be saved, that is just insane. There would be no use or need for it.

February 24, 2009 2:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does TSA insist on hiding the image viewing screener in a secret closet where they can make fun of passengers, get inappropriate enjoyment from the process, etc. The screener viewing the images should be in plain public site, with his back to a wall so that his screen is not viewable by the public. Passengers should have the choice to see face-to-face the person who is getting to see them naked. The screener shouldn't be in a private room where they can get away with inappropriate behavior, taking personal photographs of the images, etc.
___________________________________

Wow someone has some serious paranoia! The reason the person is in the other room is something that is done for the passengers. It does not matter what is done, you people think that TSA does everything despite you. The person is in another room so that this process is not made personal. And that is how it should be.
And if they were laughing at the image, who cares. They don't know who the person is. Would you rather have them laughing at you face to face and pointing at you so that everyone in the area knows how horrible you look under your clothes. I mean if that is what you think is going to be going on, I personally would rather it not be to my face.

February 24, 2009 3:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why would TSA store pictures? Each airport has thousands of passanger everyday. What purpose would it serve to save all of the pictures? It really wouldn't make sense."

Very little TSA does makes sense. 3.4-1-1 makes no sense, nor does TSA's continued lying about the policy to the citizens it ostensibly serves; the mandatory shoe removal makes no sense; BDOs make no sense. TSA is not about making sense, TSA is about doing bin Laden's work for him by terrorizing citizens in airports.

February 24, 2009 4:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very little TSA does makes sense. 3.4-1-1 makes no sense, nor does TSA's continued lying about the policy to the citizens it ostensibly serves; the mandatory shoe removal makes no sense; BDOs make no sense. TSA is not about making sense, TSA is about doing bin Laden's work for him by terrorizing citizens in airports.
___________________________________

Like I have said before, don't write comments when you are totally uneducated on the topic!

February 24, 2009 4:29 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

I hope the anonymous person who wrote this is NOT an employee of the TSA:

"And if they were laughing at the image, who cares. They don't know who the person is. Would you rather have them laughing at you face to face and pointing at you so that everyone in the area knows how horrible you look under your clothes."

Putting the people looking at the scans out in public WOULD ASSURE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO LAUGHING AT IMAGES.

Unfortunately, unless there is a camera watching the watcher, it is sad to say that there will be people laughing at others' images.

February 24, 2009 4:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the anonymous person who says others are uneducated: Can't yo come up with a better justification to support these seemingly ridiculous policies? Is that the only argument you have?

February 24, 2009 5:21 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

Wow someone has some serious paranoia! The reason the person is in the other room is something that is done for the passengers. It does not matter what is done, you people think that TSA does everything despite you. The person is in another room so that this process is not made personal. And that is how it should be.
And if they were laughing at the image, who cares. They don't know who the person is. Would you rather have them laughing at you face to face and pointing at you so that everyone in the area knows how horrible you look under your clothes. I mean if that is what you think is going to be going on, I personally would rather it not be to my face.

February 24, 2009 3:02 PM

.............................
Comments on this blog have trended against having the MMW Operator sequestered in a different location.

Comments have favored having the image viewable by the person being screened.

TSA will not address these issues because they know what would happen if the public could see the actual images.

Questions remain why we don't believe TSA when they say the images are not revealing or that they are deleted.

The answer is simple. TSA has a history of being less than truthful. I don't trust anyone or any group who has to use falsehoods to implement policy.

TSA is not truthful when dealing with the public.

February 24, 2009 5:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this pilot is pointless. If not all airports will have this then stop making things harder for we, the public. Now every airport will be different.

-James

February 24, 2009 6:56 PM

 
Anonymous Marshall's SO said...

"I hope the anonymous person who wrote this is NOT an employee of the TSA"

Unfortunately, it would not surprise me to find out that this person is a TSA employee as his/her attitude typical of far too many of their employees.

February 24, 2009 7:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is this different from having each passenger strip down in a private area and visually inspecting that way? Or is that too offensive to make people do? Why don't you just save the money that you are spending on these machines for something else? Please don't try to hide behind technology.

February 24, 2009 10:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the answer to that question is that liquids are subjected to secondary screening to determine that they are what the labels say they are, why can't ALL liquids going through the checkpoint be checked in that way?

Hi, welcome to the TSA blog. This subject has already been touched on and its been concluded that if TSA had to screen ALL YOUR LIQUID items then you would have to get to the airports hours earlier than your flights departures. Which we know getting there the recommended 2 hours early is already hard enough for people anyways. And yes there IS such thing as liquid explosives. plz google hydrogen peroxide to which you will find links to that and rocket fuel. Very explosive indeed.

February 24, 2009 10:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TSA is not about making sense, TSA is about doing bin Laden's work for him by terrorizing citizens in airports.

lol. right, because TSA put out a Jihad on every American that goes through their checkpoints. try again sir.
TK where you at bro? I miss reading your stuff.

February 24, 2009 10:51 PM

 
Anonymous CJ said...

This is related to the blog, rather than the topic on hand.

Is it possible to disallow anonymous posts? I have no problem with people not using their real names, but it would be useful to know if the anonymous post halfway down is by the same author as the anonymous post at the top (for example).

Consumerist assigns you a random username, which is then used for all your posts, if you don't want to create an account; Schneier's blog simply requests: "Real names aren't required, but please give us something to call you. Conversations among several people called "Anonymous" get too confusing."

I'd also like TSO's to identify themselves as working for the TSA, but that might be a bit much to ask.

February 25, 2009 5:36 AM

 
Anonymous Jacob said...

Anonymous said... Very little TSA does makes sense. 3.4-1-1 makes no sense, nor does TSA's continued lying about the policy to the citizens it ostensibly serves; the mandatory shoe removal makes no sense; BDOs make no sense.

3.4-1-1: TSA trying to stop the practical use of liquid explosives on planes.

Lying: The simple fact is 3-1-1 is more catchy then 3.4-1-1, that’s not lying it is just advertising.

Shoe Removal: TSA trying to stop explosives from being smuggled in shoes.

BDOs: TSA trying to find bombers and not just bombs.

Does it all make more sense now?

February 25, 2009 8:01 AM

 
Anonymous costbenefits said...

Ronnie TSO DEN said:

[i]The MMW WBI will speed things up and make everyones experience much more pleasant. Just be sure to read the sign in fromt of it.[/i]

I am curious how this will speed things up. Certainly it takes time to walk through a metal detector than going through the MMW, as others elsewhere have stated the process takes about 40 seconds.

How long does a patdown plus waling through the metal detector take?

I would assume someone can walk through a metal detector in 2-3 seconds. If it takes 40 seconds per MMW screening, would that not increase wait times in order to be screened?

How much earlier will people need to arrive to be screened?

What cost benefit anaylsis has been done on these processes?

How much more successful are these machines versus metal detectors? Versus Pat downs?

If the TSA wants to make a persuasive case to the American people answers to these questions should be included when making these blog entries.

February 25, 2009 11:00 AM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Anonymous said: "Like I have said before, don't write comments when you are totally uneducated on the topic!"

Then educate us, oh great one. Please provide links to peer reviewed and independent analysis of the threat by someone who does not have something to gain from the liquid lunacy. This includes governmental entitites, studies sponsored by TSA/DHS and associated international counterparts, and contracted "experts" that have something to gain by selling devices to detect such "threats."

Educate us. We're waiting. SSI isn't a valid excuse.

Earl

February 25, 2009 11:09 AM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from anonymous: "And yes there IS such thing as liquid explosives. plz google hydrogen peroxide to which you will find links to that and rocket fuel. Very explosive indeed."

This is an intellectually bankrupt argument at best. Hydrogen peroxide CAN be explosive in sufficient concentrations. It also gets very unstable as the concetration goes up. 30% concentration would be explosive, but you probably wouldn't survive the trip to the airport.

Comparing peroxide to rocket fuel, while true, is ridiculous. It is used in rocket fuel. However, tat's equating the $1 bottle I can buy at the drug store to rocket fuel. One is safe, the other isn't unless it's not contaminated (unlikely outside a lab) and stored with special equipment (again, highly unlikely outside a lab). The concentrations are vastly different. You're talking about a 1-3% concentration vs. a 90% concentration. VERY BIG difference.

Robert

February 25, 2009 11:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote "Comments on this blog have trended against having the MMW Operator sequestered in a different location."

WoW! Some comments by what is arguably the same group of people and it becomes a "majority". Talk about self-important!

I wish there was a count of how many "unique" people visited this site. Obvioulsy, if the public really didn't want this tech no one would utilize it at the CP.

Seem that the odds are unwavaringly for the machine as most people op to use it rather than getting a pat down.

As far as the person who said they wouldn't fly out of an airport where this was being used, good for you. That is your right.

TSA is not going to stop using this stuff. Matter of fact, the more automated the system can be, the more it will be used. Less patdowns, more electronic scanning!

February 25, 2009 11:30 AM

 
Blogger Jennifer Whatnot said...

People sure seem to be concerned about what the TSA agent watching the imaging is doing. TSA wants to keep him seperate so he can't put a face with a scan; that's nice. To ease the concerns of inappropriate behavior, why not put a camera in the viewing booth with him with a screen out by the line, so that the people waiting can see how professional the screener is or is not being? That solves both problems and cheaply, too. Sure, the TSA guy will feel like a fish in a bowl, but turnabout is fair play, as they say.

February 25, 2009 12:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Replying to anonymous 10:49 who said:

Hi, welcome to the TSA blog. This subject has already been touched on and its been concluded that if TSA had to screen ALL YOUR LIQUID items then you would have to get to the airports hours earlier than your flights departures. Which we know getting there the recommended 2 hours early is already hard enough for people anyways. And yes there IS such thing as liquid explosives. plz google hydrogen peroxide to which you will find links to that and rocket fuel. Very explosive indeed.

---

I don't dispute that liquid explosives exist. I do have some issue with there being no definitive, unbiased scientific research proving that liquid explosives are a danger to aircraft... most of what I have read says that liquid explosives are extremely problematic to manufacture and transport and it seems much more likely a terrorist would use another form of explosive, one that is less risky to them. Plus as previously discussed, 3-1-1 does nothing in the multiple terrorists with multiple bottles scenario.

Also, I fail to see why screening all liquids would add HOURS to the check-in process. There are no limits on the number of bottles you can carry, and no limits on the volume of liquids you can carry for substances like milk and medication. If I can bring 10 bottles of milk on board and have their safe screening be done quickly and efficiently, I could bring 10 bottles of soft drink, or 10 bottles of shampoo, or water. They are just bottles. There's no difference, except for what the label says. Most people don't want to bring tons of liquid on board in carry-on anyway. Personally, I just want to carry my toiletries case and maybe a bottled drink. I happen to think that TSA's inability to handle that indicates deeper problems with the agency. If they can screen mom's milk why can't they screen my one bottle of coke? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

TSA has the technology to safely screen all liquids coming aboard in carry-on luggage, the only possible reasons I can see that they are not already doing it are:

a) It costs too much
b) They don't trust the TSOs to do this job well
c) Going back on 3-1-1 would be seen as weak

All three are lame excuses. Anon 10:49 just says "it would take too long" and doesn't say why. I await a real answer to my question. Preferably from someone who can write with punctuation and proper grammar.

February 25, 2009 12:46 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Very little TSA does makes sense. 3.4-1-1 makes no sense, nor does TSA's continued lying about the policy to the citizens it ostensibly serves; the mandatory shoe removal makes no sense; BDOs make no sense. TSA is not about making sense, TSA is about doing bin Laden's work for him by terrorizing citizens in airports.
___________________________________

Like I have said before, don't write comments when you are totally uneducated on the topic!

___________________________________

Unfortunately, the person you are responding to is educated on the topic. You reveal your own education with your response.

February 25, 2009 1:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, unless there is a camera watching the watcher, it is sad to say that there will be people laughing at others' images.
___________________________________
Hi Sandra. That is why it is kept confidential. The TSO should not be right there in front of you looking at your image. The TSO should not know who they are looking at. This makes it so that the process is not personal. If they laugh behind your back, well that stinks, but what can be done about that. I would rather have someone laughing at my image in another room rather than seeing my chubby body scan while I stand embarassed right in front of them.

February 25, 2009 1:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the anonymous person who says others are uneducated: Can't yo come up with a better justification to support these seemingly ridiculous policies? Is that the only argument you have?
__________________________________
Nope thats it. The arguements that most people try to present on this page are uneducated. And yes that is the only argument I have. Be a bit more educated and you people might get the answers your are looking for.

February 25, 2009 1:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what is to stop someone from putting "bomb juice" or other dangerous substance into a container marked "Milk" or "Baby Formula" ?

If the answer to that question is that liquids are subjected to secondary screening to determine that they are what the labels say they are, why can't ALL liquids going through the checkpoint be checked in that way?

3-1-1 is looking pretty nonsensical, lately.
___________________________________
I would say that the only thing nonsensical would have to be your comment.
Yes there is a devise that will check the liquids that are permitted.
So here is a great idea. Let people bring in all liquids. We can stop each and every bag, wait for the person to watch, open their bag, find all of the liquids and test each liquid. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, sounds like a great idea. But you better get to the airport like 5 hours before your flight. Because our airport only has one of these machines and 6 lanes. It could take a little while to test everything!

February 25, 2009 1:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just went throught the imager at DCA, and it didn't bother me at all.

Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope.

I'm also the kind of guy that if at a traffic stop a LEO asked me for consent to search, I'd give it to them, no problem.

I've got nothing to hide, nor do I mind when a LEO or TSO is just trying to do their job.

Not everyone in the world has an issue with the body imaging system, despite all the posts on here to the contrary.

February 25, 2009 2:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Like I have said before, don't write comments when you are totally uneducated on the topic!"

Then educate us, oh great one. Please provide links to peer reviewed and independent analysis of the threat by someone who does not have something to gain from the liquid lunacy. This includes governmental entitites, studies sponsored by TSA/DHS and associated international counterparts, and contracted "experts" that have something to gain by selling devices to detect such "threats."

Educate us. We're waiting. SSI isn't a valid excuse.
___________________________________

Educate this oh great one!

I am simply making the point that no one has anything educated to say on this sight. Your comments are that of a second grader saying, "because I said so". Not very bright. I am not here to inform you, because really I don't care too much about any of this stuff. I only read and comment every once in a while when I can't keep my mouth shut any longer.

Thank you for your wonderful concern Mr. Pitts!

February 25, 2009 3:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I just went throught the imager at DCA, and it didn't bother me at all.

Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope.

I'm also the kind of guy that if at a traffic stop a LEO asked me for consent to search, I'd give it to them, no problem.

I've got nothing to hide, nor do I mind when a LEO or TSO is just trying to do their job.

Not everyone in the world has an issue with the body imaging system, despite all the posts on here to the contrary.
___________________________________

Thanks anon, it is nice to see that there are people out there who are decent and see that a job is being done.

Oh and as for everyone who has an issue with the body scanner, there is only like 10 who write on this page over and over again. So it may seem like a lot, but it is the same people being repetative as usual.

February 25, 2009 4:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jennifer Whatnot said...

People sure seem to be concerned about what the TSA agent watching the imaging is doing. TSA wants to keep him seperate so he can't put a face with a scan; that's nice. To ease the concerns of inappropriate behavior, why not put a camera in the viewing booth with him with a screen out by the line, so that the people waiting can see how professional the screener is or is not being? That solves both problems and cheaply, too. Sure, the TSA guy will feel like a fish in a bowl, but turnabout is fair play, as they say.


I like that idea, but I would like to add that the screeners image, as collected by the MMW machine, be posted next to that video. Fair is fair - if he/she gets to see me naked, I want to see them too.

February 25, 2009 4:10 PM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

We seem to have attracted the attention of an anonymous pro-TSA poster with lots of free time. I agree that anonymous posts are not ideal, although I have mostly done so to date mostly out of laziness regarding finding out how to sign in. I am posting under my name from now on.

To the pro-TSAer, calling us uneducated is, at the very least, uneducated. I am highly educated, for one, and I have good arguments to present for my cases. I don't resort to calling people names.

February 25, 2009 4:13 PM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

Oh, and while we are at it, could someone from the TSA please explain what is the standard procedure when small children (not capable of standing still alone in the machine) come in at airports now using MMW as primary screening tools? Are they ALL patted down?? I got a little worried about the report of the passenger yesterday describing a thorough pat-down on a small girl.

February 25, 2009 4:16 PM

 
Anonymous HappyToHelp said...

Jennifer Whatnot
To ease the concerns of inappropriate behavior, why not put a camera in the viewing booth with him with a screen out by the line, so that the people waiting can see how professional the screener is or is not being? That solves both problems...

+1
Great idea. Thanks for posting.

-H2H

February 25, 2009 4:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So people with metal implants can just breeze on through undetected? Yippee for them.

And similarly, if the potential terrorists can choose to use either the MWW or the metal detector, then they could split up and choose their appropriate security layer: The small metal detonator bits can go through the MWW undetected using drug-mule skills, while the non-metallic bits can go through the metal detector in the places you wand for metal but won't pat down. Brilliant.

And further:

I've been patted down, and it didn't bother me at all.

Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope. I felt I was proving I was a good citizen.

I'm also the kind of guy that if at a traffic stop a LEO asked me for consent for a pat-down, I'd jump at the chance, no problem.

I've got nothing to hide, nor do I mind when a person in a uniform is touching me.

Not everyone in the world has an issue with the being patted down, despite all the posts on here to the contrary.

February 25, 2009 5:09 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Jacob said: "3.4-1-1: TSA trying to stop the practical use of liquid explosives on planes.

Lying: The simple fact is 3-1-1 is more catchy then 3.4-1-1, that’s not lying it is just advertising.

Shoe Removal: TSA trying to stop explosives from being smuggled in shoes.

BDOs: TSA trying to find bombers and not just bombs.

Does it all make more sense now?"

All of the above: ineffective security theater.

Earl

February 25, 2009 5:10 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Anonymous said: "Seem that the odds are unwavaringly for the machine as most people op to use it rather than getting a pat down."

Seems to me that if the signs are missing and it's not clearly communicated that yes, is really IS optional, I don't think TSA can unequivocally say that it's a more popular choice."

Like others have said, is it really an informed choice? Do the people REALLY understand what the machine is doing and the type of search it's actually conducting rather than just saying "we won't have to feel you up"?

Honestly, I can see many people opting for it over the choice of being felt up if they didn't understand that they were pretty much getting strip searched.

One thing I saw mentioned in the USA Today article was a TSO named Debbie (or Deborah) that didn't think the images are pornographic at all. Good for her. Now let's see her put her image up there to show the people that it's not a big deal. I'd bet money she wouldn't put her scan up - much like Nico.

"TSA is not going to stop using this stuff. Matter of fact, the more automated the system can be, the more it will be used. Less patdowns, more electronic scanning!"

Translation: TSA has no regard for privacy or constitutional rights and will continue to disregard such principals out of a matter of convenience to them.

Think of the children, right? :rolleyes:

Earl

February 25, 2009 5:17 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Anonymous said: "Be a bit more educated and you people might get the answers your are looking for."

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Looking thru a lot of your posts, the relatively poor grammar and lack of spelling does is not indicative of someone with education.

Earl

February 25, 2009 5:20 PM

 
Anonymous Al Ames said...

@Anonymous: "I just went throught the imager at DCA, and it didn't bother me at all.

Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope.

I'm also the kind of guy that if at a traffic stop a LEO asked me for consent to search, I'd give it to them, no problem.

I've got nothing to hide, nor do I mind when a LEO or TSO is just trying to do their job.


Sir/Madam,

You'd do well to read to read Prof. Daniel J. Solove's “I’ve Got Nothing to Hide” and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.

Our Founding Fathers gave us a Bill of Rights to protect us from searches and such - to pretty much be left alone as a free people - whether we have something to hide or not.

I don't have anything to hide. It doesn't mean it's any of their business either.

"Not everyone in the world has an issue with the body imaging system, despite all the posts on here to the contrary."

And not everyone who has an issue with it can be found on this blog as some like to believe. Just go and read the comments on the USA Today article and see for yourself. There are people who don't mind it. There are many more who do.

Al

February 25, 2009 5:26 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

What a shame. MMW technology looks like it's the first genuinely effective security improvement the TSA has implemented since they took over the system that failed on 9/11 and started patching it. Unfortunately, because the TSA is promoting it in its usual inept and tone-deaf fashion, many people will perceive the "peeper" only as an additional TSA intrusion into our privacy and dignity, and one that's particularly offensive at that. And the resulting outcry will delay the deployment of the devices, thereby impairing security.

What could the TSA actually do better to promote acceptance of this beneficial technology? The easiest thing is to provide some sense of accountability in the operation of this virtual strip search. The TSA leadership seems to believe that secrecy is the best way to protect our privacy and dignity. We'll therefore feel reassured if the unknown people who view the scans are securely locked away in a distant room, supposedly following rules meant to assure our privacy. In other words, what we don't know can't hurt us.

But the TSA leadership seems incapable of understanding that their obsession with secrecy is one of the main reasons we distrust the TSA so much. There's no way of knowing what goes on behind all those locked doors, but we're just supposed to accept on faith all the sweetly spun statements about "customer service" and "respecting our rights." Yet what we too often experience visibly at checkpoints shows an arrogant disregard for our rights and a distinct lack of "customer service." So we're definitely not going to be reassured by more unaccountable secrecy, and more sweetly spun assurances that the secret image viewers in their secret locked rooms will follow the secret procedures and respect our not-so-secret privacy and dignity. There are limits to what we are willing to accept on blind faith, and I think the TSA exceeded those limits years ago. Why should we expect what goes on in secret to be any different from what we see at checkpoints?

Thus, I think the suggestion of having the officers (but not the screens with the images!) visible to the public would make MMW far more acceptable. Placing them in view of and accountable to the public would overcome the fears of officers giggling, taking personal photographs, or otherwise abusing their authority in their locked rooms where nobody is actually holding them accountable for respecting our privacy. Those fears are most likely unjustified, since viewing the images is probably far more boring than titillating. But given the TSA's history of secrecy and unaccountability, and the abuse and contempt TSOs too often show the public, there are grounds for "paranoia." Even a show of accountability would be an improvement over the current shroud of secrecy that causes distrust and derision.

The second thing is to give passengers something in return for the significant (perceived and actual) loss of privacy and dignity. Perhaps if introducing the scanner simultaneously removed some of what you acknowledge as "pain points," it might be a more acceptable tradeoff. But the way it appears to be implemented, the "peepers" become just another "pain point," an additional intrusion that costs us even more humiliation. Yes, we're supposed to be getting more security. Or
at least that's what you want us to accept on faith. But people aren't always rational when it comes to being hassled-- and especially when it comes to being strip searched by unknown, unaccountable people working in secrecy.

Which brings up the third suggestion. I think you'd do better by being honest. Rather than yet again repeating the sweet spin about the scanners being "safe," "family friendly," or "protecting privacy"-- and then flying into a rage when we suggest that Bob post "family-friendly" MMW scans of his children-- why not just admit that it's a strip search? And then explain exactly what it can detect, and how this provides far more effective protection than previous security measures. The TSA treats passengers like children, prisoners, or animals, an approach that is clearly failing. Maybe if you treat us like adults-- and adults who genuinely want to "partner" with the TSA for the common goal of protecting aviation-- you might have more success. I know that's contrary to your longstanding mindset that passengers really are children, animals, and/or prisoners who need to be fed lies and spin to keep them docile and easy to process. But that mindset has created many problems that won't be solved by continuing it. We've had enough lies, spin, and deception, and it should be obvious that (at least for the TSA) it's not working.

If you really want us to "partner" with you, and to have confidence in and respect for the TSA, why not just level with us? Instead of repeating lies in the hope that repetition will transform them into truth, why not try the real truth for a change: MMW scanners are strip searches, plain and simple. They invade your privacy and take away your dignity more than anything we've done before. But we think they'll provide significantly enhanced protection against threats to aviation that will keep you safe and secure. And we're taking steps to minimize the loss of privacy and dignity. You can't see the images, but you can see the officers review them and be assured that they're following procedures that respect your privacy.

Of course, you (the TSA) know what's best. You're privy to all the "robust intelligence" that we aren't. So I can be very sure that you'll ignore everything we have to day, as always. You'll do exactly what you decide to do, exactly as you decide to do it, and force it on us because you know we have no other choice if we want to fly. Despite all the sweet spin, I would even suspect that some people in the TSA and DHS are actually proud of the distrust and hatred they've created, since they see it as tangible proof of their effectiveness. It's a shame, because that undermines whatever effective security the TSA has to offer.

February 26, 2009 12:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All three are lame excuses. Anon 10:49 just says "it would take too long" and doesn't say why. I await a real answer to my question. Preferably from someone who can write with punctuation and proper grammar.

February 25, 2009 12:46 PM

anon12:46 .,?!(punctuation 4 u)!?,.

Lets do some math.
1 bottle
+
.5 min (to screen each liquid)
x
500 passengers
=
250 minutes/4.1666 hours

I will take a grammar class if you take a math class. ty

February 26, 2009 1:00 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
lol. right, because TSA put out a Jihad on every American that goes through their checkpoints. try again sir.
TK where you at bro? I miss reading your stuff.


I am right here, I had to take a bit of a break from posting to let my head heal from slamming it into the bureaucratic brick wall that is the TSA.

I have to agree that the TSA is doing the terrorist's job for them. A terrorist's goal is to effect change in a political system, the 9/11 attacks have done that.

We as Americans sacrificed our freedoms and liberties in what we thought was a temporary situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

We were very willing to cooperate when there were armed military in our airports and we were very willing to submit to unreasonable searches while we were in those desperate times.

The problem is we are over the desperate times and we want our freedoms back.

We have not forgotten 9/11 but we do not want to live in that shadow forever. If we continue to live in that shadow the terrorists have won.

By God we are Americans, THE greatest country in the world. We must be the greatest because people risk their very lives to get here.

As a citizen of the greatest country in the world, it does not sit well with me that I give up one tiny liberty, freedom or right due to the outside influence of anybody.

To HappyToHelp
I did not forget to reply to you, I am having a hard time figuring out how to break us out of the circle we are running. Part of the problem I think was the sporadic updates to the blog kept us from getting into a good back and forth on particular areas. I invite you to head over to Flyer Talk. Start a thread so I know you are around and I will be there shortly.

February 26, 2009 5:24 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

I just went throught the imager at DCA, and it didn't bother me at all.

Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope.

I'm also the kind of guy that if at a traffic stop a LEO asked me for consent to search, I'd give it to them, no problem.

I've got nothing to hide, nor do I mind when a LEO or TSO is just trying to do their job.

Not everyone in the world has an issue with the body imaging system, despite all the posts on here to the contrary.


Funny you should use the "I have nothing to hide" line when it is obvious the TSA does. Shouldn't you expect the Government to live up to your level of openness?

The TSA hides behind SSI for things that are neither secret or sensitive, the TSA hides the image evaluator in a remote room, the TSA hides the MMW device's extent of intrusion by placing signs, if there are any, out of the line of sight of the passengers.

I have nothing to hide either but I also have nothing to show. If a LEO has probable cause to search my vehicle, they will without my consent. I have no desire to help them in a fishing expedition.

I gave a coworker some over the counter Imodium, he was pulled over and like you had nothing to hide. He consented to a search because he was under the mistaken thought that the police would search anyhow.

The officer found the Imodium and then spent 30 minutes trying to convince my coworker that the pill was an illegal drug and he should roll over on any criminal activity he knows about. "Better help us out or you are going to jail"

BTW just to emphasize how stupid this was, the patrol cars in our area have computers WITH internet access. To look up a pill online all you have to do is go to Google and do a search on the markings. In 30 seconds the officer knew what the pill was and knew it was legal, yet he still tried to bully my coworker to give up people.

Yeah keep allowing them to search because you have nothing to hide and one day it will bite you.

February 26, 2009 5:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Janet Napolitanois pro body scanner??? But-but-but-I thought she was going to end the TSA and all of their evil practices?

February 26, 2009 10:23 AM

 
Anonymous Al Ames said...

@Anonymous: "Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope. I felt I was proving I was a good citizen."

Why should you have to prove you're a good citizen? The onus is on the government to prove you're NOT a good citizen. If they have no reason (ie probable cause) to suspect that you're not, they have no reason to harass.

It's a shame to see Stockholm Syndrome amongst the public - where the public eventually comes to love the abuser for the treatment they receive. It's yet another disorder the public doesn't need.

Since when is it patriotic to "prove" one's a good citizen?

February 26, 2009 11:24 AM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from George "What a shame. MMW technology looks like it's the first genuinely effective security improvement the TSA has implemented since they took over the system that failed on 9/11 and started patching it."

George, it wasn't airport security that failed on 9/11. It was the policy then in place to cooperate with hijackers with the assumption that the plane would be on the ground after a trip to some place like Cuba.

9/11 changed that. Now with hardened cockpit doors to prevent intruder cockpit access and the very high unlikelihood that people will NOT cooperate with hijackers, another 9/11 scenario is unlikely to happen.

Robert

February 26, 2009 11:28 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

From F/T:

"Well, damn. Upon reading the article with the picture of the scanner, I realized that Indianapolis Airport has seen me nekkid. I was not told it was one of the new scanners, and assumed it was just a slightly different "puffer" machine. (I've only been through the puffer once or twice, so I'm not super familiar with what it looks like). I was not told it was one of the new scanners, and did not see any signage- if I had, I would have refused and taken the patdown or other option.

It's after the fact, sure, but I'm kind of mad. I didn't consent to that sort of thing and I'd prefer that people that I did not give permission to don't get to see me unclothed."

Yes, the TSA is certainly being on the up and up about these machines.

STOP LYING TO THE PUBLIC!!!!!

February 26, 2009 11:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should never talk with the officers, police, federal, or TSA. See these videos where a law prof and officer agree. It is especially true if you have nothing to hide. Basically, there is no up-side: innocent people can only hurt themselves by cooperating.

February 26, 2009 11:59 AM

 
Blogger Otenkiya said...

Anonymous @ 2/25/09, 11:30 am wrote:
Obvioulsy [sic], if the public really didn't want this tech no one would utilize it at the CP.

Do you seriously think the desires of "the public" have a thing to do with the policies of the TSA, or the tools that they use in their somewhat misguided mission?

Well, actually, I take that back...the public as a whole is rather sheeplike, so you're probably right. That said, as a part of the public that the TSA is supposed to be heeding, listen to this: I do not want to go through a machine that is tantamount to being strip-searched. I do not want to have to choose between buying those stupid little travel-sized toiletries, and paying extra to check a bag with my full-size toiletries, when I would not otherwise need to check a bag. I do not want to have to remove my shoes. I do not want to have to throw away that gigantic bottle of water that I had the foresight to bring from home, just because I didn't buy it after the checkpoint.

Do you hear me, TSA? DO NOT WANT. What I *do* want is transparent policies and laws, which I hope the new administration will force. I want a sensible, logical approach to security. We know it’s possible; other countries are doing it. Am I asking a lot? I don’t think I am. Will we eventually see changes in how the TSA does business? I hope so. But the detractors are the public too, and more than that, we are the segment of the population that is trying to keep these guys honest. To say that “if the public doesn’t want it, it wouldn’t be there” is quite misguided, because the TSA believes that it knows what is in the best interest of the public. It’s unfortunate that, in this case, they’re so very wrong.

February 26, 2009 1:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, damn. Upon reading the article with the picture of the scanner, I realized that Indianapolis Airport has seen me nekkid. I was not told it was one of the new scanners, and assumed it was just a slightly different "puffer" machine. (I've only been through the puffer once or twice, so I'm not super familiar with what it looks like). I was not told it was one of the new scanners, and did not see any signage- if I had, I would have refused and taken the patdown or other option.

It's after the fact, sure, but I'm kind of mad. I didn't consent to that sort of thing and I'd prefer that people that I did not give permission to don't get to see me unclothed."

Yes, the TSA is certainly being on the up and up about these machines.

STOP LYING TO THE PUBLIC!!!!!
___________________________________

I don't even work at this airport and I would have to say, TAKE A LOOK AROUND next time you are flying out of there. I guarantee that there are signs posted. The passengers never read signs. I know this for a fact because we have a trial machine at our airport and people never, NEVER, read the signs posted. When they do not follow the rules, we point it out to them and their answer is always either, "well I didn't know" or "Maybe you should post some signs". Then we just laugh because all you people do is point fingers, when you yourselves are always wrong.

February 26, 2009 1:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking thru a lot of your posts, the relatively poor grammar and lack of spelling does is not indicative of someone with education.

Earl
__________________________________

A personal attack on the computer. Such an undescibable pain.
My name is Earl.

February 26, 2009 1:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It'sonly those who intentionally abuse their positions that fear oversight of their actions.

February 26, 2009 3:16 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Anonymous wrote...
I just went throught the imager at DCA, and it didn't bother me at all.

Did I feel as if it was an invasion of my privacy? Nope.

I'm also the kind of guy that if at a traffic stop a LEO asked me for consent to search, I'd give it to them, no problem.

I've got nothing to hide, nor do I mind when a LEO or TSO is just trying to do their job.

Not everyone in the world has an issue with the body imaging system, despite all the posts on here to the contrary.

________________

Most of the rest of my questions to you have been asked already, even though there will be no way to truly tell if you ever answer, but I find I MUST ask this one...

If you have "nothing to hide" then why on Earth are you posting that as "Anonymous???

Don't we have more than enough folks here already without the guts to even put up a fake name?

Tom (1 of 5-6)

February 26, 2009 3:28 PM

 
Anonymous HappyToHelp said...

Tk said...
To HappyToHelp
I did not forget to reply to you, I am having a hard time figuring out how to break us out of the circle we are running. Part of the problem I think was the sporadic updates to the blog kept us from getting into a good back and forth on particular areas. I invite you to head over to Flyer Talk. Start a thread so I know you are around and I will be there shortly.


I completely understand how you feel. Only very limited discussions can ever happen on this blog. Its not a forum. Most of the discussion is with the blog post and response. Usually, it ends there.

There are two very large reasons I would never go over to Flyer Talk Tk. First the EoS blog is a nice SSI filter. I thank the EoS blog team for this. Second, as long as Spiff is a moderator for that website, I will never post over there.

I really can't think of any way to continue our discussion other then you keeping us posted if you ever take it to court. Thanks for the time and effort you spent on that discussion. Sorry to hear that you hit bureaucratic walls. I guess I am just use to that pain were I don't even feel it any more. :)

-H2H

February 26, 2009 4:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9/11 changed that. Now with hardened cockpit doors to prevent intruder cockpit access and the very high unlikelihood that people will NOT cooperate with hijackers, another 9/11 scenario is unlikely to happen.

The point is people shouldn't have to worry about defending themselves from a hijacking. I do not get on a plane only to stand up to a terrorist. My government needs to protect its citizens as it is sworn to do.

-James

February 26, 2009 5:02 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
You should never talk with the officers, police, federal, or TSA. See these videos where a law prof and officer agree. It is especially true if you have nothing to hide. Basically, there is no up-side: innocent people can only hurt themselves by cooperating.


WOW, those videos were an eye opener.

I think everyone needs to take the time to watch those videos

February 26, 2009 7:38 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

There's a report on FlyerTalk that the Indianapolis airport has lots of MMW machines, but no signage. Can someone confirm or deny?

February 26, 2009 8:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think most of what the TSA does is dumb (i.e. Large Aircraft Security Program--LASP), but the MMW technology is actually something that does make sense from a security standpoint.

February 27, 2009 6:40 AM

 
Blogger Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team said...

Jim Huggins wrote...
There's a report on FlyerTalk that the Indianapolis airport has lots of MMW machines, but no signage. Can someone confirm or deny?

Hey Jim
I just checked with our people at Indianapolis who verified the MMW signage has been (and still is) on display at the security checkpoints with MMW for quite some time now.

- Poster Paul

February 27, 2009 1:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I just checked with our people at Indianapolis who verified the MMW signage has been (and still is) on display at the security checkpoints with MMW for quite some time now"

Do the signs include pictures MMW scans of Nico's children?

Will you post an unaltered scan of yourself on this blog?

February 27, 2009 2:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I just checked with our people at Indianapolis who verified the MMW signage has been (and still is) on display at the security checkpoints with MMW for quite some time now."

Pictures, please. Your words are worthless and not to be trusted.

February 27, 2009 2:34 PM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

I went through the Indianapolis airport a few weeks after it was inaugurated last year. It had and was using MMWs, but had no signs. Maybe they were put there later, nbut at that moment, I specifically looked for them and could not find them, and the airport was pretty empty too...

February 27, 2009 2:51 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

James wrote:

"My government needs to protect its citizens as it is sworn to do."

James, you are mistaken. Members of our government are sworn to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, not to "protect its citizens". You've been misled by the scare tactics used in recent years to erode the protections we are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Consider, for instance, the President's oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Consider that of Congress:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

This holds true at local levels, as well. New York City government officials, for instance, swear:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York, (and the Charter of the City of New York, e.g.), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (mayor of the City of New York, e.g.) to the best of my ability."

We're all reminded repeatedly that we're in grave danger, and that if we don't let certain people do certain things which we would otherwise not allow, great harm will come to us. It's terrorism, plain and simple, and it sounds as if you've been led to go along with it.

--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net

February 27, 2009 6:08 PM

 
Anonymous SBM said...

After going through ATL earlier this evening and being subjected to additional screening, I searched for information about the new process. What I'm reading is outrageous! Like a previous poster, I thought what I was being subjected to was a "puffer" machine or something similar.

At the time of the screening, I asked if I had to do it - and my question was acknowledged with a stern and repetitive "Put your arms up, Maam." No option was given or explained to me, and I saw no signage indicating this as an option. And I've been through ATL 5 times in the last two months. I find it hard to believe that I would've missed signs posted for travelers describing this process as many times as I have been in and out of airports recently.

What is the proper response when a traveler asks if they have to participate in the screening? Had I known I had an option, I would not have done the virtual "strip search".

February 28, 2009 12:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SBM, you should file an official complaint. They don't believe us when we repeatedly tell them the public is not informed adequately about the process.

February 28, 2009 3:58 AM

 
Anonymous أطياف مصر said...

I really hope that technology will be used at my country .. I think it really will be an evolution of security

February 28, 2009 7:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is the proper response when a traveler asks if they have to participate in the screening? Had I known I had an option, I would not have done the virtual "strip search"."

The proper response is that you have a choice of the strip search or a pat down. If they tell you anything else, they are lying.

They must offer another alternative for those who cannot raise their arms. ;-)

May I ask: did you walk through the WTMD prior to being forced to the strip search and did it alarm?
Or was the strip the ONLY screening method available?

If either the strip or the pat down are the ONLY screening available, i.e., no WTMD, then again the TSA, is lying to the flying public.

I know you said you looked for signs but the next time you go through ATL be extremely observant. If there are signs, are they in close proximity to the strip search machine or are they far away from it so that by the time one sees the pics and then gets to the machine, they have disassociated the two?

Unfortunately, by this time you have probably been divested of all your worldly possessions so there is probably no opportunity to take a picture of the location of the signs. Remember everything you see and are told and as soon as you can write a full description of your experience

Contact the local newspaper and tell your story to them. As much as the TSA protests, you know they are not being honest with the promotion of this technology and are trying to force as many people through it as possible.

February 28, 2009 7:51 AM

 
Blogger Phil said...

This post has been removed by the author.

February 28, 2009 11:30 AM

 
Blogger Omar said...

Didya all catch the reference in the cbs link from the original post, that stated: One manufacturer later told us that the machine is good at stripping off the first layer of clothing, not so good with the second.

Err, and you REALLY think your screeners won't be tittering about "whoa, did you see that chick wasn't wearing underwear"?

And you really think that putting people in the position where they have to worry about what a random TSO will think about what kind and how much underwear they have on is not an complete affront? ("whoa, that skinny girl must be a skank, she didn't have any underwear on!")

Cmon TSA. Your employees are people, expect them to act like humans and be titillated. And expect your also-human customers to be offended by being subjected to that (lest you forget those customers are also your bosses)

March 1, 2009 2:21 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

Blogger Paul blogged . . . . .

“In Tulsa, instead of walking through the metal detector, passengers will go directly through the millimeter wave machine. A passenger can opt not to go through the unit, but will go through the metal detector and get a pat-down instead. Signage at the checkpoint informs travelers about the technology and lets them know that using it is voluntary.”

And SBM related . . .

“After going through ATL earlier this evening and being subjected to additional screening, I searched for information about the new process. What I'm reading is outrageous! Like a previous poster, I thought what I was being subjected to was a ‘puffer’ machine or something similar.

“At the time of the screening, I asked if I had to do it - and my question was acknowledged with a stern and repetitive ‘Put your arms up, Maam.’ No option was given or explained to me, and I saw no signage indicating this as an option. And I've been through ATL 5 times in the last two months. I find it hard to believe that I would've missed signs posted for travelers describing this process as many times as I have been in and out of airports recently.

“What is the proper response when a traveler asks if they have to participate in the screening? Had I known I had an option, I would not have done the virtual ‘strip search’.”


I checked the Infallible TSA Website, and it says the same thing Blogger Paul says – which is certainly at odds with what SBM experienced..

You know . . . . on the occasion it isn’t humanly feasible for me to use some other mode of transportation than air, I dress very carefully for the experience of running the TSA gauntlet – ballet slipper-type shoes (easy-off, easy-on, not very easy to suspect of harboring any artfully concealed prohibited objects); very simple pull-on slacks with no zippers, no belt, no studs, and nothing in my pockets except my ID and boarding pass, so as not to alarm the metal detector; a clingy knit top, tucked in so it isn’t bulky. In inclement weather, outer clothing goes into my carry-on before I get anywhere near your lines. No handbag. Kippie-bag ready, with the proper size containers (at 3 oz, just in case) each with a manufacturer’s label (although it isn’t A Rule, but just in case). And I’m very careful about packing my carry-on, because it has to hold EVERYTHING I need for my trip – I no longer check luggage since TSA has taken steps to assure that checked luggage can no longer be adequately secured – so I have to get a lot into it and it has to comply with TSA’s sometimes reasonable and sometimes inane and sometimes unknown rules, all the while not raising any suspicion I’m artfully concealing any prohibited objects and prompting some TSO to rummage through it. I usually move through checkpoints fairly quickly and with minimal fuss.

So now you’re telling me that option is closed unless I “voluntarily” submit myself to your virtual strip-tease machine.

Opt out? Of course I can opt out, you tell me. Assuming I can find one of the invisible signs that tells me I can. Or, assuming I already know my right to do so and can manage allow enough time to argue about it if necessary. And, assuming the TSO on duty understands the rule and allows it.

And, of course, assuming I agree to a pat-down.

What I want is a quick, relatively convenient, minimally-intrusive trek through the obstacle course. What I can have is, any two of the three. In other words, Blogger Paul – let’s just skip the public relations hoo-haa and say what it really is: TSA has set up the procedure to make it LESS CONVENIENT and MORE TIME-CONSUMING and MORE INTRUSIVE for me to use the metal detector than it would be to submit to its virtual strip-tease – thereby making it something much less than voluntary. It’s simple extortion.

You can dress a pig up in a tutu and give it a fancy name, but if it looks like a pig and it walks like a pig and it grunts like a pig – it’s a pig.

Irish

March 1, 2009 10:50 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

Yet another Anonymous poster posted:

“hahahahaha. ok ummm where to begin... Im trying to picture a fully loaded IED crammed up someones toosh. You know that the entire thing would have to be assembled right? Who do you think is going to connect all the wires to the explosive, to the detonator, to the switch, to the power source? Maybe if the shoved a tnt stick in their can they would be more successful. Even more funny is the metal weapons gig. ouchie! oh and LEAVE BOB ALONE!!!!!! im talkin to you RB -_- Ive never seen someone complain so much...”


Obviously, Mr. Anonymous, you’ve not spoken with very many REAL law enforcement officers, or correctional officers, or healthcare personnel, about the sometimes unbelievable (and pretty sizeable) objects they’ve encountered in body cavities. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be so ill-informed on the topic. But, here’s a hint you might understand: there are pretty sizeable ... ah ... adult devices ... having rigid outer housings that could be used as containers for all a manner of things. I leave the obvious conclusions as an exercise for the student.

Oh, and as for Poor Bob (who seems quite capable of defending himself without your help), Poor Bob is doing his level best to put a good face on an agency that stymies him at every turn. “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Bob is the wind, RB (among many) is the whirlwind.

Irish

March 1, 2009 10:53 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

tsmithca said...

“TSA – Kiddie Porn & Trauma”

“After traveling through Tulsa’s airport this morning with my two young daughters, I am very concerned about the new TSA screening method. I think we should all be concerned about unsupervised government employees viewing near naked photos of our young children. How long will it be before salacious pictures of young children from TSA employees’ cell phone cameras are on the internet?

“If you choose not to participate – or the child is too small, as was my seven year old, the alternative method is a very thorough (and I mean very thorough) pat down that is traumatizing to the child.”


Until I read this post, I viewed this “strip down or get felt up” tactic as just a really transparent attempt to acclimate the public to ever-increasing tolerance to more and more government intrusion into our private lives. Even the obviously extortive tactic of forcing the public to choose between a longer and now more intrusive metal detector screen vs the quicker but even more intrusive strip-tease machine makes sense in that context.

TSA says the virtual strip-tease is “voluntary”. That’s a lie. TSA says this procedure is “necessary”. That’s a lie. How did it become more necessary to force me to submit to a pat-down today than it was last week, merely because I opt out of the “voluntary” strip-tease? It isn’t necessary for any security reason – just another lie. Give me one – just ONE – good reason that I would believe anything TSA says at any time. Good luck with that. There’s no question WHETHER TSA will lie. Q.E.D. The only remaining questions are WHEN and ABOUT WHAT TSA will lie.

And now we are now subjecting seven-year-old children to a “very thorough” pat-down? Seven-year-old children, whose only suspicious activity is being too small to go through the virtual strip-tease? A “very thorough” pat-down based solely upon SIZE?? How about five-year-old children? Three-year-old children? Babes in arms? No alarms, no artfully concealed prohibited objects? Just because they’re too small to be adequately scanned by the machine? The very same small children to whom we’ve been trying to teach the difference between “good touch” and “bad touch”?? TSA would subject my grandchildren to this behavior? Is TSA NUTS??

Excuse me. I’m a healthcare professional. I’ve probably seen more TRULY naked people, by an order of magnitude, than any individual TSO – and almost certainly more than any one of YSA's individual chairwarmers – has seen or can imagine. The most basic tenet of providing healthcare is to SHOW RESPECT for the people we are required to touch or expose. TSA still has waaaay too many employees out there (including some posting – almost always “anonymously” – on this very blog) who treat the general public without a SHRED of respect – without even the minimal politeness of a simulation of respect. I’ve cut back my air travel to the barest minimum possible to avoid it, and STILL I see this sort of behavior at least once EVERY SINGLE TIME I’m forced to travel by air. I’m not relying on anecdotal information; I’m relying on evidence I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.

Why would I believe one post from tsmithca instead of multiple TSA assurances? Because your credibility track record stinks. And TSA wants to me to trust it to perform a “very thorough” pat-down of my grandchildren. What is WRONG with you guys????? How can anyone possibly justify – outside of the paranoid fantasy universe in which TSA is operating – such vile behavior involving small children????

Irish

March 1, 2009 1:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous of 26 Feb 2009, 3:16pm said:
It's only those who intentionally abuse their positions that fear oversight of their actions.


[BIG RANT AHEAD]
Isn't this awfully similar to what the TSA has been telling us since the day of their creation? That those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear? What does the TSA have to hide that is so scandalous?

By refusing impartial outside auditing of their actions, here they are telling us that they fear us knowing just how incomplete and poorly designed their security actually is. They fear the american taxpayer knowing just how much money is wasted on their PR campaigns in comparison to the pitiful amount spent on actually improving security. How many YEARS did it take for them to finally implement a barcode scanning system to read boarding passes? It wasn't until just recently that our troops could pass through using a DoD issued CAC card [HSDP-12 compliant!] because they weren't 'valid'. During the same era as this embarrassing policy, the TSA was allowing people to use COSTCO cards as identification.

The whole idea of this blog was supposed to be 'Many eyes make problems shallow' and help the TSA improve. The readers of this blog have suggested many improvements, and I know of only two or three that have actually been implemented. It is as if the TSA is begrudging the simple fact that they must improve, and are punishing the flying public by taking two steps back for every step forward they make.

Here's just a small, and definitely not all-inclusive, litany of concerns that I have seen voiced on this blog:
- Screening of air-cargo carried on passenger aircraft.
- Verifiable checked baggage access control.
- Can objects still be removed/added to the baggage without the TSA detecting it?
- Procedures to prevent a repeat of the CNN camera theft.
- DHS issued identification not being recognized as 'valid'
- Document checkers not knowing about US passports in colors other than blue.
- 'Do you want to fly today?'.
- 'No option surrender' does not equal 'voluntary abandonment'.
- 'Secret Laws are not legal in an open society.'
- 'Baggage screeners do not have a license to practice medicine.'
- 'Playing with personal belongings.'
- 'Porn TV on the MMWs'
- A litany of health concerns about the bins, floors.
- The safety of the security line itself.
- The war on liquids and gells.
- 'Flip a coin' rule enforcement.
- 'If you don't speak english or spanish, you're a terrorist.'
- 'Train your people.'
- 'Zero Tolerance for theft'
- 'Wave through the TSO, strip-search the tourist'.

If the flying public isn't concerned about the safety of their possessions while their baggage is in the hands of the TSA, why would the United Airlines offer a 'Fed-Ex Door-To-Door' baggage delivery service?

The TSA administration has created, and without drastic improvement will continue perpetuating, an organization that epitomizes the highest aspirations of the lowliest zampolit. Without drastic improvement, the TSA policy-makers are dooming the hard-working TSO's on the front-line to being constantly be compared to the internal passport control checkpoint troops of the old USSR. I don't think even the worst TSO I have ever encountered (hello LAX Domestic Lane 2!) deserves that comparison.

It is now obvious that the only way to improve the TSA is to perform a necropsy on the useless and rebuild from the still functioning remains, as there are far too many administrative-level TSA personnel who are actively trying to prevent the TSA as a whole from improving.

March 1, 2009 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you posted my response to SBM but only after editing it.

That's OK because I posted the whole thing over at FT. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

March 2, 2009 7:37 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very disturbed that this has become a form of primary screening, and is going to expand to other airports. This means virtual strip searches or pat-downs are required of all passengers, and not just to an unlucky minority.

What do you do with persons sensitive to body image, such as conservative Muslim women?

How do you screen children and babies, that were until now lead through the metal detector with their parents?

When will this invasion of privacy stop? If you consider this OK today, how long will it take to consider rectal exams OK?

March 2, 2009 8:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous #542 said...

If this becomes the norm at places it needs to be the norm everywhere. I don't mind the technology your using as long as it stays so the officer can not see me and I can not see them. The only concern is more confusion through airports because only a few airports have this MMW and your going to be doing different stuff. More inconsistancy is bad for us to know what to do!

March 2, 2009 9:58 AM

 
Blogger Poster Paul EoS Blogger Team said...

Anonymous March 2, 2009 7:37 AM said...

So you posted my response to SBM but only after editing it.
That's OK because I posted the whole thing over at FT. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Hi Anon,
We do not have the ability to edit comments. We can only accept or reject them.

- Paul

March 2, 2009 10:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How will you treat those who put on tinfoil underwear or wear messages like those in message in a carry on?

Are padded bike shorts prohibited?

March 2, 2009 11:03 AM

 
Anonymous George said...

Let me ask a serious question about this "security improvement."

Currently, when I go through a checkpoint, I divest myself of everything but the clothes I'm wearing and my wallet. Before I get to the airport, I carefully remove everything metal from my wallet. I leave it in my trouser pocket, and it never alarms because there's nothing metal in it.

Under the new system, I would go through a virtual strip search that would see my wallet as a prohibited/dangerous object. As a result I would be patted down and/or ordered to remove my wallet and get strip searched again.

I leave my wallet in my pocket for reasons that are obvious to everyone (with the apparent exception of the Security Experts who design the TSA's systems and procedures). It's the one item that I absolutely do not want to be separated from, and do not wish to place in a plastic bin where it's easily accessible to anyone with fleet fingers who might want it.

Is the scenario I described accurate? If so, how might I inform the Security Experts who designed the system that they are forcing passengers to accept an increased risk of a costly common crime in exchange for a questionable promise of potentially improved protection from an extremely rare act of terrorism?

March 2, 2009 11:22 AM

 
Anonymous Dave Nelson said...

I noticed in Secretary Napolitano's recent testimony that she favored use of the strip search machines in place in Tulsa and other airports:

http://tinyurl.com/NapolitanoStripSearchMachines

Also, in the same hearing, Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-CA) said:

Napolitano's support came after Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., suggested addressing privacy concerns by creating an "I-don't-care line" at airport checkpoints for travelers such as himself who don't mind the scanners.

"I'm serious about this," Lungren said as the hearing-room crowd broke into laughter. "I think if you had an I-don't-care line, many of us would rather go through that. Some of the privacy issues that might bubble up would be alleviated."


Madame Secretary, assuming you believe these strip search machines are "actually less intrusive and easier" (direct quote from your on-the-record testimony) than being patted down by an airport screener, set an example of accountability by allowing YOUR image to be posted at airports throughout America.

Representative Lundgren, I challenge you to be a leader and do the same thing.

Several of us made the same challenge to Kip Hawley, Chertoff, and several TSA Public Affairs people, including Nico Melendez and Ellen Howe. As expected, none of them showed even the slightest bit of leading by example.

I dare you, Madame Secretary. Show some leadership and accountability.

I dare you, Congressman Lundgren. Show some leadership and accountability.

March 2, 2009 1:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If you choose not to participate – or the child is too small, as was my seven year old, the alternative method is a very thorough (and I mean very thorough) pat down that is traumatizing to the child.”
___________________________________

Give me a break. TSA is not allowed to touch certain parts of the body. So your over expression of "very thorough" is incorrect. But I do not expect less out of you people. Everyone that posts here over exagerates information on this page.

March 2, 2009 1:48 PM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

Paul or Bob,

Please, Pretty pretty please, explain to us what are standard operations for small children when MMW is used as a primary screening tool. Are all small children patted down? Do parents have to leave their children alone while undergoing the scans? How does this work??

March 2, 2009 3:03 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous writes:

Everyone that posts here over exagerates information on this page.

Including you, I suppose? "Everyone" exaggerates? Isn't that an exaggeration? :)

Seriously, folks ... let's focus on the issues, not on each other ...

March 2, 2009 5:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are so many unrevealed, bad reasons regarding the use of the MMW machine. The TSA's irresponsible roll out and implementation of the machine on the unsuspecting and uninformed public is appalling. I don't even know where to begin.

Come on people, do some research. Educate and inform yourself on the various facts regarding the use of this machine . Don't just read USA Today.

Since the use of the MMW MUST, by law, be implemented on a voluntary basis, the TSA is required to make every individual who encounters this machine aware of this fact and their options, as well as other important facts about the consequences of using this machine.

Additionally, there should be technical security staff available with every machine in use that CAN and WILL answer ANY question the public might have regarding the voluntary use, or non use of the machine. Unfortunately, and clearly, informing and preparing the public, as well as providing facts with transparency doesn't appear to be in the TSA's interest.

Again, folks, do your homework. Once you have, I'm sure you will opt not to pass through the MMW.

March 2, 2009 5:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Ronnie,
Something as invasive and dangerous and important as the use of an x-ray machine to view your entire naked body deserves more warning and preparation time than a few signs posted in a busy airport.

Christ, people know by heart the McDonalds menu and weekly special, they know which retail store is having a sale each week, but they don't know prior to driving to the airport to board a plane that they are about to be subjected to a physical x-ray that shows their entire nude body to complete strangers?

There is something VERY wrong with this. Next thing we'll be told is that a new program is in effect requiring us to be injected with a micro chip in our arm that contains all our flight info, our ID, medical history, banking info, purchasing info, web sites we visit, phone calls we make, books we check out from the library, etc, etc, and can be obtained by a scanning device...that we might not even know about... before boarding a plane.

If you've done some reading and research, you'd know that such technology exists, among other invasive technology. We're about to lose all our privacy, liberties...and dignity.

The MMW machine is undignified. It is the solution of unintelligent leaders who created the problems to begin with. I for one do not subscribe.

You won't be seeing me have my body x-rayed and gawked at by some guy named Ronnie.

March 2, 2009 6:05 PM

 
Anonymous HappyToHelp said...

Anonymous said...
If you consider this OK today, how long will it take to consider rectal exams OK?

Funny you mention that. Body Orifice Security Scanner

-H2H

March 2, 2009 8:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

H2H,

Am I to understand that you consider that OK?

March 3, 2009 3:44 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Give me a break. TSA is not allowed to touch certain parts of the body. So your over expression of "very thorough" is incorrect. But I do not expect less out of you people. Everyone that posts here over exagerates information on this page.

March 2, 2009 1:48 PM"

It is VERY easy for a child to be intimidated or frightened by an adult, especially a stranger in a uniform who isn't especially compassionate and circumspect.

March 3, 2009 7:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After a few month absent I come back to see nothing changes and the same people are making the same complaints. TSA, why don't you just admit that you are aliens and you are using the technology from another planet. Yes, Roswell was real and you have all of the Avenger pilots stored away at Area 51. The only thing that bothers me is the WBI makes my gut look even larger and my rear even wider. Couldn't you at least make the technology make us look better??? Of course you do hide our face so few will know. Good blog, love it or hate it at least someone in the government is willing to read and respond.

March 4, 2009 1:54 PM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

I have scoured the internet in search for an answer to my question: What is the standard operation for small children (unable to stand in position alone) being screened at airports that use MMW as a primary screening tool? I found no answer. The Tulsa website, in fact, directs to a TSA page that still refers to metal detectors, which I understand are only being used for those who refuse MMW.

Can someone please answer this question?

Lets say I had a three-year-old child and was going to travel through Tulsa. I would like to prepare the child for what is ahead, describing the procedures, so the child is less likely to be scared or intimidated. This information should be readily available.

I have asked before, but got no answer. This is a simple question, and the answer should be readily available. If you can´t answer this level of question, this blog is really completely useless.

March 6, 2009 5:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bubba said...
Lets say I had a three-year-old child and was going to travel through Tulsa. I would like to prepare the child for what is ahead, describing the procedures, so the child is less likely to be scared or intimidated. This information should be readily available.

The information signs posted along with the post don't provide enough information? Any information when you get there at the machine will be provided by the officer conducting screening I would assume. Is that not good enough?

-James

March 6, 2009 9:46 AM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

"The information signs posted along with the post don't provide enough information? Any information when you get there at the machine will be provided by the officer conducting screening I would assume. Is that not good enough? -James"

No James, a three-year-old is too small to stand in the proper position to be screened by the MMW while a parent waits outside. I want to know what is done with these small children (and even non-standing babies for that matter). Are they, or are they not, all patted down? A pat down is definitely something I would have to inform a three year old about before hand, or the child would be very freaked out. They may freak out even if informed ahead of time...

March 6, 2009 1:09 PM

 
Anonymous Cheryl Massena said...

I got the privilege of experiencing the mess this new system causes. Last week, I encountered it in Albuquerque NM at 4 AM (for a 6:20 AM flight). Usually at 4AM, the lines are short and quick. This machine held us up for almost 1 1/2 hrs. Lines backed up back to the checkpoint and carry-ons filled the conveyor system.

If there was a sign, I didn't see it nor did anyone else.

Plus I'm disabled, I can't lift my arms and sustained them lifted. This means I have to go through the patdown which I find embarassing at my age of 61.

I guess my flying days are ending which is a shame since my children are spread over the US including a son in the Navy.

March 7, 2009 11:32 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

My sister ran the TSA gauntlet at BWI yesterday. She saw the "pat down" poster prominently displayed. There was no information in sight about what the new machine actually does.

The TSA's politely herded the sheeple towards the MMW. Didn't order them, just a pleasant "this way next" sort of thing. Almost all of the sheeple went that way. From listening to the people around her talking, she believes few, if any, were aware of what the machine does. Several noted a new machine and she overheard at least one person tell his traveling companion that it's a new "bomb detector".

She didn't see any children clost to her place in line, so she couldn't give me any information about the procedures for children.

She did get held up at the checkpoint for a hand-check of her carry-on because someone thought her compressed face powder looked like a liquid on the x-ray.

Irish

March 9, 2009 9:20 AM

 
Anonymous Bubba said...

Irish,

She should file a complaint. It is unacceptable not to inform the public what the machines actually do.

March 11, 2009 1:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Do all TSA staff also have to go through this Porno Machine?

2) If the image(s) truly are non offensive, why not post samples in front of the machine so people can make a judgement call before they enter the scanner?

3) I've read that some people with hip replacements and those in wheelchairs like this system - why not just have this for those cases and leave the rest of us alone?

Please stop this insane experiment that violates our civil rights NOW!

March 12, 2009 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Major Variola (ret) said...

Are TSA screeners using
the mm wave tech allowed
to have cell phones
with cameras?

"No storage" in the
scanner does not mean
images are not leaving..

March 18, 2009 4:28 PM

 
Anonymous CommonSenseUtah said...

I am outraged that TSA has begun using the "naked scanners." This is a clear violation of Americans' privacy and of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment as it constitutes an unreasonable search. Just because my law abiding family wishes to travel on vacation does not give the TSA the right to allow its perverted personnel to engage in pedophilia and view my naked child, wife, or mother. Shame on the TSA. I urge you to stop the use of these scanners immediately.

March 31, 2009 11:10 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This makes me ill. I will never fly in an airport that these scanners are being used. End of story.

March 31, 2009 12:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am *furious* that you would subject me to a "pat-down" like a common criminal if I choose not to allow you to make nude pictures of me with your MMW machine. "Pat-down" has never been a requirement for all passengers, yet you're making it one for people who refuse to use the MMW machine. Clearly this is a kind of "punishment" for people who don't want their privacy invaded by the machine.

We have only your word for it that the images created by the machine are not stored or printed or transmitted, and bluntly, we do not trust you.

I don't have a problem with you having the machine there for people who choose to go through it, to avoid extra examination because of problems such as medical implants. However, for you to use it as an excuse to force the rest of us to undergo frisking if we aren't willing to be subjected to the MMW machine is a violation of our privacy and is wholly unamerican.

April 9, 2009 2:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some anonymous poster said:
“I am *furious* that you would subject me to a "pat-down" like a common criminal if I choose not to allow you to make nude pictures of me with your MMW machine.”

We would prefer that you keep your clothing on for the process. Few are the individuals on this planet who can do full nudity without offending.

"Pat-down" has never been a requirement for all passengers, yet you're making it one for people who refuse to use the MMW machine.”

Security advances. We make progress. We do our best to respect your privacy, and if all this is too much for your delicate sensibilities then you always have the choice of not flying at all.

“Clearly this is a kind of "punishment" for people who don't want their privacy invaded by the machine.”

If only it were so. I’d love to be able to “punish” the difficult passengers, the one’s that cannot or will not read, the one’s that refuse to listen to the overhead announcements, the one’s who think that their rights are more important than any other passenger in the airport.

“We have only your word for it that the images created by the machine are not stored or printed or transmitted, and bluntly, we do not trust you.”

Congratulations. I have actually seen some of these images produced by the MMW system. Pornography they are not. It was all I could do to keep from hurling on the screen. Next time you are in the airport, take a look around you. Just how many aspiring top models do you see out there? “America The Beautiful” cannot be seen on the MMW screen.

“I don't have a problem with you having the machine there for people who choose to go through it, to avoid extra examination because of problems such as medical implants. However, for you to use it as an excuse to force the rest of us to undergo frisking if we aren't willing to be subjected to the MMW machine is a violation of our privacy and is wholly unamerican.”

We are not forcing anyone to do anything. You can walk away. Its always a choice. Feel free to take advantage of it. But if you absolutely insist on flying then you are also insisting on undergoing screening. Your choice, not ours.

April 10, 2009 3:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had not heard of this technology until I was its victim yesterday (4/25/09)at the Albuquerque Airport. I saw small signs (8x11) posted that showed an image of a body and said that MMW is safer than a cell phone, but I had no clue that when I went through it my entire naked body would be a detailed photo to some observer. Further, no where did I see that it was voluntary--it looked mandatory once I got to the machine. Also, I received a "pat down" after I went through the machine because I had some paper baggage tags and a note in my pocket. There were two main security lines with two further lines in each of the two main ones. The one main line had fewer people, so I opted for that line. Of course, the shorter line used the new MMW machine; the other main line used the standard metal detector and wand. TSA did not have signs that said it was optional or that one line used the technology and the other did not. I was just impatient enough to hop in the wrong line. I had no idea that the technology revealed my naked body until I started researching it today. In my opinion TSA has overstepped the line in terms of invasion of privacy. At some point, personal privacy and dignity must outweigh the right to visually strip search a person in the name of anti-terrorism. This system targets everyone at the top level--it should be used as the last resort.

April 26, 2009 10:37 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home