Automated Target Recognition (ATR) has been making the news a lot lately. You may remember when I discussed ATR back in April of this year. So what in the heck is ATR? It’s software that’s used with Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) and displays a computer generated, generic human image (you've probably heard it referred to as an Avatar) on the monitor attached to the AIT machine. It highlights areas on the image to show where anomalies may exist. It does not display the actual image of the passenger like the current technology does.
ATR provides additional privacy protections and eliminates the need to staff an extra officer in a private room. We’re very interested in this next generation software, but ATR in its current form does not meet TSA’s screening requirements, however, we’re working closely with manufacturers to find a software that does.
It would be a win for us since we won’t have to staff as many officers and it will be a win for passengers who have voiced concerns over privacy. While we’re excited about the potential of this new technology, we’ve just started testing it, so stay tuned for more information at a later date.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
112 comments:
Why do you refuse to post examples of the images seen by the operators of your strip-search technology that are at the same size and recognition as those seen by the operators of the machines?
We still haven't addressed a lot of issues with this technology, however, including safety, the ability to record images, retaliation when you request another form of search, putting wallets in bags that are unattended, etc. Seems like the TSA could do a better job spending money in screening checked baggage and police work.
Good - maybe if they start using this, and stop the genital grabbing, I'll start flying again.
Translated from government-speak:
Unlike the backscatter machines, there's nobody that's connected to the DHS that can profit from this. Until that happens, we won't be purchasing any of these machines.
Oh my, the TSA actually admitting that they are trying to fix an issue. Never mind that it is an issue that could have been avoided if they had just done it right the first time.
Enough already with the goofball assertion that TSA hasn't posted examples of the images. They have posted them and they're not a big deal. I see more interesting images just walking through the airport in Vegas.
Can we all grow up now and get over the idea that TSA is some sort of fake by the gov or "theatre"? Honestly, as a retired cop I will say this is the right step in screening people. And for you brain numb folks who are about to yell that it can't find internal IEDs... duh! Can you imagine the yelling about health risks if they tried to put a people x-ray of that strength out? You can't have it both ways folks.
You guys are killing me (and others) with this. These pictures were provided to TSA by the vendor. I have never claimed they are the exact size and resolution that our officers see. I have provided video examples showing what our officers see. I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release. I'm still looking into being able to get that info for you, but I can't promise anything.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
February 3, 2010 1:22 PM
Will the images be viewed in public like the UK AIT machines? Please implement this technology soon if we have to have these machines in the airport...
I thought the images that were seen by the TSO in the back room were ready to grace the cover of Reader's Digest and ready to be handed out at the local preschool. At least, that is what this blog maintained for over two years.
Why would we need to have an avatar if the photos are so innocuous?
Oh, that's right.
Rolando Negrin threw a monkey wrench into your PR campaign.
"Enough already with the goofball assertion that TSA hasn't posted examples of the images."
Why do you call an incontrovertibly true fact a "goofball assertion"?
Anonymous said...
Enough already with the goofball assertion that TSA hasn't posted examples of the images. They have posted them and they're not a big deal. I see more interesting images just walking through the airport in Vegas.
Can we all grow up now and get over the idea that TSA is some sort of fake by the gov or "theatre"? Honestly, as a retired cop I will say this is the right step in screening people. And for you brain numb folks who are about to yell that it can't find internal IEDs... duh! Can you imagine the yelling about health risks if they tried to put a people x-ray of that strength out? You can't have it both ways folks.
September 17, 2010 12:14 PM
.............
So how long have you worked for TSA?
And aren't we still waiting for liquids testing that was supposed to have arrived in 2008? Or was that shoes?
Is TSA going to replace all backscatter with MMW? Until then, avatars or not, backscatter is still bad for your health.
If the TSA was serious about ATR it would spend some of the tens of millions of dollars it is spending rushing in the current strip-scanners. Just a fraction of this money, and the time invested in their implementation, could bring ATR up to speed. Why is this not happening? Because the TSA is not, and has never been serious about protecting privacy.
Why is the TSA only now beginning testing a technology that helps protect privacy that has been around for several years?
Impending legal action from EPIC perhaps?
How come the ATR used in Amsterdam is not good enough. That's the epicenter of current terrorism, and they think it's good enough.
Chances are we will never see an "underwear bomber" again. It's proven that you can't pack enough explosives in your underwear to bring down a jetliner anyway. So why should we be checking the genitals of millions of passengers, when they will just blow up the security line, the train, a bus, or something easier to do? All that we will accomplish is to alienate the traveling public and put a few airlines out of business.
This accomplishes their goals, without a big boom!
I would like to congratulate the Talaban and Al- Quada on another smashing victory against Freedom, democracy, and the constitution!
Ooops! my mistake!
I would like to congratulate the TSA on it's smashing victory against freedom, democracy, and the constitution!
It's getting hard to tell who is who anymore!
Enforcement of airport full-body scanning constitutes a direct assault against the integrity of the mind and body of the American citizen. As an intended or unintended consequence of Homeland Security, the loss of liberty, demoralization and control of the people should be recognized as the real culprit that should strike terror into the hearts of men. Once our freedoms are lost, they will more than likely not be returned.
In the words of Patrick Henry, “Fear is the passion of slaves.”
Terrorism has to be stopped by intelligence and good "police" work. Putting all the technology into world at the airport gate is no more effective than putting a burglar alarm on your front door. It will only keep the amateurs from damaging the property. The professionals will always get around it.
The road to a police state is paved with good intentions.
I'm confused. How does this protect our privacy? According to the TSA, there is no violation of privacy so long as the state employee viewing your genitals cannot connect it with your face. Is that no longer your position?
Anonymous wrote:
"Can you imagine the yelling about health risks if they tried to put a people x-ray of that strength out? You can't have it both ways folks."
Nobody is asking for it "both ways", but that has obviously got past your astute intellect.
We are saying that as long as backscatter can't see into the body, there is no sense using it at all.
I'm sure that every time an airline passenger any where in the world stands in any "AIT" device in the surrender position (arms up), OBL gets a chuckle.
Blogger Bob wrote, at some point: I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release.
While I understand that you are in a bind and that this is a corner you're ordered to back into, I hope that you appreciate just how truly ridiculous of a position it really is and what it actually says about people who are supposedly in the business of security.
With that said, I don't particularly care to see the "actual" images, or what the actual resolution is. The fact is that the imaging resolution that these machines have (and I'm not referring to their ability to display something on the screen, but in their ability to scan it) coupled with the relatively short time available for post-scan processing are the limiting factors here.
The TSA have said all along that privacy is GUARANTEED in the scanners being used NOW.
They say the scans:
are not extremely graphic;
are not stored;
people cannot be identified in them.
If this were true, then why introduce ATR? Privacy, we are told, is already protected. So this PROVES that privacy is so far NOT being protected.
Also what about the possibility of false alarms - the ATR scans detecting things that are completely innocuous. This will have the perverse effect of DECREASING privacy by increasing the number of grope-downs that will result.
"How does this protect our privacy? According to the TSA, there is no violation of privacy so long as the state employee viewing your genitals cannot connect it with your face."
Excellent point!
That TSA is even looking at ATR says that there is a great deal of resistance to strip searches, even though it (TSA) continues to spew that it is well accepted.
However, as others have said, ATR does not make backscatter more palatable.
As we saw last December, even a failed attempt is enough to send DHS into a hand wringing panic, and a massive spending spree. Isn't it just playing into the hands of the terrorists?
There will always be risk, but terrorism is negligible as a cause of death, worldwide.
There is no 100% effective way to stop a determined terrorist threat, especially in a society that puts a value on personal freedom, privacy, and the limits on the power of government, and it seems the most recent terror attempts have been largely ineffective.
Will we still be allowed to opt-out of the whole-body imaging scan once you have the target identification software?
I have yet to see one of the existing machines work well. Every person I've watched submit themselves to this machine has required multiple scans and additional pat downs.
I once watched a passenger sent back into the machine three times (four total scans). As I passed by (in the regular metal detector line), the female TSO finished patting down the torso of a male passenger and practically yelled into her headset, "There's *still* nothing there."
Please stop wasting taxpayer money on unnecessary technological pipe dreams. Imagine all the lives that could be saved if we spent the WBI money one things that are proven to address more significant risks.
Chances are we will never see an "underwear bomber" again. It's proven that you can't pack enough explosives in your underwear to bring down a jetliner anyway. So why should we be checking the genitals of millions of passengers, when they will just blow up the security line, the train, a bus, or something easier to do? All that we will accomplish is to alienate the traveling public and put a few airlines out of business.
This accomplishes their goals, without a big boom!
***********************************
Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight he was sitting on as it approached Detroit Metro Airport. But the bomb he was hiding in his underwear failed to explode.
Imagine what would have happened to those people had it worked to his plans!!
Check away I say.
As we saw last December, even a failed attempt is enough to send DHS into a hand wringing panic, and a massive spending spree. Isn't it just playing into the hands of the terrorists?
There will always be risk, but terrorism is negligible as a cause of death, worldwide.
There is no 100% effective way to stop a determined terrorist threat, especially in a society that puts a value on personal freedom, privacy, and the limits on the power of government, and it seems the most recent terror attempts have been largely ineffective.
***********************************
So what do you suggest our country do? Seems like you would rather we did not have extra security at airports. If we had none then anyone could walk staight on to an airplane with whatever weapon they want to use and destroy hundreds of lives. I think your idea is not well thought out.
Having to spend more money to have americans safe is well spent.
All I'm reading is contradicting statements from what are most likely from the same people before. Some People don't like the machines because they are self centered enough to think the officer in the booth wants to look at their image like it is something special. It is a fact that a person will go through that machine and after 10-15 secs that image is no more and everyone carries on with their lives.
Since that was not good enough for some, TSA decided to do something else so those people will feel better that a person is not actually looking at them for 10seconds. Nothing more nothing less.
I work at a busy airport and out of the thousands in a day that machine processes through only a very small percentage don't want to go through it or don't like it. Please stop insulting thousands of officers that do care about their jobs and are professional.
If your not happy one way or the other I don't know what you'll do in life. There are plenty of people that do think its an improvement, thank us for what we do, know the facts (and listen), and find it more convient.
So Bob, is there areason why the "privacy and opt out" sign at BWI pier D is tucked away in a corner next to the bag x-rayer? People going into the Nude-O-Scopes likely won't see it unless they look hard. I didn't even see it the first time I went by there (I chose the lane next to it). Only after looking hard when I got back did I find where it was.
Care to explain?
Al
"but ATR in its current form does not meet TSA’s screening requirements, however, we’re working closely with manufacturers to find a software that does."
and how the sentence should read...
...but TSA in its current form does not meet the citizens screening requirements, however, the public is working closely with legislators to find a solution.
With ATR will pregnant women still be forced to use the scanners even when they opt-out?
http://consumerist.com/2010/09/pregnant-traveler-tsa-screeners-bullied-me-into-full-body-scan.html
@Anonymous, September 18, 2010 9:38 AM: As we saw last December, even a failed attempt is enough to send DHS into a hand wringing panic, and a massive spending spree. Isn't it just playing into the hands of the terrorists?
Actually, the panic is driven by the DHS's overwhelming desire to ensure that every bottom in their organization is securely covered. They're compelled to react quickly to every attempt, even a failed one, to make sure that nobody will ever be blamed or held accountable for the failure to prevent the attempt. If that means that everyone who wants to fly has to be strip searched or groped, that's no problem. Especially if it's an opportunity to enrich a favored supplier of expensive high-technology "solutions."
The TSA's eagerness to react to terrorist attempts by taking away another increment of freedom and privacy may make terrorism that much more effective and desirable for our enemies. But TSA management seems incapable of seeing that, probably because each attempt gives them the opportunity to expand their bureaucratic empire.
There is no 100% effective way to stop a determined terrorist threat, especially in a society that puts a value on personal freedom, privacy, and the limits on the power of government....
It appears that TSA management sat down in one of their classified meetings and determined that personal freedom, privacy, and limits on the power of government make us dangerously vulnerable to terrorism. So they decided they need to do everything they can to eliminate those vulnerabilities so the Homeland can be Secure. Thus, with each bra they remove and each testicle they squeeze, TSOs are making the Homeland a little bit more secure.
The irony here is that a thorough pat down that includes complete and intimate inspection of genitals and breasts is probably the most effective way airport screening might stop a terrorist plot, assuming TSOs can consistently do it properly (a major assumption). The GAO doubts that AIT would have stopped the Underwear Bomber (the supposed justification for AIT), but a properly-administered pat down may well have stopped him.
The question is whether that potential protection is worth the cost of inflicting such an extremely intrusive invasion as routine screening of all passengers. This alters the balance of liberty and privacy vs. security so severely that it properly should be decided and regulated by our elected officials in public debate. Unfortunately, the unaccountable TSA management has usurped that authority by unilaterally making the decision and the policies by themselves in secret.
I find this usurpation almost as troubling as the pat downs themselves. It's something you would have expected to see in a communist or fascist dictatorship rather than in the United States. It suggests that TSA management believes that protecting America requires destroying what makes America worth protecting. If that isn't reason to despise the TSA, I don't know what is.
Marshall's SO said:
And aren't we still waiting for liquids testing that was supposed to have arrived in 2008? Or was that shoes?
That was liquids. And it was Kip Hawley who on 10/24/08 said (and I quote):
Now: We are pretty close to having a network of AT-X-Ray deployed so that nearly 70% of daily passengers will be using major airports with AT. TSA is getting the hardware installed so that when the software is ready in the next year or so, all we have to do is a software upgrade. We will be testing software versions in the coming months.
Fall-2009: Size restriction removed, but all liquids will have to be placed in a separate bin. AT X-Ray software will be advanced enough to tell the difference between threat and non-threat but not yet proven to tell the difference when it is hidden in a bag.
End of 2010: No restrictions. AT X-Ray will have upgraded software that is proven to detect threat liquids in any configuration and is deployed in enough places so that TSA can change the rules to meet one uniform standard for the country.
Needless to say, Fall 2009 has come and gone, and the end of 2010 is near, and there has been no progress in lifting the restrictions on liquids.
So really, Bob, why should we believe one word you say?
Oh, yeah, and the privacy aspect is only one thing. The health risks, risk of theft of possessions, and the speed (or rather, lack of speed) of WBI scanning still remain.
@ Al September 18, 2010 11:33 PM
You should contact BWI using Talk To TSA, if you have any signage issues.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@ "Anonymous", "Your friend, Ethel"
ATR’s is mutually beneficial. It would eliminate a manned position, wouldn’t need a resolution room, doesn’t require new equipment, and the passenger can see the security officer analyzing the display. Not sure why you guys think this blog post is a hidden message. Maybe I missed something in my email box.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@ Isaac Newton
If you don’t believe Bob, why do you ask him questions?
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@ “George”, “Sandra”, “Anonymous” September 17, 2010 4:08 PM
AIT does not equal police state. Good try.
George, technology vs. privacy is always going to bunt heads (glad you brought that up). However, TSA has not taken away the ability for congress to debate AIT. To say so is ludicrous.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
You should contact BWI using Talk To TSA, if you have any signage issues.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Typical government employee response.
"not my job, go complain to someone else"
@HappyToHelp: AIT does not equal police state. Good try.
Maybe not to you. But to some of us, being strip searched (or "optionally" patted down with a "method" that can be perceived as sexual assault) as a prerequisite to travel is more characteristic of a police state than the United States. (And don't respond by saying that it doesn't restrict travel because we can choose Greyhound if we don't want a TSO touching our genitals. You know as well as I do that Greyhound is not a practical alternative to flying. You can't get to Europe or Hawaii on Greyhound.)
George, technology vs. privacy is always going to bunt heads (glad you brought that up). However, TSA has not taken away the ability for congress to debate AIT. To say so is ludicrous.
You do have a valid point, though not the one you probably intended. By failing to publicly debate the balance of privacy and (supposed) security, Congress is as guilty as TSA management. TSA management has filled that vacuum by determining that balance unilaterally and in secret, without input from the public or anyone else. Or more accurately, they're ignoring the input from the public. I can't believe that they're so stupid and ignorant not to realize that many of us aren't happy about being radiated and strip searched.
I don't know why Congress isn't doing it's job of overseeing regulating the TSA, but I suspect it comes down to fear. Anyone who publicly opposes "security enhancements" like AIT risks accusations of "weakening security." So in the interest of protecting their precious rear ends, they'll abrogate that responsibility and let unaccountable TSA bureaucrats make the decisions about privacy vs. (supposed) security in secret. And since those bureacrats are also primarily concerned with covering their rear ends, privacy is expendable (unless it's the absolute privacy to which "bad apple" TSOs are entitled when they commit an egregious violation that requires spin doctoring).
Ah, Curtis, playing the "hold the comments" game again?
Last time you posted about AIT, your fellow bloggers wondered with me in the comments section about the use of BXR when MMW was available.
As unconstitutional as the whole AIT concept is, I really do think you should look in to finding an answer why BXR (unsafe) is being used instead of MMW (merely illegal).
HappyToHelp said...
@ Al September 18, 2010 11:33 PM
You should contact BWI using Talk To TSA, if you have any signage issues.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
September 21, 2010 6:16 AM
...........................
I would think that with TSA being the professional organization it is this signage issue could be taken care of internally.
Guess TSA is not a professional organization.
@HappyToHelp:
Sir, why didn't You answer my question about using neural-networks in this software? I'm really curious about this. Is this TOP SECRET and You just can't tell it?
Tim said, "However, TSA has not taken away the ability for congress to debate AIT. To say so is ludicrous."
And as far as I can tell no one here has said that they have.
Tim, I know who you addressed that message to. You listed them at the top of your post.
But where did any of those people say that TSA has taken away the ability for congress to debate AIT?
Could you please tell us who said that? In what post?
Thanks in advance.
Tim said: "@ “George”, “Sandra”, “Anonymous”
AIT does not equal police state"
Tim, which of those posters said AIT equals a police state?
I can not find that assertion in their posts.
Anonymous said... Typical government employee response. "not my job, go complain to someone else" September 21, 2010 3:34 PM
----------------------------
I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
I kept hearing about the new "body scan" machines, but finally got to experience them over the last two days. Absolutely horrific. I feel like I'm being arrested and/or violated at the same time. I've had patience for all the other misc allusion of security items that the TSA has put into place up to this point - but I draw the line at that this. Elected officials contacted - check, manual screening from now on - check, advising everyone else to do the same - check, stop flying unless absolutely mandatory - TBD. Congratulations on ticking off the normal mild manor traveler that I am. Bad - Just Bad. All that's left is the sickle and hammer flags to be hung. Whats sad is that I actually use to remember traveling for fun.
BB said:
"I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others."
Fixed to the machine, so by the time you see it and can get close enough to read it, it's too late.
Good going yet again, TSA.
I am still waiting for an answer as to if any 'admin-types' of the TSA have ever flown through Narita. There is a device there that they might, just possibly might, want to go see. I'll even give the TSA directions on how to go see it first hand. Your 'agent' will not even have identify themselves as working for the TSA.
Fly into Narita International Airport from outside Japan. Go through the checkpoint. Notice the really small device that you put your water bottle in? Gee. I wonder what that does?
Now, fly back to the states and tell me why the TSA is so insistent that such a device does not exist?
And it is ironic that my 'captcha' is preverit.
I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Do you believe this is an appropriate location for the signage? Is it on the front of the machine? The side?
Do you think a person has time to read and understand the signage before making the decision to go into the machine?
I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Is the sign on the front of the machine or the side?
Is it in a place that is easily readable considering the size and small print?
Do you think a person has adequate time to read and understand the signage such that they can make an informed decision before entering the machine?
Signs.
1) Congrats to TSA. They now have us talking about sign instead of talking about being scanned.
2) In the airports I have been through in the last few weeks only one sign with the information that we could opt out was poster size. That sign was placed behind the TSAer who was guiding people through the machine.
Instead of us reporting to you all the places that the signs are too small and hidden out of the way could we please turn this around? Especially as Bob actually seems to be asking questions about this.
Could you please tell us what airport has signs that you consider properly deployed? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks in advance.
Ingram26 said:
"So what do you suggest our country do? Seems like you would rather we did not have extra security at airports. If we had none then anyone could walk staight on to an airplane with whatever weapon they want to use and destroy hundreds of lives. I think your idea is not well thought out.
Having to spend more money to have americans safe is well spent."
I would suggest we stop the fear mongering, and really assess the current risk. Just what are we keeping passengers safe from, and is it necessary to abuse and humiliate, and now grope them to get the job done?
Perhaps you should read my comment, and reply to what I actually said, which was about the risk.
TSA has never found and disarmed a single terrorist. No real proof that they have deterred any, either. ZERO. What makes you think they ever will? Meanwhile, millions of truck loads of cargo have been put into commercial aircraft with little or no screening. That sure sounds like a big lapse in security.
Personally, I'd like to see and new money spent on better training and management rather than unproven, possibly dangerous technology. That alone would probably improve morale, and reduce the high turnover of TSA employees, thus making them more effective.
Dogs are far better at detecting chemical traces of explosives than humans groping passengers crotches or the current crop of AIT machines.
@Anonymous, September 22, 2010 2:58 PM: Do you think a person has adequate time to read and understand the signage such that they can make an informed decision before entering the machine?
One of the many unfathomable things about the TSA is the way they provide passengers with "options" that are either impractical or worse than the preferred mechanism. For example, a passenger carrying an item that a TSO decides is prohibited supposedly has a range of options for dispositioning the item. TSOs are supposed to spend the time informing passengers of their options and helping them to make the best choice.
But it's probably a mere coincidence that nearly all passengers end up "voluntarily abandoning" such items. Even if the TSO actually bothered to inform the passenger of the other options rather than employing the much easier "DYWTFT," it most likely would not be practical to retrieve a checked bag, put the item in their car (which may be thousands of miles away), call a friend or relative to pick up the item (the nearest one may also be thousands of miles away), or mail the item home. The options may or may not be part of the SOP (we can't know because it's classified), but their only real-world value is to allow the Propaganda Department to respond to complaints about having to forfeit supposedly-permitted items by insisting that it was "voluntary abandonment."
So here, Bob can truthfully claim that there is a sign that informs passengers of their right to opt out of the irradiating strip search scanner. Never mind that passengers who don't already know about that "right" won't be able to see the sign until they're already standing in the scanner with their hands in the air. And never mind that you'll get your testicles squeezed as punishment for exercising that right.
Yes, the TSA is very generous about giving passengers options. But is the official who devises them named Hobson?
Anonymous said…
I kept hearing about the new "body scan" machines, but finally got to experience them over the last two days. Absolutely horrific. I feel like I'm being arrested and/or violated at the same time. I've had patience for all the other misc allusion of security items that the TSA has put into place up to this point - but I draw the line at that this.
----------------------------------
Horrific? You had to stand there for 8 seconds of so with your hands over your head then walk on. Just what is horrific about that please? Could it be that you have let your imagination run away with itself? Are you imagining that your image is being sold to some magazine to make some kind of profit? Maybe your are just spending too much time reading the absolute drivel that seems to entertain so many of the posters here. Or is it that since you are one of the many “Anonymous” posters here that you are one of the one’s perpetuating the misinformation that seems to delight the more prolific participants here?
Either way, if you choose to think of your experience with the AIT systems as “horrific” then you have no one to blame for that but yourself. TSA has gone far out of its way to ensure the privacy of those who undergo AIT screening, and continues to work towards improving that privacy by updating and upgrading the technology.
Stop all the hyperbole folks and stick to the facts.
Anon said
Tim said: "@ “George”, “Sandra”, “Anonymous”
AIT does not equal police state"
Tim, which of those posters said AIT equals a police state?
I can not find that assertion in their posts.
September 22, 2010 9:44 AM
To the Anon who asked about which post Tim was refering to about a police state
-----------------------------------
The road to a police state is paved with good intentions.
September 17, 2010 4:08 PM
It didn't take me long to find it.
Since we are talking about AIT and assuming the person didn't post off topic it was a good assumption for Tim to come to.
@ Demotivator
There are no previous posts on this thread from Demotivator. That is why I did not answer your previous post.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@ Anonymous September 22, 2010 9:40 AM
The posts are up thread, and there is no need to repeat them. You should read them. If their position is unclear to you, you can ask for clarification from the original poster. George has made his position a lot clearer since your post. The others may if asked.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Blogger Blogger Bob said...
Anonymous said... Typical government employee response. "not my job, go complain to someone else" September 21, 2010 3:34 PM
----------------------------
I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
September 22, 2010 2:06 PM
---------------------------------
Where is the sign in relation to the entrance to the machine? front as you enter or rear as you exit?
Also how big was the sign?
@ Ayn R. Key
Advanced imaging technology is safe and meets national health and safety standards. Backscatter technology was evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).
Tim
TSA Blog Team
The TSA has committed the moral equivalent of treason. They have aided and abetted those who seek to gut our Constitution, the law of the land.
@ George
I don’t agree with you that AIT is a (virtual) strip search or the enhanced pat down is sexual assault. Just sounds like rhetoric to me. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
I find it odd that you want congress to step in on AIT. A while back you were against a congressional bill; something about you were worried the law would have no teeth, if I remember correctly. During that discussion I said I was for congress stepping in, but I have since changed my mind to public rule making. Have you changed your mind? Ayn also assured me that Congress was working on banning AIT. Whatever happened to that? Did Congress debate AIT? Maybe Ayn can add to this discussion of ours?
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@ Blogger Bob
Typical government employee response.
“I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others.”
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Zinnnngggggg… got you
@ RB
The sign is there, and is ready for public consumption. What more do you want? Blood?
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Zinnnngggggg… got you
@Tim: Advanced imaging technology is safe and meets national health and safety standards.
It probably is safe when the machines are operated and maintained properly.
But how can we have any confidence that TSOs at individual checkpoints are operating and maintaining the machines properly? We know that the TSA is incapable of doing anything consistently, so why should AIT be any different? And the relevant procedures are secret, so we have no way of even knowing if a TSO is operating the machines improperly.
Earlier this year there were revelations about stroke patients getting radiation overdoses from scanners in hospitals. That happened even though the procedures were not secret, the operators had certification, and the hospitals were subject to regular audits and oversight. TSA procedures are secret, TSOs have inconsistent levels of training and competence, and the DHS ignores the results of GAO audits and refuses any independent oversight. Under those conditions, I would seriously question whether the TSA is able to safely operate scanners that expose people to radiation.
But I know the only answer to those concerns you're authorized to give us is "trust us."
And what about the other "safety" concern with the strip search: The requirement to "divest" wallets, passports, money belts, and all other valuables, with no certainty of being able to watch them while being scanned. That's probably a far greater risk than the radiation, but the TSA ignores it. Protecting property from theft, damage, or loss apparently is not within the TSA's definition of "security."
Yes, I know: "Trust us."
Tim: During that discussion I said I was for congress stepping in, but I have since changed my mind to public rule making.
But we have neither. Some unaccountable officials met in secret, decided they wanted to strip search and/or grope all passengers, made secret rules, and decreed "Let there be WBI!" And there was WBI, with no input whatsoever from anyone other than the the unaccountable officials. Which is The Way Things Ought To Be as far as the TSA is concerned.
And when people started to be concerned about radiation and privacy, the unaccountable officials met again in secret and directed the Propaganda Department to engage the enemy and neutralize the opposition. They renamed it "Advanced Imaging Technology" to conceal the fact that it's a strip search, put the obligatory signs where nobody can see them until their hands are already in the air, and otherwise spray the air with a smokescreen of denials, lies, and misdirection.
I'm sure you'll disagree, but to me this all looks more like the actions of a police state than a democracy. And just as in a police state, there's nothing we can do about it. If you want to fly today, you either step into the scanner or let Buster the TSO punish you with a friendly squeeze. And we're supposed to trust the TSA when they tell us it's necessary, it's not a strip search, it's not a sexual assault, and it makes us safer.
@ Blogger Bob
Typical government employee response.
“I looked into this and the sign is actually fixed to the machine, not on a stand like many others.”
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Zinnnngggggg… got you
Actually Bob 'got you' as he at least made an effort.
Care to answer the follow up questions?
Anonymous wrote:
"Tim, which of those posters said AIT equals a police state?
I can not find that assertion in their posts."
You are correct, Anonymous. The first person in this thread to use that phrase was good old "HappytoHelp" himself.
George used the phrase after HtH used it; I never did and neither did anyone else before HtH.
TSM West, my question did not ask which post spoke about a police state.
And I did not pose the question to you. (Yes. Yes. We know. You can respond to anything you like. If the platform does not eat your post. ,>) )
I asked Tim which of those people he was calling out said AIT equals a police state.
If you choose to believe that the anon you said "The road to a police state is paved with good intentions" meant AIT instead of believing that he was simply stating a general truth that is your choice. You cited reasons for this that fit your case.
You made that stretch and then selectively ignored the fact that I was also questioning Tim's assertions about statements from George and Sandra.
George has observed that the current intrusive scanning and searching is more like the characteristics of a police state. That observation seems accurate, at least based what I have learned about police states. I do not see where he says AIT equals a police state.
I can find nothing in either of Sandra's posts in this thread remotely supporting any claim that she equates AIT with police state.
Seems "the platform ate my post" earlier this week. Earlier this week I pointed out, in this thread, that Tim has been engaging in the Straw Man fallacy instead of speaking directly to issues raised in the posts. i.e. taking a person's actual position and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of their position.
tl;dr West has been using the Straw Man fallacy.
Tim said, "The sign is there, and is ready for public consumption. What more do you want? Blood?"
Not RB here.
No interest in blood, thanks for asking.
However your responses have really made me curious. Why would you make several responses and refuse to answer a simple question? Especially if you blog members have actually seen the sign. Why all the nonsense instead of answering a simple, relevant question?
Would you tell us please, just where exactly is that sign?
@ Sandra
Anonymous used police state in a blog comment higher up in the current blog list. If you can’t find it here in this blog comment section, then there is nothing I can do for you. I can’t make you fish through these comments.
However, my comment is a response to your OBL comment, as well as the others comments of similar nature. I know you have equated TSA screening with a line to a Nazi death camp. I have responded to your comment based on past experience with you. If your views are being missed construed by me, by all means correct me.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@ Anonymous September 23, 2010 5:15 PM
I called out all three. It is a response to their comments. I comment on people comments. That is what I do here. Sandra has stated in the past that screening is similar to a line to a Nazi death camp. George talks about this country becoming a police state all the time. If you post here enough, you will be finally equated with George’s viewpoints, which I do like by the way. He spends ample amounts of time responding to posts. We may only agree once in a blue moon, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a good back and forth. The anonymous post is self explanatory. TSM did a good job about explaining that whole mess of a comment.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
"The sign is there, and is ready for public consumption. What more do you want? Blood?"
A sign with an accurate image of what the strip-search operator sees, prominently placed, that specifically informs passengers that they can opt out of the strip search would be a start.
And the name and contact information of your supervisor, to report your unprofessional conduct on this blog.
OK, Tim. I've had enough of your lies, yes lies, about my statements! Please show me where I have referenced Naxi death camps? "Sandra has stated in the past that screening is similar to a line to a Nazi death camp."
I have NEVER made such a reference. I expect an apology.
Bob, I expect you to post this comment post haste.
@Anonymous, September 23, 2010 8:45 PM: A sign with an accurate image of what the strip-search operator sees, prominently placed, that specifically informs passengers that they can opt out of the strip search would be a start.
Plus an explicit description of the alternative "enhanced pat down" they'll receive if they do opt out of the strip search. That would at least give passengers the information they need to make an informed decision about whether they want to be irradiated or groped.
TSA management somehow believes security is enhanced by treating passengers like little children, carefully hiding or sugar-coating the truth. Which, by the way, is characteristic of a police state.
Perhaps they might improve their credibility problem by treating passengers like adults, telling the truth, and asking for cooperation. If a strip search or genital grope is indeed necessary to protect aviation, admit it openly rather than hiding it behind a fancy and meaningless name ("Advanced Imaging Technology"). The TSA might just get more respect and cooperation if you level with us instead of continually choking us with smoke and mirrors.
But of course, TSA management has no need to listen to me, or to any of us. They know best, and they're infallible.
@Tim: George talks about this country becoming a police state all the time.
Not quite. What I actually talk about all the time is that the TSA is a secretive, unaccountable bureaucracy that has exempted itself from the oversight and transparency measures required of other government agencies. That lack of transparency and accountability invites waste, abuse, and incompetence, some of which is clearly visible. I can't imagine that what is hidden behind the curtain of secrecy is any different from the buffoonery we can all see at checkpoints. And that's frightening.
The TSA is also increasingly taking on the characteristics of the Stasi, DINA, SAVAK, and similar repressive "security" agencies in police states, particularly in the secrecy of its procedures and the seemingly unlimited arbitrary authority of its officers. Fortunately, the TSA's jurisdiction is still too limited to actually turn the country into a police state. But the officials at Headquarters surely have dreams of expansion. And that's frightening.
If you post here enough, you will be finally equated with George’s viewpoints, which I do like by the way.
I don't know what that means. Do you perhaps agree that the TSA acts like a security agency in a police state?
We may only agree once in a blue moon, but it doesn't mean we can't have a good back and forth.
I don't see much back and forth. You may be happy to help, but you conveniently ignore important concerns, such as the risk the procedure for strip search scanning poses to passengers' valuables. It looks more like "engaging the enemy" so they'll be frustrated and waste their time.
Sandra,
I believe Tim is talking about the link you shared here: http://ow.ly/2Jqxq which leads to an article by Doug Herman comparing the behaviors of passengers in a TSA line to people in the nazi gas chamber lines. Article --> http://ow.ly/2Jr5U
You are correct that you never agreed with the article, and you never compared TSA lines to NAZI death camp lines.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Thank you, Bob
Sandra
P.S. I don't believe I ever said anything about a police state either - at least not in this thread.
You (and the other bloggers) obviously have the ability to search faster than we do - so if you can find where I said that, I would appreciate your showing me.
"[Sandra] You are correct..."
Bob, let me fix that for you.
Sandra, Tim was wrong.
There. Fixed.
@ George
I haven’t ignored anything. I don’t do the blog full time. I comment when I can. These days, I post by mobile phone. Which is why I started the “@”. It is like twittering. TSA recommends that you place your valuables in your baggage before entering an AIT machine. Since you will never do that, I am not sure what issues you are having with valuables. At SMF your bags go with you to the screening location (for secondary). Other airports do the same or they keep you in a line of sight. This information is even in the AIT video on our website, and the information can be found on traveler websites. You’re not being ignored George.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Tim,
No. It is safe enough, if the consideration is that there is no safer alternative. I read the links (that worked, which wasn't all of them) from when Bob actually condescended to discuss the safety issue, and the consensus was that it was relative safe. It's not absolutely safe. MMW is absolutely safe. BXR isn't.
Are you saying that the experts you are quoting for support are wrong? They said it's relatively safe. You say it's completely safe. Only MMW is safe.
Last time Bob posted about AIT (WBI) the other members of the team were just as curious as to why unsafe BXR is being purchased while safe MMW is available. I guess Bob took all of you aside to the woodshed and reminded you that in spite of the evidence it is completely safe.
In spite of the evidence.
DHS Privacy Office 2010 Annual Report
10
b. PIAs
The use of PIAs is required by the E-Government Act and may also be invoked in accordance with the Chief Privacy Officer’s statutory authority. PIAs have become an important tool for examining the privacy impact of IT systems, programs, technologies, or rule-makings. The PIA is based on the FIPPs framework and touches on general areas such as scope of information collected, use of information collected, information security, and information sharing. Each section of the PIA concludes with analysis designed to outline any potential privacy risks identified in the preceding section’s questions and to discuss any strategies or practices used to mitigate those risks. The analysis section reinforces critical thinking about ways to enhance the natural course of system development by including privacy in early stages.
The PIA is the method by which the Compliance Group reviews system management activities in key areas such as security and how information is collected, used, and shared. If a PIA is required, the program will draft the PIA for review by the component privacy officer or PPOC and component counsel. Part of the PIA analysis includes determining whether an existing SORN appropriately covers the activity or a new SORN is required. Once the PIA is approved at the component level, the component privacy officer or PPOC submits it to the Compliance Group for review and approval. The Chief Privacy Officer conducts a final review before signing. Once approved, the PIA is made publicly available on the DHS Privacy Office website with the exception of a small number of PIAs deemed classified for national security reasons. Part One, Section V.A.1 of this report discusses classified PIAs conducted during the reporting period.
..................
So just where is the PIA for WBI Strip Search Machines?
At MKE, early on friday morning (9/24/10), I was told to empty my pockets of "everything - even a single piece of paper".
As an experience traveler, I expressed surprise. The TSA person referred to new requirements of the "AIT machine". She then insisted that I surrender my wallet, belt, pocket handkerchief, and even a plastic pen. All of which I have routinely walked through the scanner with dozens of times. All of which went into the tray.
What gives?
@Anonymous, September 27, 2010 8:22 AM: As an experience traveler, I expressed surprise. The TSA person referred to new requirements of the "AIT machine". She then insisted that I surrender my wallet, belt, pocket handkerchief, and even a plastic pen. All of which I have routinely walked through the scanner with dozens of times. All of which went into the tray.
This is the most troubling aspect of the AIT "security enhancement." The TSA's need to make every part of a passenger's body as visible as possible to the screener in the remote hidey-hole means that valuables and identity documents become vulnerable to theft. If it's a wallet or passport that's stolen, there's the risk of identity theft as well. Concerns about privacy and radiation get all the attention, but this is a far more serious problem.
TSA procedure apparently makes no provision for ensuring that passengers can remain in view of their divested belongings during the screening. One of the blog staff suggested that if someone specifically requests it (and if they ask nicely enough, and if the checkpoint isn't too busy, and if the TSO feels like it) the TSO might help a passenger maintain visual contact with their belongings during the screening. But since TSOs aren't required to grant such requests, a passenger's ability to ensure the safety of their belongings is entirely at the TSO's whim. The TSO could just as easily respond by bellowing "DYWTFT," and would face no consequences for doing so.
So what is the TSA doing about this serious security risk to passengers created by their screening procedures? They're ignoring it.
And they still wonder why so many people hate the TSA.
RB said...
'So just where is the PIA for WBI strip search machines?'
The last PIA was published nearly 15 months ago. There is to be no more WBI PIA's because the TSA does not believe in privacy anymore, if it ever truly did. The TSA philosophy is simple: don't bother about privacy - don't bother with a PIA.
I think this technology is a very interesting prospect for our airports. You hear a lot about people complaining of the personal images that show up on the current scanners, and this would totally eliminate that entire concern.
The fact that costs can be saved is also a huge plus for any new initiative. Not having to staff an additional person at every gate throughout the entire country means there will be a lot of money saved by the TSA. I'm sure this factor alone has administrators excited.
It will be nice to know my privacy will no longer be played with when I travel by plane. Now only if I could get those random thorough searches to stop selecting me...
@Anonymous, September 28, 2010 5:32 PM: There is to be no more WBI PIA's because the TSA does not believe in privacy anymore, if it ever truly did. The TSA philosophy is simple: don't bother about privacy - don't bother with a PIA.
It's not a matter of philosophy. It's a matter of appropriate response to threat. They clearly regard privacy as a dangerous vulnerability that terrorists can easily exploit. By eliminating all privacy at checkpoints, they have removed a vulnerability and made aviation safe. Since there is no privacy, there's no need to waste our tax dollars on a useless report. So in addition to keeping us safe, they're saving us money.
Of course, TSA employees enjoy complete and inviolate privacy when they've been accused of stealing, bullying, or otherwise committing violations so egregious that they generate embarrassing publicity. That privacy is necessary to ensure that the entire TSA remains completely shielded from any liability or accountability when they cause harm. This immunity from liability or accountability is essential to the TSA's Mission and to National Security.
So when an "incident" is embarrassing enough to require the involvement of the Propaganda Department, they can satisfactorily address the concern by assuring us that "appropriate action is being taken." We can trust them fully on that, just as we can trust them on anything else that's behind their shroud of secrecy.
(And in case you've forgotten, the scanners are no longer called "WBI." They're called "AIT." Re-branding the scanners with a neutral but vaguely reassuring label eliminates much of the opposition to the machines. If passengers don't know that the scanners are an electronic strip search, they won't object to being scanned. If you're looking for an actual TSA philosophy, how about "Keeping the public ignorant and docile is the key to effective security.")
This new software still doesn't address the issue of potential radiation. I don't buy the argument WBIs are safe until I see the data in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and TSA or DHS clearly explains how the machines will be calibrated, how often the calibration will be checked, and how the machines will be QC'd. I'm guessing I will be waiting awhile.
Blake, TSA has stated that it will have to hire more people thanks to the Nude-O-Scopes. Not only is this an expensive waste, it's going to bloat a bloated agency even more thanks to more people working for it at higher cost.
TSA hasn't saved us any money yet. It's only ever increased its spending since the very beginning. What makes you think this is going to save money?
KF: This new software still doesn't address the issue of potential radiation.
Nor does it address the issue of passengers' belongings (including identity papers) at risk of theft during the screening process.
Question for Bob and company: How might I address that concern to the people at Headquarters? The "Talk to TSA" and "Got Feedback" tools appear to be meant for reporting specific incidents at specific airports. There doesn't seem to be any way to communicate more general concerns about TSA procedures, such as protecting valuables during screening. I this is a serious enough flaw that they can't just ignore it until something happens and they need to take defensive action.
It appears that the first large group of strip-search ogglers has been caught in Nigeria. I thought this was supposed to be impossible.
http://www.gadling.com/2010/09/28/body-scanners-used-as-porn-by-airport-security/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl13%7Csec4_lnk2%7C174092
Radiologists and radiologic biologists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); Columbia University; and now the Cleveland Clinic have all expressed significant concern over the safety of whole body imaging technology when applied to the millions of people comprising the traveling public. Assertions to the contrary, I worry that this will be the thalidomide debacle all over again. See materials at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-concerning-health-risks-of-full-body-scanner-TSA-screenings-4-6-2010
And didn't we "gift" that Nude-O-Scope to Nigeria?
Al
Radiologists and radiologic biologists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); Columbia University; and now the Cleveland Clinic have all expressed significant concern over the safety of whole body imaging technology when applied to the millions of people comprising the traveling public. Assertions to the contrary, I worry that this will be the thalidomide debacle all over again.
Interesting conundrum:
On one side there are biologists and physicians with solid credentials at reputable institutions have openly published the specific reasons for their concerns about radiation exposure from scanners.
On the other side is the TSA. They assure us that they have exhaustively tested the scanners and concluded that they're absolutely safe. But the test methodology, the credentials of the testers, the actual results, and all other details of that testing are classified for National Security reasons. So we can only accept the TSA's soothing assurances on blind faith and trust.
So the question is, which side is more convincing?
I honestly don't see how test results of radiation exposure from body scanners can be considered a national security issue?
can anyone from the TSA please explain.
The TSA don't want the public to find out just how dangerous these scanners REALLY are. The radiation test results are deliberately buried to hide this information from the public and from independent scientific scrutiny. If a few people get cancer, then the TSA lawyers will simply pay them off. Sound familiar? Tobacco companies and their refusal to publish their data, or accept independent research, on smoking and cancer. The tobacco companies knew that they could simply buy off the people who were dying from cancer. The TSA will do the same.
Anonymous, October 2, 2010 10:28 AM: If a few people get cancer, then the TSA lawyers will simply pay them off. Sound familiar? Tobacco companies and their refusal to publish their data, or accept independent research, on smoking and cancer. The tobacco companies knew that they could simply buy off the people who were dying from cancer. The TSA will do the same.
They probably won't even do that. Tobacco companies are at least held accountable by the court system for the harm they do. The TSA is accountable only to itself. If anyone somehow manages to show a link between strip search scanner radiation and injury, the TSA will have its Propaganda Department issue a statement denying any connection, insisting that the scanners are absolutely safe, and praising the effectiveness of the scanners in protecting aviation.
If a victim somehow manages to get to court, the TSA's lawyers will simply utter the magic words "state secrets" and the case will instantly disappear.
It's best to just ignore all the claims about AIT exposing passengers to radiation, invading privacy, and creating a risk of identity theft. The TSA says the scanners aren't a strip search. The TSA says they're absolutely safe. The TSA says the scanning procedure protects our privacy. And the TSA ignores the risk of identity theft.
The TSA says "trust us." So we should trust them, right?
I thought this was supposed to make things easier? I went to the black diamond lane, went through the AIT then got patted down as well as having my wallet searched. I refuse to put my wallet in a bin that has my ID and credit cards in it. Not because of the xray but because it can easily be stolen while I am being patted down or they search my wallet. If I can choose, I will go the metal detector now every time. this is useless technology or not being used appropriately. AS a frequent flyer (100K miles per year on different airlines) airport security is a joke anyway. I've watched people with 14inch knives allowed to go through once they gave up their knife but grandma gets practically strip searched. What kind of security is that? How about behavior profiling like the Israelis do? How about starting security at the door to the airport with this type of profiling? That what the rest of the world does.
The TSA spends so much time and energy pretending to achieve the goals of congressional mandate that it does not actually achieve them at all. In the last year I have flown out of 4 'terrorist hotbed' countries (UAE, Bahrain, Thailand, Singapore), all of which had functioning airport security services. It's amazing that a 'small' airports like Bangkok, Dubai, Bahrain and Singapore all seem to use the same systems. WTMD, Baggage X-ray, and eyes on the floor. Their TSO like-folks actually patrol the ticketing areas, wandering around, talking to people and generally being helpful while doing their job of looking for trouble. The only places I have ever heard anything similar to "DYWTFT" or "liquids Out" being shouted is in airports infected by the TSA. For the sake of those of us who actually want to see tourists come to the United States, the TSA needs to fix their problems before they manage to destroy an industry still reeling from pre-9/11 problems.
Passengers - we can absolutely win this one! Every single one of us needs to refuse the dangerous radiation and de-humanizing indignity of electronic strip searches. If every person refuses, the resulting slowdown at screening lines will force the TSA to back down. If you as a passenger submit to this voluntarily, I blame you for the jackboots that come next.
Strip-searching and irradiating innocent travelers is wrong. I do not become a suspect in a crime because I've bought an airplane ticket. Strip searches require extraordinary justification and I will be helping fund the legal battle against this un-American backscatter assault.
With all the money and resources to install these body scanners, why can't we keep our wardrobe on (i.e. belt, overcoat) and not remove our shoes. Why install these expensive machine with no improvement to the PAX experience?
Reply to TSRon:
Horrific? Yes. Between machines the UK won't allow individuals under 18 in because of the indecent pictures (they consider them pornographic, but I guess I'm just making that up as well) to the new crotch pat downs (see CNN news article today) - this whole system is out of control.
I want our airlines safe as much as the next person, but there is a sane limit and we crossed it a while back. When you bring frequent travelers to their knees then something is not right. I guess the bulk of the European Union is just whining about excess security as well.
Not intrusive? Just Whining? You must be a TSA agent or don't travel much. Hey - tell you what - If the images aren't that invasive, then why not have a TSA agent view them right there in front of you.
For those of you that haven't seen the actual images - ask for information on the machines the next time you go through security.
We are allowing the erosion of our rights.
Subjecting ourselves to more and more scrutiny by our government and law enforcement.
We have to get this mainstream in our politics.
Here is what happens if you refuse the scan:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Opt-Out-of-a-Body-Scan-Then-nytimes-3016411705.html?x=0
Bob, is TSA reconsidering ATR on its strip search machines yet?
Funny how it works in the EU but TSA can't make it work..
Kinda like how Puffers are used in many places but TSA was not competent to make them work.
Is it the equipment or TSA?
Please speed this research up, and in the meantime, walk back your "enhanced" pat downs. The procedures that the TSA has put in place over the last few weeks have left me so shaken, degraded, and demoralized that I cannot contemplate flying for any reason other than true emergencies.
I refuse to accept that my only choices are a government agent viewing me naked, or a government agent putting her hands in my pants before I can board an airplane. For what it's worth, I am frequent traveler (850,000 miles in the last seven years) who fully understands the risks of exploding underwear.
The reality is that the new software still doesn't eliminate the health risk of radiation from the device or hardware.
Monte said...
It appears that the first large group of strip-search ogglers has been caught in Nigeria. I thought this was supposed to be impossible.
Monte,TSA's Website acknowledges that straight from the manufacturer the machines have the abillity to save and store images however if you go to the AIT section of the TSA's website it clearly and explicitly states that the AIT units have the image saving capabillites removed so that none of the machines currently being used within U.S are able to store or print images. TSA can only speak for there own privacy standards and not for those of nigerian airports.
Really interesting blog and point of views. Thanks for this post. Great comments as well.
Post a Comment