The first 11 airports receiving advanced imaging technology (AIT) units are gearing up for their arrival.Advanced imaging technology safely screens passengers for metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons, explosives and other objects concealed under clothing that might normally go undetected.
AIT units are currently being set up at Boston Logan International airport, and within a week they’ll be at Chicago O’Hare International airport. You should see the rest of the airports on this list in action by this summer:
· Boston Logan International (BOS)
· Charlotte Douglas International (CLT)
· Chicago O’Hare International (ORD)
· Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International (CVG)
· Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FFL)
· Kansas City International (MCI)
· Los Angeles International (LAX)
· Mineta San José International (SJC)
· Oakland International (OAK)
· Port Columbus International (CMH)
· San Diego International (SAN)
A total of 450 AIT units will be deployed by the end of 2010 and the additional airports will be announced in the near future.
You might be wondering why it takes so long to deploy these machines. Well, it’s not as if you can pop these out of the box and plug them in. Many factors are taken into consideration before AIT units are deployed, including the airports' infrastructure. These machines are big, and don’t forget about the remote viewing location that goes along with the machines. So as you can imagine, there is much planning going on behind the scenes before these machines actually arrive at their airports and are ready to screen.We’ve posted here on the blog about AIT many times in the past, and here are some links to previous blog posts to help answer some of the questions you might have:
Can your image be saved or printed? No.
What will my image look like? What will TSA officers see? Take a look…
Will children be screened with this new technology? Yes and no.
What’s the difference between millimeter wave and backscatter? Read here...
Has my privacy been taken into consideration? Are these machines safe? Yes.
Currently, 40 AIT units purchased previously are deployed at 19 airports nationwide.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
169 comments:
How convienent that TSA has renamed "WBI Child Porn Viewers" to AIT.
Bob, why do you keep lying about these machines? You have NOT shown us the image the operators of these virtual strip-searches will see; in fact, after almost a YEAR of ignoring direct questions about it, you admitted you CANNOT show these images.
What steps are you taking to ensure that the operators of these machines are not taking pictures of the naked images of passengers and their children that will be generated?
What steps are you taking to ensure that the operators of these machines that generate naked images of children are not pedophiles and/or child molesters?
Has TSA granted security clearances to felons other than the one in Richmond? Will felons with TSA clearances be operating these machines?
Why has TSA refused to take any steps at all to secure the belongings of passengers forced into these strip search machines?
What steps has TSA taken to ensure that every passenger directed to a virtual strip search machine knows he or she can decline the strip search?
What is TSA doing to collect data on the number of alarms that result from harmless, legal, private medical implants, devices, and garments?
Its already been in the news that the Europeans have required the "ATI" manufacturers to alter the displays to a "gumbie" figure with a areas to inspect highlighted.
Why not wait for these upgraded machines where you can avoid having the display off in a separate room ?
RB --- The name changed a long time ago. Get with it.
Anonymous --- Open your eyes and look at the image posted with this blog. See the operator staring at the screen? That looks to me like it is the image the operator sees. You think?????
Will these machines make air travel safer? No.
Can the use of these machines detect tampons?
If they do, they are invasive of our privacy and shouldn´t be used.
If they don´t, they are useless in terms of security.
Stop trying to technology that detects images instead of technology that detects chemical traces of explosives (non-invasive AND effective).
Anonymous said...
RB --- The name changed a long time ago. Get with it.
...........................
Perhaps, but does not change the fact that these devices create images that would be illegal in any other situation.
Call them what the are:
"TSA WBI Child Porn Viewers"
Can you please provide the cost benefit analysis that was done on this technology.
Also can you answer definitively weather this or the millimeter wave imaging would have in fact caught the underpants bomber?
If anyone believes that the images cannot be stored, or these machines do anything besides waste money, and add to the SECURITY THEATER, then I have a beautiful ocean-front property to sell you in Montana!!!!!
How in the world will one of these money wasters fit in MCI? The space is already so limited!!
These machines are very safe. The amount of radiation backscatter emits is about 200 times less you naturally experience during the day (form cosmic and ground radiation). If you want to see what the images will look like, look at the manufacturer's websites (Rapiscan and L-3). The machines will not be able to detect everything, but no technology is able to do that. Puffers are good in theory, but they failed miserably in TSA's operational tests (too many false alarms and dust clogged them easily).
I don't want the government agent in the first picture looking at my penis and I don't want the government agent in the second picture cheerfully instructing me to raise my hands as if I'm about to be rounded up by the Waffen SS. The certainty that both these things will happen is far, far more disturbing than the infinitely small risk of death in a terrorist attack on my airplane.
This from the report on WCBS News last night, 3/4/10:
"....There are 40 body scanners that use a different technology already in place, like at Miami International Airport. This new wave of 450 will bring the total to 490 full-body scanners, not enough for the roughly 2,100 airport security lanes in the United States....
This is kind of security theater," said Christopher Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I mean, terrorists are going to be able to find places where these are not in place. You're not going to be able to get them everywhere."
He's right....
There are also questions about effectiveness. The Government Accountability Office recently concluded it was "unclear" if the scanners would have detected the underwear bomb Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab smuggled aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day.
Technology rushed to the security front has not always worked either."
This was a great report because for the first time ever there were no sheeple aired mewing "anything for security."
When is TSA going to institute psychological testing of potential new employees to rule out pedophiles, voyeurs, and others who can be termed paraphilias?
You do know that these types of people will now gravitate to the TSA for employment so that they can practice their particular forms of perversion "legitimately."
Hey, Bob, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is going to look into complaints about mistreatment of passengers of the TSA.
Why have you not started a thread about that subject.
I urge any and all readers of this "blog" who have been victims of TSA abuse, mistreatment and humiliation to contact the committee:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5051
RB said...
Anonymous said...
RB --- The name changed a long time ago. Get with it.
...........................
Perhaps, but does not change the fact that these devices create images that would be illegal in any other situation.
Call them what the are:
"TSA WBI Child Porn Viewers"
March 5, 2010 11:38 AM
------------------
The images these machines create are not illegal. If they were websites would be required to have age checks and warnings before the images would be allowed to be posted. Congress would also have deemed them illegal along with many other countries out there. The images are about as graphic as a barbie doll. I don't want to see children going through the machine or recieve pat downs because I believe its just wrong. But it is not pornographic in any way, its just disturbing to think of children as possible bad guys. And yes terrorists do strap explosives to their children, don't try and kid yourself that they don't.
Sandra said...
When is TSA going to institute psychological testing of potential new employees to rule out pedophiles, voyeurs, and others who can be termed paraphilias?
----------------
Sandi, would you kindly design this type of testing that guarantee’s a 100% detection rate? Please? That way when you find that it cant be done you will have no room to complain about a testing system that is not 100% percent perfect. And while you are at it please rewrite the Constitution to, remove the privacy rights of anyone who applies for government employment at any level, to compel anyone who applies for government employment to incriminate themselves during a job interview, to allow for “unreasonable search and seizure” of anyone who applies for a government job, and to compel a certain percentage of the citizens to seek such employment regardless of their wishes.
After all, these are all the things you are asking the TSA to do to its employee’s, or would force the TSA to do to hire employee’s because of the things you demand.
It must be especially difficult to install these machines and "remote viewing areas" without networking these two locations together in any way. Please, I'd really like to know how you do that... is it just a really long cord? Or perhaps TSA defines "network" differently than everyone else...
"The images are about as graphic as a barbie doll."
--------------------------------------
No, the images clearly show the outlines of the subject's genitals and buttocks. If I walked down the street exposing the areas that are displayed by your scan, I would be arrested for indecent exposure.
"And yes terrorists do strap explosives to their children, don't try and kid yourself that they don't."
-----------------------------------
I'm sorry, I must have missed the incident in which a child was wired with explosives as part of a terrorist attack on a domestic target, let alone an incident in which a child was used to bring down an airplane. There is a big difference between "It could happen" and "It is a real threat that justifies our demand to see your penis."
Sandi, would you kindly design this type of testing that guarantee’s a 100% detection rate? Please? That way when you find that it cant be done you will have no room to complain about a testing system that is not 100% percent perfect. And while you are at it please rewrite the Constitution to, remove the privacy rights of anyone who applies for government employment at any level, to compel anyone who applies for government employment to incriminate themselves during a job interview, to allow for “unreasonable search and seizure” of anyone who applies for a government job, and to compel a certain percentage of the citizens to seek such employment regardless of their wishes.
After all, these are all the things you are asking the TSA to do to its employee’s, or would force the TSA to do to hire employee’s because of the things you demand.
------------------------------------
Don't you love it when TSORon suddenly discovers "rights?"
Bob,
PAY ATTENTION!!!!!
I told you point blank, many months ago, when I gave you permission to use what I wrote about how safe mmw was, that the safety of mmw DOES NOT APPLY TO BACKSCATTER X-RAY!!!!!
You know me as a pretty harsh critic of the TSA, and I actually wrote something to help the TSA when you were discussing mmw. I oppose mmw and yet I helped you. I did so in the interest of scientific accuracy. Even though I oppose everything about the electronic strip searches, I helped you allay concerns people had about the health effects.
And I told you that mmw, UNLIKE BACKSCATTER X-RAY, is safe.
So why are you going ahead with these backscatter machines?
With both you have constitutional issues which the TSA has demonstrated absolutely no concern over - after all, we're all criminals in your eyes, criminals who have not been caught yet.
But are you at all concerned with the basic health and safety issues?
Or is this another "throw away the feeding tube"?
When will these new machines be used? Are they used only when secondary screening is indicated? Or will passengers who otherwise present no reason for additional scrutiny be selected for AIT screening?
In short ... are we moving towards mandatory screening using this technology for all passengers?
TSORon said..".And while you are at it please rewrite the Constitution to, remove the privacy rights of anyone who applies for government employment at any level, to compel anyone who applies for government employment to incriminate themselves during a job interview, to allow for “unreasonable search and seizure” of anyone who applies for a government job, and to compel a certain percentage of the citizens to seek such employment regardless of their wishes."
OK, so basically you're saying that while we have to protect the "rights" of TSA employees and potential employees, but to hell with passenger rights?
You are fine with intruding on the privacy, rights and dignity of every single passenger so that you just might catch someone under the guise of protecting passengers, but when it comes to taking similar measures on TSA people to also protect passengers,this is unconstitutional and running over the rights of TSA employees and potential employees?
So, TSA employees have all the rights and protection of the constitution, but not passengers?
Really?
The TSA has more than once shown a basic disregard for the health of passengers. I'm not referring to making us walk along in socks on a dirty floor, or failing to change gloves. Medical sterile equipment has been exposed by TSOs in their quest to find terrorists. This has happened more than once. Some of the incidents are mentioned here in this blog.
The use of Backscatter X-Ray is in the exact same category. The TSA is irradiating people with carcinogenic rays. They can try to claim that the dose is so low ... except that ionizing radiation is cumulative. Each exposure adds to the previous one.
This machine isn't just a porn machine, it's a skin cancer machine.
Bob, you're really going to have to post here in the comments and answer this one. The whole issue of WBI angers me as a libertarian, but the fact that you are advancing in using backscatter instead of mmw angers me as a scientist as well. I am downright furious at you for this one.
You recieve the same level and type of radiation from a backskatter scan that you would recieve from 2min of flying on an airplane at high altitude.
Not a health concern.
Hey Ronnie,
If you go for a highly cleared job, you already get a psych profile done with a psych battery and a talk with a shrink. That's nothing knew.
In cases where real security is needed, these are there to help pick out the nuts who may sell secrets to the enemy and damage national security.
If TSA is as important as it thinks it is to national security, then its employees should have them done too. That is, unless TSA thinks many of its screeners won't pass.
After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?
Earl
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Anonymous said...
RB --- The name changed a long time ago. Get with it.
...........................
Perhaps, but does not change the fact that these devices create images that would be illegal in any other situation.
Call them what the are:
"TSA WBI Child Porn Viewers"
March 5, 2010 11:38 AM
------------------
The images these machines create are not illegal. If they were websites would be required to have age checks and warnings before the images would be allowed to be posted.............
....................
William, TSA has had ample opportunity to disprove my claim. To date TSA has chosen to not make WBI images available to the public in the same size and resolution as seen by the WBI machine operators.
Until TSA does I will maintain the images are pornographic and will support any legal action to hold TSA employees accoutable for creating Child Porn.
"I don't want the government agent in the first picture looking at my..."
Too bad. You're a subject of the United States Government. It is deemed necessary to view you to protect you and millions of other subjects.
Don't like it? Go to Russia.
Bob, this blog entry really angers me. The whole WBI/AIT issue angers me as a libertarian, of course, but the fact that you are going ahead with backscatter angers me as a scientist.
Seriously, Bob, the best thing you can do right now is say "Look, I was ordered to post this. I told my boss that this is unsafe, and he doesn't care."
Bob, show us that you actually have some basic integrity, some basic human decency, and post something along those lines. Otherwise I will be forced to assume that you approve not only of violating the 4th and 5th amendment, but that you approve of giving people cancer in the process.
It is sad that the best you can do at this point is the Nuremberg defense, but it is far better than the alternative.
When the backscatter x-ray can machine can produce images like those of Susan Hallowell, Director of TSA's research lab, these used in the UK, RapiScan1000 demo pic and these, I won't be stepping anywhere near these machines, regardless of what privacy filters TSA claims is in place.
Why is that? We can't trust you. And it's not worth it for only a 60% detection rate.
I'll give Hallowell credit - at least she had the guts to get in the scanner herself and show her image - something no one else at TSA has been willing to do (and yes, I'm looking at you, Nico). That said, if the tech was that good as early as 2003, heaven only knows how better it is now.
How about some honesty, TSA?
Al
Let's see if the AIT machine can see tattoos.
If AIT can see any tattoo, it can see my large tattoos. I volunteer to be the test subject at SJC, SFO or OAK.
TSA Bloggers, I sent you an email. Get back to me, and let's have some fun and show 'em how edgy TSA can be.
Want to talk about Alex Shehab, the 12 year old apparently on a No Fly list? Even has a redress number but more than 60 days goes by and TSA can't clear this kid.
Thought you TSA types said there are no kids on the NFL.
Soup Sandwich comes to mind.
Bob, I had to call you out this time.
It's probably a good idea to answer a few questions for once.
hey Bob
care to explain this situation, yet again?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4074096/preteen-on-no-fly-list?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.028284:b31575804:z6
looks like the redress doesn't work at all.
good job TSA for making a kids life even harder then it already is.
#TSAFail
I don't think it is safe if I have take my wad of cash out of my pocket and trust it to TSA while using the genital imagers.
No.
Let me see if I understand this. The TSA is going to spend MILLIONS (if not BILLIONS) of dollars foribly implementing a security screening protocol on passengers with the following characteristics:
- Not usable for collection of court submitable evidence because there is no way to collect it.
- Usable to screen only for body carried weapons. Fails the tampon test.
- Generates ionzing radiation. Possibly contributes to cancer.
- Slows down the screening process.
- 4th Ammendment issues as well.
Well, this is a nice surprise. Lets put a radiation source in the middle of the checkpoint, and expose every person in line to repetitive dosages while they wait, shall we? I really want to recieve the equivelant to a chest x-ray or two every time I wait in line for an hour. How much extra radiation will the poor TSO get a day with these machines in operation? Will we start seeing TSO's exhibiting the symptoms of radiation sickness anytime soon? Just another poorly thought out, knee-jerk waste of money by an organization who can't understand why they have a lower approval than the IRS.
Peter W. Singer of the 21st Defense Initiative stated,
“Despite global consensus against sending children into battle, there are 300,000 children under 18 (boys and girls) serving as combatants in almost 75 per cent of the world's conflicts; in 80 per cent of these, there are child fighters under 15, and in 18 per cent, fighters of less than 12 years old. It is no surprise therefore that, as on the world's battlefields, children are increasingly present in terrorist groups. Children offer terrorist group leaders cheap and easy recruits who provide new options to strike at their foes.
The fact that one of the first US servicemen to die in Afghanistan was shot by a 14-year-old sniper was little discussed in the media. US troops continue to face child soldiers in Afghanistan, the youngest on record being a 12-year-old boy captured in 2004 after a Taliban ambush. Equally, in Iraq, coalition forces are contending with the involvement of children in conflict. During the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, American troops engaged Iraqi child fighters in at least three cities. The trend has grown during the insurgency with children serving as everything from snipers to front-line fighters in the fighting in Falluja.”
http://www.brookings.edu/ opinions/2005/0120 humanrights_singer.aspx
But not to worry, I am sure that Al-Qaeda would never consider using children for their attacks against American domestic targets.
So, TSA employees have all the rights and protection of the constitution, but not passengers?
Did you know that flying is NOT a right it is a priveledge..just like driving, If you want to drive you must learn the rules and obey them to get from point A to point B safely. The same applies to flying..I keep reading how peoples "rights" are being thrown away with no thought..well guess what? You do NOT have to submit to screening if you do not wish to. Just make other arrangements to get where you are going or just stop complaining,..there really is nothing worse than a whiner. And I keep reading how this machine is a TSA Child Porn Machine which seems to me to be VERY insulting,just because you personally do not understand why some people are called to help their country in any way they can (TSA) does not mean someone has the "right" to accuse someone of pedophilia...it disgusts me that someone on this blog would use that term so cavalierly.
Stop invading my privacy in the name of security theater. Whole body imaging does not detect explosives, but can uncover a number of things that are personal and should remain so.
Ayn R. Key said...
The TSA has more than once shown a basic disregard for the health of passengers. I'm not referring to making us walk along in socks on a dirty floor, or failing to change gloves. Medical sterile equipment has been exposed by TSOs in their quest to find terrorists. This has happened more than once. Some of the incidents are mentioned here in this blog.
The use of Backscatter X-Ray is in the exact same category. The TSA is irradiating people with carcinogenic rays. They can try to claim that the dose is so low ... except that ionizing radiation is cumulative. Each exposure adds to the previous one.
This machine isn't just a porn machine, it's a skin cancer machine.
March 5, 2010 3:54 PM
---------------
If you went through this machine you would recieve a dose equivalant to 2 min at high altitude on an airplane. Since you are going to be on an airplane for say 2 hours lets do some math. If you fly on said plane 50 times that would make 100 hours worth of exposure from simply flying on the plane. If you went through a back skatter machine every time it would add on 1 hour and 40 min of extra air time. Really not that accumalative.
Excellent post. What happened to the mind reading machine?
With the electronic strip search, the explosives detection gear and the electronic mind reader you should be able to stop any terrorist cold.
Will the TSA allow me to view my own image created by one of WBI machines? If not why?
Are there Federal Laws in place that regulate how the TSA has to treat these images? Or are we just supposed to take the TSA's word for it when they say the images are deleted immediately after viewing? Also the machines supposedly can't save images in airport mode but agents can save the images to external storage such as a USB flash drive. Are the USB ports disabled in airport mode as well?
In a previous post, I was told by TSORon and West that passenger hands will not be touched by the screeners doing the hand swabbing.
It is being reported on FT that they do hold the back of the passenger palms while they do the swabbing.
Why was I lied to by TSA personnel? Or why has TSA personnel not been properly trained?
Is a new swab used for each passenger or are you spreading germs?
And to stay on topic, will passengers have to step on the footprint markings in these machines with their shoes off? It's the exact same spot where hundreds of passengers will be asked to place their bare feet.
What are you doing so that things like ring worms and who knows what else are not transmitted?
Not everyone wears socks, specially in warm weather locations such as where I live.
I would also like to know if the TSO going into the observation room will have to go through these machines in order to make sure that they are not bringing in a camera or a cell phone with a camera on it.
How are these machines connected to the computer in the viewing booth? One long cable or are they networked?
How do these computers keep track of each user's credentials? Are they exclusively tracked and managed at that one machine, or are they authenticated via an authentication server? Wouldn't they be networked in order to use a central credential tracking server?
Just want to point out Ft Lauderdale/Hollywood airport is FLL not FFL. Now I understand why TSA thinks these machines are appropriate. They're blind to the details. (har har).
"I'm sorry, I must have missed the incident in which a child was wired with explosives as part of a terrorist attack on a domestic target"
Clever use of "domestic target", cause you know that kids have been used against other targets:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/3/14-year-old%20suicide%20bomber%20intercepted%2024-Mar-2004
Bob, another question:
Has WBI been renamed Advanced Imaging Technology in order to try to hide the fact that it is a virtual strip search?
Sounds to me like TSA has received plenty of complaints about WBI and so they have decided to rename the technology in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
Dear William -- Here you go again:
"If you went through this machine you would recieve a dose equivalant to 2 min at high altitude on an airplane. Since you are going to be on an airplane for say 2 hours lets do some math. If you fly on said plane 50 times that would make 100 hours worth of exposure from simply flying on the plane. If you went through a back skatter machine every time it would add on 1 hour and 40 min of extra air time. Really not that accumalative.
March 6, 2010 10:51 AM"
You analysis and resulting medical opinion (where exactly did you study nuclear medicine?) needs to go beyond junior high arithmetic and into the realm of college physics. let me try to pique your interest in the hope that you will do your own research and perhaps come to an opinion independent of the TSA Party Line.
You're simplistically comparing only the length of exposure to radiation. That is fundamentally incorrect and making such a claim in high school science on a test or in a paper wouldn't even get you a passing grade. Here's why:
Naturally-occuring radioisotope radiation, including solar radiation one experiences while flying above the troposhpere, is completely random and disorganized. There are numerous frequencies (i.e.: x-rays, gamma rays, alpha rays, free ions, etc) of varying intensities. All of this radiation is completely out of phase (think of the sine wave generated when you pluck a guitar string). Much of this radiation is attenuated by the atmosphere and some of it doesn't penetrate clothing, let alone the fuselage of an airplane. Also included in this discussion is non-radioactive radiation such as infrared and ultraviolet solar radiation.
"Manufactured" radiation is completely different. I'm referring to a dentist's x-ray machine, a tanning bed, isotopes used for radiation therapy, and, your "back skatter" strip search machine. Radiation generated by these machines is highly focused to target frequencies, is in phase, and has little or no atmosphere to attenuate it.
A two-minute dose of focused, in-phase radiation from one of these machines is infinitely more dangerous than a two-minute exposure to random, naturally-occuring radiation in the stratosphere which may happen to penetrate a fuselage.
Let me try an example of which you may be familiar: 15 minutes in a tanning bed being exposed to manufactured infrared radiation is infinitely more dangerous than 15 minutes of exposure to the sun outside at a beach, even at the Equator.
Being a screener, I can fully understand why you would buy into the Party Line and preach it to whoever will listen.
Sorry -- the pary line is just plain wrong and unethically deceptive to the American People.
Heathrow uses the Rapiscan Secure 1000 which is the same model being deployed in the US.
Why are the Backscatter sample images provided by the TSA so different than the ones from Heathrow Airport?
Also I still have not gotten an answer as to whether or not the agent viewing a MMW or Backscatter images can unblur the face or disable any privacy filters. The PIA does not state if any privacy filters can be disabled by the viewer or not.
If answering the question is SSI can you at least respond and say so?
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Anonymous said...
RB --- The name changed a long time ago. Get with it.
...........................
Perhaps, but does not change the fact that these devices create images that would be illegal in any other situation.
Call them what the are:
"TSA WBI Child Porn Viewers"
March 5, 2010 11:38 AM
------------------
The images these machines create are not illegal. If they were websites would be required to have age checks and warnings before the images would be allowed to be posted. Congress would also have deemed them illegal along with many other countries out there. The images are about as graphic as a barbie doll. I don't want to see children going through the machine or recieve pat downs because I believe its just wrong. But it is not pornographic in any way, its just disturbing to think of children as possible bad guys. And yes terrorists do strap explosives to their children, don't try and kid yourself that they don't.
March 5, 2010 1:46 PM
..............
Reed, I disagree with you about the images these machines create. In the case of children I think they are equal to child porn.
Now if you are satisfied scanning children with one of these devices then be prepared for the consequences when they come.
TSOWilliamReed said...
You recieve the same level and type of radiation from a backskatter scan that you would recieve from 2min of flying on an airplane at high altitude.
Not a health concern.
March 5, 2010 4:08 PM
...............
Any additional exposure to any source of radiation is a concern.
As Blogger Bob eluded to in an earlier post:
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
So when is the TSA going to release unaltered full resolution AIT sample images? The ones provided on the website are like 10 or more years old!!!
Concerned said...
So, TSA employees have all the rights and protection of the constitution, but not passengers?
Did you know that flying is NOT a right it is a priveledge..just like driving.
Can you show me where flying is a privilege? It is a contract between me and the airlines to transport me from one place to another.
If we are to take that stance, then almost anything we do is a privilege. Shopping, taking a taxi, even going to the hospital can be considered a privilege.
Please provide some documentation that clearly states that flying is considered a privilege in the USA, as freedom to travel is an inherent right in the USA.
Also, if it is a privilege, then it can be revoked. By who and how can it be revoked? What due process is involved if TSA does not allow me to fly? This is still the USA, and we are a nation of laws and where one must have a trial before being found guilty and punishment administered.
Flying is a right!
RB said... "Until TSA does I will maintain the images are pornographic and will support any legal action to hold TSA employees accoutable for creating Child Porn."
and I maintain that the images show the aura of a person's soul and TSA is using that to locate the aliens who have invaded our planet! I wonder who is right.
Al, you pictures are interesting and do not look much more graphic then a Barbie doll. I think they would be great for RB to look at since he is always whining about not getting to see the pictures for himself.
Word is spreading fast.
The TSA wants you dead at Rational Review
Concerned TSO wrote:
Did you know that flying is NOT a right it is a priveledge..just like driving, If you want to drive you must learn the rules and obey them to get from point A to point B safely.
How can such a brilliant constitutional scholar like yourself make such a basic error?
First of all, you can drive as much as you want on your own property, without insurance, without license, without wearing a seatbelt. The reason you need a license, insurance, and seatbelt on government roads is a simple property rights issue - the owner of the roads makes the rules for the roads. If I had a private road it would certainly be within my rights to set the speed limit at 200 and forbid any police vehicles from entering my private road - after all, it would be mine.
We do have a right to travel, however. It was listed in the Articles of Confederation but was considered too basic to include in the Bill of Rights and was instead subsumed into the 9th and 10th. We also have a right to enter into contract.
An airline ticked it a private contract between a passenger and an airline. In a free society any third party interference with a contract is strictly forbidden. Party A and party B contract and nobody can say otherwise. In our society the TSA can say otherwise.
Since the TSA has inserted itself into the private contract, without a constitutional basis to do so, then actions such as violating our fourth and fifth amendment rights become very important. And the fact that these machines ARE child porn machines becomes very important as well. I really don't care if semi-literates think that since they have a uniform and a badge they can do whatever they want - they have de facto power to abuse passengers, but constitutionally they do not. Now if only the government paid attention to the constitution.
So go ahead and be disgusted that some of us are still patriotic enough to oppose the fascist institution of the TSA
That statement is just so wonderfully wrong I won't even address its failings.
All of this chatter is worthless if you ask me. It is an invasion of privacy, it's not an invasion. It is safe, it's not safe. Psychological testing. Silly.
The point is very simple. They don't have them in all airports. All that does is keep the terrorists from going to those airports. Do they want to keep everyone safe or only the people in the airports with the device? Do they have plans to put them everywhere within the next year. No. Is the detection rate 100% or even 90%? No.
Go back to the drawing board. It is a total waste of money. It doesn't help anyone. Next!
The most recent breach of security in AMS shows that the nude scanners don't help at all. (The fake explosives where smuggeled in the carry-on).
Why do you waste our time and money for an ineffective technology? Why does the TSA proceed with a technology that has been forbidden in other western countries due to the fact that it is ineffective in detecting WEI?
Anonymous said...
"I'm sorry, I must have missed the incident in which a child was wired with explosives as part of a terrorist attack on a domestic target"
Clever use of "domestic target", cause you know that kids have been used against other targets:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/3/14-year-old%20suicide%20bomber%20intercepted%2024-Mar-2004
-----------------------------------
I prefer "accurate" over "clever." One of the most foolish aspects of our discussions of terrorism relates to the conflation of regionalized insurgencies and international terrorist networks. If we were to design domestic security to prevent the kind of attacks we see in Iraq or Afghanistan, then we should have IED-sweeping vehicles. We should also be highly concerned about potential sniper fire as we are walking down the road. And we should be very worried about the possibility that a child is wired with explosives. Fortunately, these are problems that (as yet) are associated with the insurgencies that we have wrongly conflated with the sort of terrorists who would attack domestic targets. As such, they provide little justification for the use of virtual strip-search technology on children in US airports.
Anonymous said...
RB said... "Until TSA does I will maintain the images are pornographic and will support any legal action to hold TSA employees accoutable for creating Child Porn."
and I maintain that the images show the aura of a person's soul and TSA is using that to locate the aliens who have invaded our planet! I wonder who is right.
March 8, 2010 10:40 AM
Well if TSA is as good at finding aliens as they are terrorist then I don't think the aliens have much to worry about.
Stop inventing excuses and fancy technological names to see me naked.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, we want to see you naked because we can, yadda, yadda, yadda.
These scanners maybe "within healthy" limits and you are able to "opt" out of using them. However, the list of people who are able to are slim from what I am reading via this blog.
What if a woman is pregnant? Is she going to be forced to either go through the "additional screening" or the type that is in use now (old fashioned metal detectors)?
As for the pre-teen on the No-Fly List... There have been and is younger: One Yr. Old Baby & a Five Yr. Old.
Anonymous said: I don't think it is safe if I have take my wad of cash out of my pocket and trust it to TSA while using the genital imagers.
No
-----------
You people just love coming up with the most stupid crap to make TSA look bad instead of using your head..think about it. How about we put our cash somewhere hidden in our bags perhaps and not in your pocket, knowing you'll have to take it out to go thru the machine. Ever think about using your head like that? Hmmmmmmmm.....
RB sez - "How convienent that TSA has renamed "WBI Child Porn Viewers" to AIT."
It hs never been child porn viewers, it has always been WBI, backscatter or the new term encompassing them all AIT.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "Will these machines make air travel safer? No."
Yes it will, it allows the agency to see dangerous items hidden under the clothing. It gives the ability to see metallic and non-metallic items, which is a shortcoming of the WTMD, it only detects metallic items.
West
TSA Blog Team
RB sez - "Perhaps, but does not change the fact that these devices create images that would be illegal in any other situation.
Call them what the are:
"TSA WBI Child Porn Viewers"
I will call them what they are - AIT. That is the name the agency uses, it is much less sensationalistic and misleading than the names you have been using. It is also more honest.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "Can the use of these machines detect tampons?"
Not that I know of, it also can't detect things inserted in the rectal cavity. However, it can detect metallic and non-metallic items concealed under the clothing.
West
TSA Blog Team
FriendlySkies sez - "If anyone believes that the images cannot be stored, or these machines do anything besides waste money, and add to the SECURITY THEATER, then I have a beautiful ocean-front property to sell you in Montana!!!!!
How in the world will one of these money wasters fit in MCI? The space is already so limited!!"
SWEET!! I want 4 acres of waterfront, with a bohio and a volleyball net and a place to store my boogie boards! Are they cheap too? Oh yeah, is the security theatre on 3rd or 4th street?
Oh waitaminit....hmmmmmm I think I may have been had here.... So anyway, back to the previous statement after my hopes were raised and dashed so cruelly...
These machines allow us to see metallic and non-metallic items concealed under the clothes. The non metallic items that are dangerous were not detected by the WTMD so this gives us a better cahnce of preventing thing like that from getting onto planes.
Mumble...want ocean front property dadgummit.
West
TSA Blog Team
Sandra sez - "When is TSA going to institute psychological testing of potential new employees to rule out pedophiles, voyeurs, and others who can be termed paraphilias?
You do know that these types of people will now gravitate to the TSA for employment so that they can practice their particular forms of perversion "legitimately."
Can you recommend a process that is efficient, immediate, and easy to implement for the agency? I am interested in hearing some ideas on ways to weed out paraphilias.
Is there a standardized process of evaluation that can be streamlined into the hiring practices of the agency on a nationwide basis in the short term?
Could you include some links to the proper testing protocols and best practices so I can look them over?
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "I'm sorry, I must have missed the incident in which a child was wired with explosives as part of a terrorist attack on a domestic target, let alone an incident in which a child was used to bring down an airplane. There is a big difference between "It could happen" and "It is a real threat that justifies our demand to see your penis."
Why would a type of threat have to have occurred on a domestic target to be considered a viable threat? That is a fairly narrow range of thought and can be fatal to many people if you only take into account what happens domestically. If you would like I can farm up a bunch of links where children were used for attacks on targets.
This is a link to Wiki, but most of the info in the entry is sound and well documented - it details the use of children in military capacities throughout history :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
The most telling time frames for me were during the Vietnam War, and most currently in the Middle East. There were at least 9 reported accounts of children being used by Palestinian groups in 2000-2004. There are others out there, bu this link gives you plenty of reason to screen children prior to letting them get on planes.
At this time, I can find no entries that indicate a child was used to blow up a plane.
As always, TSA does not use the machines to see specific parts of your anatomy, it uses the AIT to look for dangerous metallic and non-metallic items concealed under the clothing.
West
TSA Blog Team
Ayn sez - "Bob, you're really going to have to post here in the comments and answer this one. The whole issue of WBI angers me as a libertarian, but the fact that you are advancing in using backscatter instead of mmw angers me as a scientist as well. I am downright furious at you for this one."
Based on the manufacturers site, a person has to be scanned 1000 times to recieve the equivalent of a chest xray.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/rapiscan-secure-1000-single-pose-health.html
The indicated amount of exposure for a scan by the machine is listed at .05 microsieverts. I will not even try to say I understand all of the terminology included in some of the tech stuff you are probably much more comfortable with than I am, but based on the numbers, that is about 1/5th of the limit based on ANSI standards. You are exposed to more radiation in 2 minutes of commercial aviation flights and you are exposed to 60 times more radiation just being on Earth for a day. Honestly, it sounds like it is safer to be screened by this machine, than it is to fly to your destination.
West
TSA Blog Team
Ayn said… “So go ahead and be disgusted that some of us are still patriotic enough to oppose the fascist institution of the TSA”
Actually you are simply opposing the fact that TSA was demanded by the American people to protect the American people. The outcry of the American people after 9-11 was enormous and the American people said that they wanted to have their government protect them. You do not like the fact that the American people wanted the government to step up and take control of the security of commercial aviation so you complain about TSA. None of your complaints change the fact that TSA is one more step to ensure that another mass attack on American aviation cannot occur.
“”Fortunately, these are problems that (as yet) are associated with the insurgencies that we have wrongly conflated with the sort of terrorists who would attack domestic targets.””
So America should wait until after these problems occur on American soil before we try to prevent the deaths of American Citizens!?! Why not prevent the deaths form occurring in the first place?? If we could go back in time and prevent the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, would YOU bother, since that kind of attack had never happened before????
So, if there is so much emphasis on these machines, and they have been in use for some time, here is a question:
Bob - how many REAL incidents of domestic terrorism were detected?
Anonymous said...
"... whether or not the agent viewing a MMW or Backscatter images can unblur the face or disable any privacy filters."(?)
A big no.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
@Dave Nelson
The other issue besides privacy that has surrounded backscatter X-raying has to do with radiation exposure. Most of us do not get X-rayed on a regular basis; and when we do get X-rayed in a hospital or doctor's office, we've got a lead vest thrown over our vital organs. But at airports, there's no lead vest. So are people who travel a lot going to be subjected to dangerous levels of radiation if they get backscattered too often? Most experts say no. The x-rays are not strong (enough) to penetrate the body. They just reflect off the body. X-rays are captured by a detector and the detector creates an image. According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation. Few frequent flyers fly that frequently.
Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. The American College of Radiation and American Roentgen Ray Society making a joint statement said, such fears were completely unfounded as using these machines are safe.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
"Why are the Backscatter sample images provided by the TSA so different than the ones from Heathrow Airport?"
Two words: privacy filter.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
"Also the machines supposedly can't save images in airport mode but agents can save the images to external storage such as a USB flash drive. Are the USB ports disabled in airport mode as well?"
Nice loaded question Anon. ;)
A Transportation Security Officer (TSO) cannot save a Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) image onto a USB drive connected to the machine.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
West,
If these machines cannot detect objects in vaginas or rectums, they are useless, which was the point made originally, in the part of the post you did not copy.
HappyToHelp said...
Anonymous said...
"Also the machines supposedly can't save images in airport mode but agents can save the images to external storage such as a USB flash drive. Are the USB ports disabled in airport mode as well?"
Nice loaded question Anon. ;)
A Transportation Security Officer (TSO) cannot save a Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) image onto a USB drive connected to the machine.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
March 9, 2010 1:39 AM
....................
So you say.
How about proof that the images cannot be saved in any manner?
I will call them what they are - AIT. That is the name the agency uses, it is much less sensationalistic and misleading than the names you have been using. It is also more honest.
West
TSA Blog Team
March 8, 2010 6:21 PM
West, your agency called them "Whole Body Imagers" just a few months ago. Why the change?
Was it something about Imaging and Whole Bodies that caused some concern?
Changing the name to deflect what these "Child Porno Viewers" really depict is just dishonest on the part of TSA.
Of course dishonesty and TSA go hand in hand.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143838/Documents_refute_TSA_privacy_claims_on_body_scanners_group_says
"The documents "clearly refute" what the TSA has said about the devices on a number of fronts, said Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's executive director. They also show that the devices, which are based on Windows XP technology, may be vulnerable to tampering, EPIC said.
The documents show that contrary to the representations of the TSA, whole body imaging devices include the ability to store, record and transfer images of passengers screened at U.S. airports. The device specifications include hard disk storage, USB integration and Ethernet connectivity, all of which raise significant privacy and security concerns, EPIC said.
The advocacy group said the device's specifications allow the TSA to manipulate 10 variable privacy settings."
.....................
Sounds like TSA has been playing loose with the truth again, eh!
Once again, what do you mean by "not networked"? Unless you are using a really long cord to transmit images from the scanning device itself to the remove viewing area, then I would say that your claims regarding the scanners' ability to transmit images is false. Perhaps you could clarify...
Tim said...
Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta.
As long as you are being this "helpful", pleas use the name "Tim" instead of "Happy to help". If you want to use the latter name, please be helpful instead.
Do you know the difference between a beam of light and a beam of laser? Do you know why, at equivalent luminosity, one is much more dangerous? That's because the laser is steady, concentrated, all at the same wavelength, all in phase. That's the same as the difference between the exposure during flying and the exposure during a backscatter scan. And that's BEFORE we get to the fact that this stuff is cumulative. I noticed you snipped that part out of your rebuttal to Dave. That's because that part is the key part that renders your rebuttal meaningless.
This stuff is physically dangerous. Stop drinking the TSA coolaid and say to your boss "Look, we should use mmw instead of backscatter." Then I'll only pick on the massive constitutional problems with WBI/AIT/child porn machines.
Sandra said...
When is TSA going to institute psychological testing of potential new employees to rule out pedophiles, voyeurs, and others who can be termed paraphilias?
You do know that these types of people will now gravitate to the TSA for employment so that they can practice their particular forms of perversion "legitimately.
GSOLTSO said...
Can you recommend a process that is efficient, immediate, and easy to implement for the agency? I am interested in hearing some ideas on ways to weed out paraphilias.
Yeah, use your BDOs. The can spot terrorists after a 1 min converstation. The fact that they haven't yet shouldn't stop you from using BDOs on TSOs, after all it hasn't stopped you from using BDOs on passengers.
GSOLTSO said...
Based on the manufacturers site, a person has to be scanned 1000 times to recieve the equivalent of a chest xray.
You forgot that X-RAY radiation is CUMULATIVE!!!!! Get that tiny bit of information into your head, force the propaganda out. X-Rays are dangers, partly because the radiation is cumulative. It doesn't matter if the dosage is low, it adds up. It always adds up. It's not safe at all.
All of the comments about storing of images, privacy filters, and the rest are valid constitutional arguments that show the TSA is wrong, and I'd make those arguments if we were discussing mmw. We're discussing something even more dangerous - in addition to violating our constitutional rights you are putting us in physical danger, causing physical harm, hurting the very people you are supposed to protect every time you use a backscatter.
Jannis said...
Actually you are simply opposing the fact that TSA was demanded by the American people to protect the American people. The outcry of the American people after 9-11 was enormous and the American people said that they wanted to have their government protect them. You do not like the fact that the American people wanted the government to step up and take control of the security of commercial aviation so you complain about TSA. None of your complaints change the fact that TSA is one more step to ensure that another mass attack on American aviation cannot occur.
So much wrong, where to start? I dislike the violations of our rights that the TSA causes. Yes, there was an outcry for security after 9-11, but what I oppose is that in order to provide that security basic constitutional rights were trashed.
By the way, before you call it a fact that the TSA is one more step to provide security, please find out what the word "fact" means. One might forgive the TSA for all of their constitutional violations if they actually provided even the smallest amount of security. They don't. They provide the illusion of security. We're getting real violations of our constitutional rights, the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, in exchange for NO security. That is a fact.
Ayn R. Key said...
Tim said...
Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta.
As long as you are being this "helpful", pleas use the name "Tim" instead of "Happy to help". If you want to use the latter name, please be helpful instead.
Do you know the difference between a beam of light and a beam of laser? Do you know why, at equivalent luminosity, one is much more dangerous? That's because the laser is steady, concentrated, all at the same wavelength, all in phase. That's the same as the difference between the exposure during flying and the exposure during a backscatter scan. And that's BEFORE we get to the fact that this stuff is cumulative. I noticed you snipped that part out of your rebuttal to Dave. That's because that part is the key part that renders your rebuttal meaningless.
This stuff is physically dangerous. Stop drinking the TSA coolaid and say to your boss "Look, we should use mmw instead of backscatter." Then I'll only pick on the massive constitutional problems with WBI/AIT/child porn machines.
March 9, 2010 2:18 PM
------------------
I think you might have missed this part.
HappyToHelp said...
"Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. The American College of Radiation and American Roentgen Ray Society making a joint statement said, such fears were completely unfounded as using these machines are safe."
There research doesn't count?
*** It is being reported on FT that they do hold the back of the passenger palms while they do the swabbing. ***
You're that germophobic and don't carry a 99 cent trial size hand sanitizer?
*** And to stay on topic, will passengers have to step on the footprint markings in these machines with their shoes off? It's the exact same spot where hundreds of passengers will be asked to place their bare feet. ***
Wear socks.
*** Not everyone wears socks, specially in warm weather locations such as where I live. ***
I wear socks when I travel. I live in South Florida (warm enough?). Luckily, the car I drive to the airport and the airports themselves (PBI, FLL and MIA at least) are air conditioned. Dollar Tree carries three pairs of socks for a buck - I could even throw them out after clearing security.
*** How are these machines connected to the computer in the viewing booth? One long cable or are they networked? ***
By MAAAGIC! Come on, silly question, silly answer. Hard wired doesn't mean networked.
GSOLTSO said...
Can you recommend a process that is efficient, immediate, and easy to implement for the agency? I am interested in hearing some ideas on ways to weed out paraphilias.
Is there a standardized process of evaluation that can be streamlined into the hiring practices of the agency on a nationwide basis in the short term?
---------------------------------
So is the TSA looking for something immediate......rather than effective? Maybe trying to fill your numbers as quickly as possible isn't the best way to get qualified personnel. Also the NYPD schedules their candidates for psychological evaluations within 1 week of their physical. How long does the TSA screen its applicants before unleashing them on the public? The phrase "extensive background check" really doesn't state a time frame.
In response to Tim on March 9, 2010 at 1:02 AM:
Tim -- You just don't get it, do you? Your homework assignment: go off and find out the exact question your agency asked these two professional organizations to answer. Quote them here, verbatim, and cite your source -- and not out of context.
Let me try this simplistic example on you: If I take an ordinary flashlight and shine it in your eyes, the most that will happen to you is some temporary discomfort, i.e.: you will have to turn away from the light. Now, if I take a laser pointer with 1/100 the intensity of the flashlight and shine it in your eye, I can cause permanent eye damage and potentially blind you if I shine it at you enough times.
If you haven't figured it out yet, your backscatter strip search booths are the equivalent of a laser pointer.
So many people on here don't get the facts. Please do some research before attacking everything.
Ayn R. Key said…
“And that's BEFORE we get to the fact that this stuff is cumulative. I noticed you snipped that part out of your rebuttal to Dave. That's because that part is the key part that renders your rebuttal meaningless.”
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) has reported that a traveler would need to experience 2,500 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a Negligible Individual Dose. The American College of Radiology (ACR) agrees with this conclusion.
The ACR is not aware of any evidence that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering would present significant biological effects for passengers screened. Even CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta gave the thumbs up (star power).
I’ll bight Ayn, but just this once. I enjoy a good government conspiracy theory. Please don’t leave out any references to secret organizations.
Why do you think TSA, DHS, and the US Congress would want to place passengers in harm’s way?
Tim
TSA Blog Team
West, how disingenuous can you be?
"Can you recommend a process that is efficient, immediate, and easy to implement for the agency? I am interested in hearing some ideas on ways to weed out paraphilias.
Is there a standardized process of evaluation that can be streamlined into the hiring practices of the agency on a nationwide basis in the short term?
Could you include some links to the proper testing protocols and best practices so I can look them over?"
You know full well that there are providers of psychological assessments that TSA could hire if they wanted to weed out sexual deviants.
Is the turnover of screeners at TSA is so great that it practically needs to pull people in off the street to fill vacant positions and therefore can't take the time to properly screen them for deviant proclivites?
(BTW, we learned yesterday of a TSA employee at Logan [which has recently installed virtual strip search machines] who has been arrested on charges of raping a 14 year old.)
Tim, Happy to Not Help, wrote...
Why do you think TSA, DHS, and the US Congress would want to place passengers in harm’s way?
First of all, don't include "US Congress" in that question because they are the agency currently looking into forbidding your virtual strip searches. Then again, they're looking into your use of WBI, which may be the reason you started calling it AIT. Your comment there is rather hypocritical coming from someone who in the comments of this very blog entry accused someone of using the "loaded question."
Second, it has already been demonstrated multiple times that your agency has no respect for the constitutional rights of the traveling public. It's even been demonstrated, with the 3-1-1 rule, that your agency has no respect even for common sense. And given the reports of TSOs opening sterile medical equipment, such as feeding tubes, that your agency already doesn't care about our health and well being.
Given that your agency already doesn't care about our health and well being, is it that far to assume that your agency doesn't care about our health and well being?
As David pointed out, it's the difference between a light beam and a laser beam. An anonymous TSO pointed out your report that it is safe after you failed David's homework assignment and failed to post the exact questions the TSA used. I'm pointing out that you ignored David's point about light and laser.
As a multi-disciplinary engineer, a mix of aerospace, electronics, and communication technology, I know from what I speak with regards to radiation.
Yes, the dosage is quite low. It is so low that it is RELATIVELY safe, but under no circumstances is any radiation of that frequency ABSOLUTELY safe. Ionizing radiation is ALWAYS dangerous, it's just a matter of how much it is dangerous.
Finally, your references to secret conspiracy organizations are so insulting as to make me wonder why Bob actually allowed your comment. Perhaps your tinfoil hat is so tight that you have come to believe everyone else wears one.
Bob, when a person refuses to be screened by WBI machines they automatically receive a pat down yet if the checkpoint does not have WBI equipment they do not get a pat down unless the WTMD alarms or some other event dictates a reason for a pat down.
Why is TSA using two completely different standards for pat downs?
Is the required pat down for those who refuse WBI used as retaliation for those people who refuses to be strip search by TSA?
Why is TSA allowed to used retaliation tactics like this?
RB said...
Bob, when a person refuses to be screened by WBI machines they automatically receive a pat down yet if the checkpoint does not have WBI equipment they do not get a pat down unless the WTMD alarms or some other event dictates a reason for a pat down.
Why is TSA using two completely different standards for pat downs?
Is the required pat down for those who refuse WBI used as retaliation for those people who refuses to be strip search by TSA?
Why is TSA allowed to used retaliation tactics like this?
March 10, 2010 12:07 PM
-----------------
TSA is not using retaliation tactics.
The pat down is there to screen the passenger, you have to be screened in order to enter the sterile area and board your plane. People that refuse the WBI still must be screened in some way.
If you refuse WTMD screening you recieve a pat down.
When going through the WTMD passengers are asked to remove sweat shirts and bulky clothing, they are also randomly patted down.
You are still recieving a good amount of screening.
The difference is that the WBI is faster, can screen better, passengers do not have to be physically touched, and passengers with metallic implants can be screened the same as everyone else.
Hi Bob,
I appreciate you getting back to me so fast. I posted on here so everyone would have the benefit of the answers to my questions. You only answered one, really, though. I was mistaken about the blurred part, which doesn't ease my mind at all. I will just copy and paste my questions right from the reply email you sent me. Please post this, it matters...
"Jennie said... I have a few questions. One is, it says on the TSA site that these images are not saved and cannot be viewed later, however, there are 'copies' of these images on the site so you can supposedly "see" what the inspectors see. How is that possible? Also, I read somewhere that the genetalia were blurred out. How does it know when to blur? And lastly, if we have the 'option' to 'opt out' and everyone opts out, then what good is it? I want to mention that I found this site accidently, and when attempting to post an anonymous question, I noticed at the bottom (so I left it there) my NAME and EMAIL ADDY. This made me go "hmmmm", but since I have nothing to hide, I continued to post... March 9, 2010 5:57 PM
---------------------------
Hi Jennie. The images you are seeing are either samples from the vendor, or they are shots from press events with willing models.
Genitals are not blurred out. Faces are blurred for privacy. This is an algorithm that was designed by the manufacturers.
Even if you choose to opt out, you still receive a full body pat down. It's a sound security measure, but it takes much longer than the imaging technology.
I'm not sure what happened when you posted here, but we have always allowed anonymous comments. Look around our blog and you'll see plenty of them.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team "
Yes I saw where I could select to have my information be anonymous, but I just thought it was odd that it had all my info filled out, on a site I have never been to before...
HappyToHelp wrote: "The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) has reported that a traveler would need to experience 2,500 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a Negligible Individual Dose. The American College of Radiology (ACR) agrees with this conclusion."
It's actually unclear what exactly they have concluded, seeing as we don't know the questions that they are answering and the accuracy of the data that was made available to them. Some of those studies were calculated with 0.05 μSv, while others used 0.09 μSv. It's unclear what the true, correct number is. Both of those are, actually, fairly low but you must remember that we're dealing with ionizing radiation which is cumulative.
A bigger issue, in my opinion, is that the machines can be adjusted to improve their resolving power, which can result in a much much larger dose equivalent. Just who can adjust those machines, by how much, under what conditions, and with what safeguards is again, not clear. Can TSA personnel punch an "improve resolution" button or flip a switch? Maybe, maybe not.
This is but one of the questions that the TSA ought to answer. There are others:
What is the energy of the electrons in the electron beam that generates the X-rays used for this scanning?
Are there any flattening filters or collimators used to attenuate, shape or manipulate the X-ray beam produced? Are they fixed or movable?
Do the machines have safeguards to shut down the X-ray beam if the filters and/or collimators are misaligned or damaged?
Do the machines have any systems to measure their output to ensure safety and to detect malfunctions?
Do the people operating the XRB machines have any training in radiography and will they perform standalone tests of the equipment or will they blindly rely on internal self-tests that the machine may perform?
I suspect that some of these questions you don't have the answer to, but they are legitimate questions that really need to be answered. Just telling us "trust the experts" isn't enough. Especially if the experts render their opinion on data that was collected by the TSA itself.
Sandra said...
(BTW, we learned yesterday of a TSA employee at Logan [which has recently installed virtual strip search machines] who has been arrested on charges of raping a 14 year old.)
March 10, 2010 9:13 AM
So i guess you only cherry pick certain amendments in the constitution to support your babble. Doesnt this screener have his rights also? Check out the two amendments right below that 4th one that you always quote.
Just another reason most people dont take you serious anymore.
And you didnt really answer West's question to you. Were you just making more stuff up?
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100310/BIZ01/303100007/1055/NEWS/Feds+add+test+for+bombs+at+CVG
Paul Wisniewski, the TSA’s local federal security director "said that the airport is slated to receive nine of the machines sometime this spring and that they will be used in both Terminals 2 and 3. He also said that during slow periods, they will be used as the “primary” scanning machine, meaning that all passengers will pass through them."
......................
So all passengers will pass through the Strip Search/Kiddie Porn Machines. What happened to the WBI being optional or can a single FSD create different rules for that one airport.
Hahaha. From the blog: "Can your image be saved or printed? No.
What will my image look like? What will TSA officers see? Take a look…"
How can I "take a look"? The images can't be saved or printed for me to look at!! On the other hand, If I *can* "take a look" at what the TSA sees, then the images obviously CAN be saved.
The TSA claims two contradictory things at the same time. What did George Orwell call that- DoubleThink?
DoublePlusUnGood, TSA, DoublePlusUnGood.
It's about time!
I for one am for the technology (no matter how invasive). Until we finally step up, people will always find a way to threaten our security.
GSOLTSO said...
"I will call them what they are - AIT. That is the name the agency uses, it is much less sensationalistic and misleading than the names you have been using. It is also more honest."
I agree West. She sure does use a lot of rhetoric. I think it only hurts her arguments, and is very dishonest in my opinion.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "West,
If these machines cannot detect objects in vaginas or rectums, they are useless, which was the point made originally, in the part of the post you did not copy."
That is incorrect, it means there are specific things that it can't detect. There are other things it CAN detect such as non metallic items concealed under clothing that the WTMD would miss. In order for the tech to be useless it woulod have to be unable to detect anything that the previoous screening equipment would detect. The AIT is simply a step up in the screening of people, the pat down was replaced with the WTMD (for the most part), the AIT in addition to the WTMD gives us a capability to detect more threat items than just the pat down or the WTMD.
West
TSA Blog Team
Does the TSA have any comment regarding the multiple complaints filed by passengers last year who were directed through the WBI scanners without being informed of what the technology shows, and not being told of the patdown option?
http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-03-08/travelers-file-complaints-over-tsa-body-scanners.html
What date or year are the AIT sample images from? Were they taken with the newest generation machines or earlier gen ones? I read other posts on the blog saying they were 10 years old.
RB sez - "West, your agency called them "Whole Body Imagers" just a few months ago. Why the change?
Was it something about Imaging and Whole Bodies that caused some concern?
Changing the name to deflect what these "Child Porno Viewers" really depict is just dishonest on the part of TSA.
Of course dishonesty and TSA go hand in hand."
Did you ever stop to think that since the MMW and Back Scatter are both similar in their imagery and application, that the agcny may have introduced a basic terminology to cover both? That way if another machine with the same basic type of tech it can be incorporated under the same basic name. The term you keep using is (again) sensationalistic and incorrect on any rational level. I have included a definiton of porno on here for most to read, so your application of that term is technically, and realistically wrong.
West
TSA Blog Team
Sandra sez - "West, how disingenuous can you be?
"Can you recommend a process that is efficient, immediate, and easy to implement for the agency? I am interested in hearing some ideas on ways to weed out paraphilias.
Is there a standardized process of evaluation that can be streamlined into the hiring practices of the agency on a nationwide basis in the short term?
Could you include some links to the proper testing protocols and best practices so I can look them over?"
You know full well that there are providers of psychological assessments that TSA could hire if they wanted to weed out sexual deviants.
Is the turnover of screeners at TSA is so great that it practically needs to pull people in off the street to fill vacant positions and therefore can't take the time to properly screen them for deviant proclivites?
(BTW, we learned yesterday of a TSA employee at Logan [which has recently installed virtual strip search machines] who has been arrested on charges of raping a 14 year old.)"
Not disingenuous at all, I am serious. I would like links to some of the things you are describing for myself. I can look things up or Google like the next person, but if you have some inside notion as to which program you have been involved with or have good reviews on, I would like your input into my research.
The turnover rate is not at a critical level, and the hiring process is not my sector, but I like information and may be able to send something through my chain of command that makes sense... Maybe someone in HQ will see the info you post and do their own research and work on implementation. You never know what will happen.
As for the TSO at Logan that was arrested, I have not read enough to make an informed statement. I will reserve comment until I am able to be better informed.
West
TSA Blog Team
I just spent 45 minutes in line at Logan due to these new scanners. The best part: they were deployed after the tests last week showed they held up the lines and then didn't force everyone through them but allowed people to select the metal detector, completely nullifying any security advantage. Way to fail, guys. Thanks for nothing.
These machines produce images such as an x-ray machine and do not take pictures, so for those of you who can not accept the fact that we are in a constant battle to secure our safety, then maybe you should keep your feet planted on the ground and you will not need to concern yourself with any of it
Joseph
Some Anonymous poster said…
In a previous post, I was told by TSORon and West that passenger hands will not be touched by the screeners doing the hand swabbing.
It is being reported on FT that they do hold the back of the passenger palms while they do the swabbing.
Why was I lied to by TSA personnel? Or why has TSA personnel not been properly trained?
----------------------------------------
I don’t remember ever saying that Anon, could you provide a link to the statement or please retract your inaccurate comment.
In any case, screeners wear gloves, and while they may grasp someone’s hand to facilitate screening the gloves remain between the screener and the passenger.
Kimm asked ….
OK, so basically you're saying that while we have to protect the "rights" of TSA employees and potential employees, but to hell with passenger rights?
------------------------------------
Actually kimm, the passenger has the right to walk away and avoid the entire process. The passenger has the right to choose whatever mode of transportation they like, flying is not mandatory for any citizen of this great nation. Buy a bus ticket, a Ford, a Schwinn, or a pair of Hush Puppies, I don’t care, but don’t say that flying is mandatory for you or anyone else.
Employment on the other hand is mandatory for those who have self respect, and while I could have chosen to be an astronaut or a ditch digger, they both have their requirements to maintain employment. Neither are required to meet the demands you and Sandra would seem to prefer. I know I’m not a criminal, but I cant say the same about you.
"Not disingenuous at all, I am serious. I would like links to some of the things you are describing for myself. I can look things up or Google like the next person, but if you have some inside notion as to which program you have been involved with or have good reviews on, I would like your input into my research."
Not to worry, West, I'm in discussions with my Congresspeople about this, so you don't need to concern yourself as I'm sure they have more clout with the powers that be than you do.
TSORon said...
Kimm asked ….
OK, so basically you're saying that while we have to protect the "rights" of TSA employees and potential employees, but to hell with passenger rights?
------------------------------------
Actually kimm, the passenger has the right to walk away and avoid the entire process. The passenger has the right to choose whatever mode of transportation they like, flying is not mandatory for any citizen of this great nation. Buy a bus ticket, a Ford, a Schwinn, or a pair of Hush Puppies, I don’t care, but don’t say that flying is mandatory for you or anyone else.
Employment on the other hand is mandatory for those who have self respect, and while I could have chosen to be an astronaut or a ditch digger, they both have their requirements to maintain employment. Neither are required to meet the demands you and Sandra would seem to prefer. I know I’m not a criminal, but I cant say the same about you.
March 12, 2010 8:44 AM
................
So TSORon, tell me how I can get from California to Hawaii and avoid TSA?
Some anonymous poster wrote:
"So i guess you only cherry pick certain amendments in the constitution to support your babble. Doesnt this screener have his rights also? Check out the two amendments right below that 4th one that you always quote."
What in heavens name are you talking about? I have never quoted any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Methinks you need to learn to read before you respond.
Did you ever stop to think that since the MMW and Back Scatter are both similar in their imagery and application, that the agcny may have introduced a basic terminology to cover both? That way if another machine with the same basic type of tech it can be incorporated under the same basic name. The term you keep using is (again) sensationalistic and incorrect on any rational level. I have included a definiton of porno on here for most to read, so your application of that term is technically, and realistically wrong.
West
TSA Blog Team
March 11, 2010 1:45 PM
..................
Your really reaching aren't you West. Anything to justify TSA's PR campaign.
Doesn't "Whole Body Imagers" satisfy naming conventions for both MMW and Backscatter devices?
Face it, the change to AIT was for no other reason than to remove the word "body" from the name.
Everyone knows these devices are simply "Child Porno Viewers"!
If I am wrong all TSA has to do to prove otherwise is to post images in the same size and resolution you guys see. Been over a year and hasn't happened yet.
A pretty strong argument supporting my claims.
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Bob, when a person refuses to be screened by WBI machines they automatically receive a pat down yet if the checkpoint does not have WBI equipment they do not get a pat down unless the WTMD alarms or some other event dictates a reason for a pat down.
Why is TSA using two completely different standards for pat downs?
Is the required pat down for those who refuse WBI used as retaliation for those people who refuses to be strip search by TSA?
Why is TSA allowed to used retaliation tactics like this?
March 10, 2010 12:07 PM
-----------------
TSA is not using retaliation tactics.
The pat down is there to screen the passenger, you have to be screened in order to enter the sterile area and board your plane. People that refuse the WBI still must be screened in some way.
If you refuse WTMD screening you recieve a pat down.
When going through the WTMD passengers are asked to remove sweat shirts and bulky clothing, they are also randomly patted down.
You are still recieving a good amount of screening.
The difference is that the WBI is faster, can screen better, passengers do not have to be physically touched, and passengers with metallic implants can be screened the same as everyone else.
March 10, 2010 3:31 PM
...................
Reed again in your haste to defend TSA you missed the point.
If I enter a checkpoint with Strip Search Machines and refuse I get an automatic pat down. No choice, even if a WTMD is available.
If I enter a checkpoint with WTMD's only I pass through the WTMD, no alarm I probably go on my way.
TSA is treating people differently depending on if Strip Search Machines are installed or not.
If that is not retaliatory then I don't know what is.
From Pedophile Prophiles:
"Pedophiles usually have other fetishes than just sexually abusing children. Forensic profiles have found they have been involved with exhibitionism, voyeurism, as well as a variety of other deviant behavior. They frequently work around children, have sought employment at daycare facilities, movie theaters, arcades, and other jobs that put them closer to children."
From:
Family Court Review
Copyright (c) 2003 Sage Publications, Inc.
SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILD PROTECTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: Pedophilia: Psychiatric Insights
October, 2003
41 Fam. Ct. Rev. 497
"Children of all ages and both genders are at risk. It is estimated that 100,000 to 500,000 children are sexually molested each year in the United States. Similar incidence rates are reported in other countries as well. By the age of 18 years, approximately 15% to 25% of children have been sexually abused; 30% to 40% of girls and 10% to 15% of boys are subjected to sexual abuse by adults."
~
TSA must not be a partner to these very sad statistics cited above by refusing to assess potential employees.
~
From Psychology Today:
“Other features of fetishism include:
• Employment or volunteer work to enable fetish behavior, for example, a job in a shoe shop in the case of a shoe fetish..."
From the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders:
"Potential pedophiles may volunteer their services to athletic teams, Scout troops, or religious or civic organizations that serve youth."
And now seek employment with the TSA.
Further from the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders:
"Together with voyeurism and exhibitionism, pedophilia is one of the three paraphilias most commonly leading to arrest by the police."
Jennie wrote: I noticed at the bottom (so I left it there) my NAME and EMAIL ADDY. This made me go "hmmmm"
There isn't any reason to go "hmmmm" or "huh" or anything else about that. The explanation is very simple:
You must have been logged into Gmail or one of the other numerous services that Google provides. Google allows your identity to "travel" with you to all sites owned by Google.
So when you tried to post on this blog -- which is hosted by Blogger, which is owned by Google -- you were offered the option to post under the Google account you were logged in with as a convenience. It's really nothing sinister.
Anonymous said...
“Once again, what do you mean by "not networked"? Unless you are using a really long cord to transmit images from the scanning device itself to the remove viewing area, then I would say that your claims regarding the scanners' ability to transmit images is false. Perhaps you could clarify...”
A cable connection is used between the AIT system and the viewing terminal. Backscatter images are encrypted when they are transmitted over the cable connection. Millimeter wave data is transmitted over the cable connection in a proprietary format that cannot be deciphered without the proprietary technology.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
I don't understand, why don't they just save some money and ask us to take our clothes off?
Why do we need these multi-million dollar machines to see through our clothes when our clothes are removable?
From RB -
"If that is not retaliatory then I don't know what is."
It's also discriminatory.
Yes, Joseph, I plan on doing JUST that! However, we had planned on going on a cruise this summer. Now I don't have to fly but if something were to happen (God forbid, we get sick or miss the boat during a tour) we would have to fly home.
You sound like you are defending the whole idea, however, you say it is the same as an x-ray. That's not safe Joseph, exposing all those thousands of people per day to that kind of imaging. Sorry.
I also want to point out that I believe that the Christmas "underwear bomber" was another plot to intorduce this technology against our will (google Patriot Act). If you think I'm just being paranoid, please read this, and notice the date. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/backscatter_x-r.html
I found this link on this very site, so it's not like they hid it or anything. Have fun! =)
Sandra sez - "Not to worry, West, I'm in discussions with my Congresspeople about this, so you don't need to concern yourself as I'm sure they have more clout with the powers that be than you do."
I am certain they do, however I was interested in your information on a personal basis. If you do not wish to share that is cool by me. I just figured that if you had an inside line or experience with the process you are asking about it would be a better starting spot than google. Take care.
West
TSA Blog Team
Rb sez - "Your really reaching aren't you West. Anything to justify TSA's PR campaign.
Doesn't "Whole Body Imagers" satisfy naming conventions for both MMW and Backscatter devices?
Face it, the change to AIT was for no other reason than to remove the word "body" from the name.
Everyone knows these devices are simply "Child Porno Viewers"!
If I am wrong all TSA has to do to prove otherwise is to post images in the same size and resolution you guys see. Been over a year and hasn't happened yet.
A pretty strong argument supporting my claims."
Wow, and if the agency gets tech that screens only the shoes using the same technology, calling it WBI would be incorrect. By using AIT you can cover all of the different applications that may be used in the same technology sector. That is consolidation of equipment under one heading, without singling out specific applications.
West
TSA Blog Team
H2H sez - "A cable connection is used between the AIT system and the viewing terminal. Backscatter images are encrypted when they are transmitted over the cable connection. Millimeter wave data is transmitted over the cable connection in a proprietary format that cannot be deciphered without the proprietary technology."
I love it when you use big words! Thanks ofr giving me tech info to back up my info man!
West
TSA Blog Team
HappyToHelp: "Millimeter wave data is transmitted over the cable connection in a proprietary format that cannot be deciphered without the proprietary technology."
It's great that the data stream of XRB is encrypted although, perhaps overkill, if the connection is point-to-point.
But be careful about what you say about the millimeter-wave "proprietary format." Security through obscurity is really no security at all. All sorts of "proprietary formats" that could not be deciphered without proprietary technology have been broken. Some within a matter of days.
If the manufacturer of that machine made that claim, then that manufacturer is nothing but a snake-oil peddler. Phrases like that are huge red flags to anyone involved in the cryptography and computer security industries.
RB Asked….
So TSORon, tell me how I can get from California to Hawaii and avoid TSA?
-----------------------------
You could always swim, or in your case “walk on water”, but for the rest of us we could go to the links below and avoid the TSA experience completely.
http://www.freightercruises.com/
http://budgettravel.about.com/cs/cruisesdeals/a/cruise_cargo.htm
TSORon said "I don’t remember ever saying that Anon, could you provide a link to the statement or please retract your inaccurate comment."
Ron - I went back to the thread, and you are correct, it wasn't you. It was West and another anon. For some reason when I read that post, I thought it was your post. I sincerely apologize and retract your name from my original statement.
TSORon also said "In any case, screeners wear gloves, and while they may grasp someone’s hand to facilitate screening the gloves remain between the screener and the passenger."
So the correct thing to do will be to ask for a new set of gloves just in case the TSO decides to touch my hands.
The rest of my post was correct. West did originally say that pax hands would not be touched. He either lied, or the TSOs are not following correct procedures and they are not being properly supervised.
AVXO said:
But be careful about what you say about the millimeter-wave "proprietary format." Security through obscurity is really no security at all. All sorts of "proprietary formats" that could not be deciphered without proprietary technology have been broken. Some within a matter of days.
-------------------
Just repeating things heard in comments at security blogs like Schneier's doesn't really make a valid point. Just because an encryption routine isn't open sourced doesn't mean it hasn't had proper review. It just means YOU don't know much about it yourself.
I don't understand, why don't they just save some money and ask us to take our clothes off?
Why do we need these multi-million dollar machines to see through our clothes when our clothes are removable?
-----------
Ummmm... maybe because there's a HUGE difference between standing naked in front of the public and having an image that's somewhat realistic but hardly photographic transmitted to another room for review by one or two TSA agents. Or did you mean bring everyone one at a time into a private room and strip them? Yeah, because that's an efficient way to get us through security.
I realize some of us are more anti-TSA than others, but some of you just post absurd things.
TSORon said...
RB Asked….
So TSORon, tell me how I can get from California to Hawaii and avoid TSA?
-----------------------------
You could always swim, or in your case “walk on water”, but for the rest of us we could go to the links below and avoid the TSA experience completely.
http://www.freightercruises.com/
http://budgettravel.about.com/cs/cruisesdeals/a/cruise_cargo.htm
March 13, 2010 9:20 AM
.............
Just can't post something without a personal attack can you Ronny?
Isn't TSA screening people that board Cruise Ships? I thought that was being done.
Isn't TSA screening people that board Cruise Ships? I thought that was being done.
We may sometimes be involved with some security operations in other modes of transportation but the screening of the public in other modes of transportation is not like in the aviation sector. That is at least to my knowledge. Cruise ships usually have a private security as they are not a public form of transportation.
LTSO with Answers said...
Isn't TSA screening people that board Cruise Ships? I thought that was being done.
We may sometimes be involved with some security operations in other modes of transportation but the screening of the public in other modes of transportation is not like in the aviation sector. That is at least to my knowledge. Cruise ships usually have a private security as they are not a public form of transportation.
March 15, 2010 11:35 AM
...............
A curise ship is not a form of public transportation?
Really!
RB sez - "A curise ship is not a form of public transportation?
Really!"
I personally do not know about any cruise ships that are public transport. There are ferries and mass transit that are waterbourne, but cruise ships are a private enterprise that does not have to traverse other landholders to operate. Technically I think that LTSO with answers was correct.
West
TSA Blog Team
GSOLTSO said...
RB sez - "A curise ship is not a form of public transportation?
Really!"
I personally do not know about any cruise ships that are public transport. There are ferries and mass transit that are waterbourne, but cruise ships are a private enterprise that does not have to traverse other landholders to operate. Technically I think that LTSO with answers was correct.
West
TSA Blog Team
March 15, 2010 1:28 PM
...............
Airlines are private enterprises.
Scott G. Lewis, referring to my post said: "Just repeating things heard in comments at security blogs like Schneier's doesn't really make a valid point. Just because an encryption routine isn't open sourced doesn't mean it hasn't had proper review. It just means YOU don't know much about it yourself."
First of all, I don't actually have to repeat anything from anyone's blog. Just because someone else has made that point before, doesn't mean I'm parroting them or that I can't make that same valid independently. It's not like I lack expertise in the field of cryptography.
Second -- and setting aside your completely incorrect usage of the term 'open source' in this case and under the current context -- you really ought to learn to read what others actually say or write. That way you can at least attempt to answer the point made instead of spewing a bunch of words hoping they'll make sense.
Now, what did I actually say?
That a "proprietary format" that requires "proprietary software" (or hardware) to read is not encryption and shouldn't be called encryption and that if the manufacturer of this equipment asserted that their "proprietary" format cannot be read without their "proprietary" equipment they are most likely peddling snake oil.
A proprietary format can be anything. You could develop a communications protocol that uses piglatin and XOR's the resulting pig-latin data stream with 0x55. And you could go and call it "proprietary" and keep your algorithm private and never reveal it to anyone, instead only handing people encryption and decryption routines as black boxes.
Would that security through obscurity make your algorithm secure? Hardly. Why? Because it would be badly designed and because security through obscurity doesn't work.
Security and obscurity is a good combo. Great proprietary encryption algorithms can be developed, and their secrecy can help improve their security.
However, there are very few outfits in the world that have the know-how to do that and the know-how to do a proper review in-house. Some in the industry would, actually, venture to say that there is only one such outfit and despite all their expertise and rigorous processes, even they aren't infallible.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there's more than one. I am willing to bet that the manufacturers of these machines aren't one of those outfits.
I don't know the specifics, but I would venture a guess that the "proprietary" format in question is, in all likelihood, a slightly scrambled data stream and that the statement of the manufacturer hinges on the fact that the machine generates a very large amount of data per scan which requires some non-trivial processing to be converted into a visible image. But that still would not be encryption.
Words have meaning. Just as "Red Delicious Apple" means something very specific so does "encryption" means something very specific.
If you disagree with any of these statements and feel so inclined, I'll be more than happy to debate the issue with you -- and educate you -- in a more appropriate forum.
GSOLTSO said...
RB sez - "A curise ship is not a form of public transportation?
Really!"
I personally do not know about any cruise ships that are public transport. There are ferries and mass transit that are waterbourne, but cruise ships are a private enterprise that does not have to traverse other landholders to operate. Technically I think that LTSO with answers was correct.
West
TSA Blog Team
March 15, 2010 1:28 PM
...............
Airlines are private enterprises.
Hmmm. You are right RB the airlines are private enterprises. But I don't think a cruise ship is there for the purpose of transportation. We may have reached a fine line here.
LTSO With Answers writes:
You are right RB the airlines are private enterprises. But I don't think a cruise ship is there for the purpose of transportation. We may have reached a fine line here.
Whether or not a cruise line exists for the primary purpose of transportation, it is in fact a means of transportation --- and often an international one at that.
After all, most cruise lines recommend that U.S. citizens carry passports ... because if they want to get off the ship when it docks somewhere, they are, in fact, entering a foreign country!
Carnival on Passports
Royal Caribbean on Passports
Norwegian Cruise Line on Passports
RB said…
Isn't TSA screening people that board Cruise Ships? I thought that was being done.
-----------------------------------
If you had actually read the links RB you would have noted that the links were not for cruise ships but for merchant ships.
But you do make a good point RB, there is some form of screening if passengers at the cruise ship entry points. I could not tell you if they are TSA folks or not doing the screening but we do occasionally get reports about passengers trying to take guns onboard. It appears that cruisers have just as much problems with this as air passengers do.
Oh, and BTW, “Walk on water” was not a personal attack. It was an observation, and an attempt at levity. I should have known better than to expect you to have gotten it.
TSORon writes:
Oh, and BTW, “Walk on water” was not a personal attack. It was an observation, and an attempt at levity. I should have known better than to expect you to have gotten it.
You know, Ron, after the problems that your colleague at PHL had with telling jokes, I'd think you'd be a little more careful about accusing others of lacking a sense of humor ...
Even with the TSA privacy procedures, it is a given that an identified AIT image of a person, probably a celebrity, will eventually appear in the public domain. The TSO responsible for the release will be punished how? Termination of employment? Big woop. The TSO has the potential to gain more than a years salary from selling such an image, so the threat is a minimal deterrent. Why can't there be specific legal charges guaranteed to be levied in such a case, so that the TSO knows he is facing a fine of $X dollars and X months/years in jail? In an informal draft board hearing, the subject is warned that he will face fines not to exceed $125,000 and up to 15 years jail if he lies to the board. I would like to see such a warning given to the TSO's for such a breach of public trust and follow through in a few cases. Then I might believe the TSA is serious about protecting our privacy.
i agree: Whether or not a cruise line exists for the primary purpose of transportation, it is in fact a means of transportation --- and often an international one at that.
Ayn R Key Said:
Bob, this blog entry really angers me. The whole WBI/AIT issue angers me as a libertarian, of course, but the fact that you are going ahead with backscatter angers me as a scientist.
Seriously, Bob, the best thing you can do right now is say "Look, I was ordered to post this. I told my boss that this is unsafe, and he doesn't care."
Bob, show us that you actually have some basic integrity, some basic human decency, and post something along those lines. Otherwise I will be forced to assume that you approve not only of violating the 4th and 5th amendment, but that you approve of giving people cancer in the process.
It is sad that the best you can do at this point is the Nuremberg defense, but it is far better than the alternative.
March 5, 2010 5:37 PM
----------------------------------
Train
Train/boat
or
private plane
would remedy any issue you, and anyone else, have with the child
porn machines.
As far as the radiation levels? Would you suggest that any employer who hires people for outdoor work be liable. Suing resort beaches for damages?
essdeegee said...
As far as the radiation levels? Would you suggest that any employer who hires people for outdoor work be liable. Suing resort beaches for damages?
As a scientist, I suggest using completely safe mmw instead of dangerous back-scatter.
essdeegee said...
Train
Train/boat
or
private plane
would remedy any issue you, and anyone else, have with the child
porn machines.
When we get these unconstitutional devices removed from the airports, you use all of those you suggest so that you will feel safe.
Great improvement on technology for air security..but why isn't there TSA at the land borders throughout the US?! From my understanding, people coming across from MEXICO or CANADA into the United States are not screened for weapons such as guns or explosives unless CBP has some kind of suspicion of a person or persons, only if they are suspected one way or another, they are searched and stopped by CBP who's primary duty is to check if people are admissable to the US...so if a person has a legitimate visa but has explosives in his/her possession, that person can pose a deadly threat to our land ports and disrupt the flow of people and commerce..and also most land border ports are federal buildings so why don't we have TSA there when people and commerce are constantly passing through...from my understanding the mission of TSA is to protect the Nations transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. PROTECT OUR HOMELAND!
Don't give them any bright ideas...
Quote from Anonymous: "Great improvement on technology for air security..but why isn't there TSA at the land borders throughout the US?! From my understanding, people coming across from MEXICO or CANADA into the United States are not screened for weapons such as guns or explosives unless CBP has some kind of suspicion of a person or persons, only if they are suspected one way or another, they are searched and stopped by CBP who's primary duty is to check if people are admissable to the US...so if a person has a legitimate visa but has explosives in his/her possession, that person can pose a deadly threat to our land ports and disrupt the flow of people and commerce..and also most land border ports are federal buildings so why don't we have TSA there when people and commerce are constantly passing through...from my understanding the mission of TSA is to protect the Nations transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. PROTECT OUR HOMELAND!"
Get a grip! Do you think that explosives and such are so scarce in this country that someone from has to bring them in from Mexico or Canada? Please! Did Timothy McVeigh import his explosives from Canada or Mexico?
Doing such things like TSA would do nothing to protect our "homeland" (that sounds so fascist) and would only cause chaos at the borders.
CBP will search if they have sufficient reason to, and they generally do a decent job of catching contraband.
Let's leave border security to a more professional organization like CBP and leave the paranoia out of it.
Robert
TSORon said...
RB said…
Isn't TSA screening people that board Cruise Ships? I thought that was being done.
-----------------------------------
If you had actually read the links RB you would have noted that the links were not for cruise ships but for merchant ships.
But you do make a good point RB, there is some form of screening if passengers at the cruise ship entry points. I could not tell you if they are TSA folks or not doing the screening but we do occasionally get reports about passengers trying to take guns onboard. It appears that cruisers have just as much problems with this as air passengers do.
Oh, and BTW, “Walk on water” was not a personal attack. It was an observation, and an attempt at levity. I should have known better than to expect you to have gotten it.
March 17, 2010 1:13 PM
.................
"Walk on water."
You know darn well your comment was meant as a personal attack.
Exactly what I would expect from TSA employees.
OK, if there are no moral or ethical issues with WBI equipment why won't TSA come clean on the images these devices make and post full size, full resolution images as seen by the operators?
It's been over a year, TSA has not posted such images.
Bob?
Anonymous, referring to XRB and MMW said: Great improvement on technology for air security.
Ehh, depends on what you mean by "great." The machines are not the panacea that the TSA is trying to pass them off as, and they have significant privacy implications that the TSA has tried to whitewash.
On top of that, the XRB machines carry the risks associated with ionizing radiation, even if they only emit a few μSieverts.
That, plus the simple fact that the MMW machines are better, makes one wonder why TSA is even deploying XRB machines, but I digress.
Anon said: Even with the TSA privacy procedures, it is a given that an identified AIT image of a person, probably a celebrity, will eventually appear in the public domain. The TSO responsible for the release will be punished how?
Okay, I'm not sure how to put it in terms you may understand, b/c its been said numerous times and you just dont seem to grasp it. The TSO who is analyzing the image is in a closed room receiving images only. The person reviewing the pictures on screen cannot see the actual person being screened. The TSO with the person being screened cannot see the image being produced. So needless to say, there is no way that we would know who is who when looking at the image and again too, no image is saved or printed. Hope that clears it up for you.
kellymae81, on March 27, 2010 at 10:57 AM rather arrogantly said...
"Anon said: Even with the TSA privacy procedures, it is a given that an identified AIT image of a person, probably a celebrity, will eventually appear in the public domain. The TSO responsible for the release will be punished how?
Okay, I'm not sure how to put it in terms you may understand, b/c its been said numerous times and you just dont seem to grasp it. The TSO who is analyzing the image is in a closed room receiving images only. The person reviewing the pictures on screen cannot see the actual person being screened. The TSO with the person being screened cannot see the image being produced. So needless to say, there is no way that we would know who is who when looking at the image and again too, no image is saved or printed. Hope that clears it up for you."
Sorry, it doesn't "clear it up" for any of us. Let me explain this in "terms you will understand:"
You're telling us to simply "trust us, it will never happen." Freedom-loving Americans will never trust the TSA. You lie on this blog, you lie during testimony, you lie to us every day at airports all across America, you lie to us in official public statements and written documents. Yes, I have examples of every one of these. As a matter of fact, you don't have to go any farther than this blog for examples.
If you worked at an airport like Los Angeles International, you would understand that celebrities come and go all the time. Sites such as TMZ.com pretty much knows who is going where, and when. Paparazzi are frequently outside baggage claim and exits from secure areas when they know someone is arriving and they are at entrances when they know someone is leaving on a flight somewhere. I'm sure this is not lost on even the most dense TSA screener.
Screeners drool over these celebrities all the time. Britney Spears with her frozen drink is but one example. So, all it takes is for a screener to direct Britney into a nude-o-scope and to tell the operator in the booth, "Save this one." In case the TSA records these conversations, the two of them could agree on an ordinary word or phrase to be used as a signal to the operator to save the next passenger's images.
If you read the procurement specification for the nude-o-scopes, you would understand that there is one individual, by job title, who has access to the operations versus test mode password. This person is called a "superuser" or a similar title. He or she is a low-level systems administration technician. The Federal Security Director doesn't even have this password.
All this would take is a pre-arrangement between two screeners and the superuser to allow this to happen at a nude-o-scope somewhere. All it would take to actually do this is a little up-front case from a blog or Hollywood rag wanting to pay for the images.
So, Ms Kelli, don't tell us it cani't happen, because I'm just described how it CAN and probably will happen. Oh yeah -- the superuser also has the access necessary to cover his/her tracks in the software.
"So needless to say, there is no way that we would know who is who when looking at the image "
Kellymae, that is just so wrong.
As long as the screeners are not forced to empty their pockets before entering their room there is a very simple way they would know who is coming through.
It is called a cell phone.
That cell phone also provides the operator with a way of recording the image.
If you think this will not happen you have a naive view of the behavior your co-workers are capable of.
Kellymae, it looks like someone wanting to tip the scanner operator off about who is coming through won't even need a cell phone.
Your latest blog post informs us that the operator will have a channel of communication to someone at the scanner.
The same way the UK abuse/incident was facilitated.
Anonymous seems surprised that there would be a communications link between the checkpoint and the person reviewing the images.
As if that's not expected. How ELSE would that work... who cares if you saw a gun on screen... if you couldn't contact anyone to halt the passenger's progress.
Come on guys... there's a point where your objections are just absurd. No, there isn't going to be some 100% foolproof system where NO money is spent, the technology is PERFECT and there's no chance for human error. That shouldn't be a requirement, since as a race, perfection seems fleeting...
Scott, Kellimae claimed, "there is no way that we would know who is who when looking at the image"
As you so quickly pointed out, there are obvious ways for someone to let the scanner operator know who they are looking at.
This is not about seeking perfection. This is about preventing abuse. This is about getting better, more accurate, more realistic responses than, "there is no way that we would know who is who when looking at the image."
(This came up in another post, but this question will probably be asked again, so I figured I'd cut and paste...)
Anonymous said... So when these devices fail or need servicing at the airport they will be transported back to the laboratories or testing facilities? I can bet you that the technician will place the device into test mode at the airport if it needs servicing. It is possible, and probable that screeners will soon learn how to do just that. April 5, 2010 4:17 PM
--------------------------------
Test mode is not utilized by technicians for maintenance. It is only used in lab environments for testing.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Is there any way to fly across the country without being raped and molested by the TSA? I'm not a terrorist or a criminal. I'm just a taxpaying citizen who believes in freedom.
@ Anonymous, you aren't merely a taxpayer, you're a disgrace. Raped and molested? Spoken like someone who should sit down and hear the story of someone whose been through such a terrible thing. There are hundreds of ways to fly without having that done, they are called airports. You may be searched and scanned, however.
When will these new machines be used? Are they used only when secondary screening is indicated?
Before fully trusting the TSA's reports herein, I'd go first read the publicly available patents and patent applications AS&E, Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Rapiscan, and Spectrum San Diego currently hold or have filed on these devices (Google now has a nice free patent search program). TSA is not revealing the full-range of capabilities of these machines. Hell, look at the sales brochures available at the web sites of the respective sellers.
The sooner EPIC and/or ACLU challenges the legality of these machines, the better off American liberty will be. The statistical chance of dying in a terrorist attack is less than being killed by a lightening strike or shark attack (but you still go outside and swim in the ocean, right?). Terrorism/hijackings have existed as long as commercial aircraft have. The number of incidents peaked in the 70s and have went down before these new technologies. The loss of everyone's liberty simply isn't worth the minuscule risk. It's not a fair trade.
Anon sez - "Can the use of these machines detect tampons?"
Not that I know of, it also can't detect things inserted in the rectal cavity. However, it can detect metallic and non-metallic items concealed under the clothing.
West
TSA Blog Team
This statement is patently false. I've worked with these technologies. It definitely can detect items in the rectal and vaginal cavities. It's likely set to scan to 10 mm (it can scan deeper). At 10 mm, you can tell that the vagina or anus is occluded. You just can't be confident with what. Which makes this entire exercise completely silly if it was true. If it's true and terrorists are so evil that they are sending children with explosives, and they are so sophisticated that they could build a shoe bomb (just no able to properly detonate it), why wouldn't they put an explosive device in their rectum?
We constantly hear that the Xray machines are safe. This is false. I am a trained Xray Technologist. I have a degree and years of experience. No amount of ionizing radiation is safe. Someone somewhere will get cancer because of these machines if they are used. I assume safety means that the person who does get cancer cannot prove definitely that the cancer was caused by TSA screening thus the TSA is safe from a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. Pregnant women and chilren are the most susciptible for radiation are they exempt from scanners? Are your TSA scan operators licensed in dispensing ioniazing radiation? Is the scannign done in a lead lined room or is everyone within six feet radiated? DO your operators wear dosimeters or are they victims of the TSa as well? Americans need to wake up and realize we are trading our freedom for a supposed safety that IS NOT guarenteed.
The reported likelihood that the backscatter scatters will cause a fatal cancer is 1 in 40million. Of course the probably of being killed by a terrorist on an airport is 1 in 44million. So again, the government is willing to kill you to look like they are doing something.
Also note that they do not release the probability of the machine causing cancer which is at least 10times greater than dying of it.
Never mind that this machine violates two articles of the Bill of Rights:
4th: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...
1st: ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (how do you assemble without travel??)
Has the use of the technology been suspended until you complete re-testing the radiation levels?
Has the use of the technology been suspended until you complete your re-testing to determine if we are safer in Japan vs screened at TSA twice a day?
Post a Comment