These were provided to TSA by the manufacturer of the technology, L-3. We asked L-3 to blur the facial features just like they are blurred when our officers see the images in Phoenix, Baltimore, LAX and JFK. These are exactly what officers see at airports today and will see in future deployments.
While we have said this many times, it bears repeating, TSA will not keep, store or transmit images. Once deleted, they are gone forever. For additional privacy, the officer viewing the image is in a separate room and will never see the passenger and the officer attending to the passenger will never see the image. The officers have 2-way radios to communicate with other in case a threat object is identified.
I venture to say, Mikhail Baryshnikov may have exposed more in his ballet costume than these robotic images portray.Why did we decide to put them up now? Because you've asked for it... Hopefully the editors of Reader's Digest will consider these for their next cover.
What do you think?
- Bob
05/10/08 6:10 p.m. Christopher said:
There have been a couple of incorrect assumptions made regarding the actual screening that I feel are important to clear up.
The actual scan itself takes about 2.5 seconds. That is the length of time a passenger should stand still in the machine (which is clear Plexiglas, allowing passengers to view their items as they come out of the x-ray used to inspect carry-on bags). The remaining time, between 15-45 seconds, is used by the officer at the remote viewing location to evaluate the image. During that time, the passenger can move around at will next to the machine while the officer attending the machine waits to hear via wireless comms that the image is free of any potential threats. This is an important point as ALL items must be removed from passenger's pockets prior to entering the millimeter wave machine because they will show up and must be removed to ensure they are not threat items.
A couple of bloggers have advocated for the officer viewing the image to be out in the public area. We specifically require the remote location to protect the privacy of passengers using the machine. We just don’t think it’s appropriate for other passengers, airport, airline employees or just anybody walking by to see the images, much less snap a photo with a camera phone or anything else and post that image to TMZ.com or who knows where. That’s also why officers are not allowed to bring anything, including phones, bags or other items into the remote viewing location.
While we’re still collecting acceptance stats, the early word is that a great majority (more than 85 percent) of passengers prefer using this machine in lieu of a pat-down, which contrary to one poster takes much longer than 5 seconds and requires physical contact.
Hope this information helps.
Christopher
EoS Blog Team
191 comments:
its about time...
I wouldn't want my kindergarden seeing those but they are not outright offensive (though the concept of the scan still is). However, if your that convinced there not a big deal, why not at least but the scanners out in view. There are plenty of other means of allowing privacy for the images besides hiding the screeners.
Those images look altered to me. In the original (see the link bellow to original images) found on line, underwear and nipples were clearly visible.
Even with the alterations, No one is going to see me like that.
But thank you for finally posting them. Now please answer why we can't see the screener analysing the images.
Interesting to see - thanks for posting. I am impressed with this blog!
(From a regular traveler from the UK to the US.)
Some credit is due for finally posting this stuff, however, the resolution is horrible. How about posting what your operator is going to actually see? And then, make sure those are vividly posted at the airport for anyone who is directed to one of these machines. Your acceptance level will plummet.
This is disgusting, gross, and stupid. Why don't you spend some of this money on trace detection technology so we don't have to play the lame liquid and shoe games Bob?
hey and we only had to ask several hundred times.
Ta-Da...
Thank you Blogger Bob, Kip and anyone else at the TSA that put pressure on the "powers that be" to release the images. See it only hurt a little. ;-)
Thank you to all that kept up the pressure to have the images shown. Everybody take a bow. (warning do not take a bow at your desk... stand up first... trust me on this)
The people's voice in action sure does make for a good Friday.
Too revealing.
This is just one step closer to full color 1080i High Def "please remove your underpants" in-person strip searches. There's got to be a line, and I believe this has crossed that line.
Seriously, what will 2.0 look like, and at what point will the TSA declare a security risk for sharing what future scans look like?
Read 1984. This is how it all starts.
Bob, thanks for posting the images -- finally. They are every bit as underwhelming as I expected they would be. Now why are they not posted at the entrance to the screening area? I happened to walk by Phoenix checkpoint D where they have one of those infernal strip search machines. I expect to see all four of those images posted prominently with an advisory sign in English and Spanish saying that this is what will be seen if you are referred for secondary screening; that you have the right to refuse to go through secondary screening in this manner and request a pat down without prejudice; and that there will be no undue delay to provide same should you request it.
At that point, see just how many people opt for the virtual strip search versus the pat down.
It is time for the ACLU to take this up. This goes far beyond the pale of routine administrative search. I have referred this to both my local and the national chapters of the ACLU and I urge other readers to do the same.
Thanks to all who kept the pressure up to get these images out there. Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.
Those are not acceptable and they are also not what your scanners will see. You admit that you had L3 specially create them for you for this purpose as opposed to taking them from a real machine. Also you conveniently down sampled them to lower their resolution. Oddly, we are not morons despite what your boss thinks.
Will operators of this machine see only still images, or will they see live video?
Brandon said...
Too revealing.
This is just one step closer to full color 1080i High Def "please remove your underpants" in-person strip searches. There's got to be a line, and I believe this has crossed that line.
Seriously, what will 2.0 look like, and at what point will the TSA declare a security risk for sharing what future scans look like?
Read 1984. This is how it all starts.
I think this will eliminate the "in person" strip search.
I disagree with you that the image is too revealing BUT, you have your modesty standards and I have mine.
Because of differing modesty standards I think the TSA needs to post these images at the check point and not just of the one man's backside.
I think most people will opt for the MMW instead of being "groped" but it must be our decision to make.
As for Version 2.0 I will worry about that when it gets here. If the TSA tries to pull the same stonewall they did this time they will be met with the same protest. This world is not the same one of just 20 years ago when most of the higher ups in Government started. The old guard does not understand instant information and the ability to search and compare tons of documents in just a few hours.
correct me of im wrong. but isnt this an option?
if you dont want to be patted down, wouldnt it be easier?
if you've never had a full body pat down, which includes 'sensative areas' why would you object to this?
i would much rather have a guy look a my backside, then touch it.
First of all, thanks for posting the pictures finally.
Some questions:
Why would TSA use these primitive pictures, when there is technology like in several links shown, that is capable of so much more detailed pictures? Don't you waste money when you only use the second best technology?
You said that it will takes 45-60 seconds for the screening process, I guess you are not allowed to move much, how are you capable to watch your personal belongings?
I wouldn't use this thing, imagine 60 seconds inside, without shoes, without your personal things, knowing that another person is watching you and your are almost naked.
Okay, now about the issue with the liquids...
I just thought of something, what do you do with the large breasted women?
If the MMW only penetrates the clothes but does not go past the skin, I could see someone stashing something under their breast.
I assume the people being screened by the MMW have to go through the metal detector first, but what about non metallic contraband?
Before anyone thinks I am being silly, I had a customer once that pulled a wad of keys (10-15 keys) on a mace keychain, a checkbook, a wallet, a pack of cigarettes, Zippo lighter and a pen from one bra cup. It was like watching a magic show.
Thanks for the images.
Now that you guys have limbered up your graphics tools would you mind posting a copy of Iron Man so I can save a few bucks?
Thanks.
Anonymous said...
Those are not acceptable and they are also not what your scanners will see. You admit that you had L3 specially create them for you for this purpose as opposed to taking them from a real machine. Also you conveniently down sampled them to lower their resolution. Oddly, we are not morons despite what your boss thinks.
Come on now, there have been links to the front and back images from non TSA sources on this blog. What Blogger Bob posted is consistant with the non TSA sources.
L3 ProVision brochure
Brisbane Times
LaTimes
LaTimes
Wow! The images are here! Thank you for FINALLY listening to us.
Can you now please:
1. Post these same images on the explanatory posters in front of the scanners.
2. Change the scanning system so people do the scans in private and can see the person evaluating the image, as in Heathrow. The Heathrow system is better for many reasons: there is no public embarrassment for the person scanned (remember you currently have to stand there for a full minute with your arms up in front of everyone), the screener is guaranteed not to do anything unacceptable while viewing images and personal belongings can be taken into the scanning area and watched by the person during the whole process.
3. Assure us that persons opting out will not be subjected to extra hassle because of this option.
Considering that the average pat down lasts 5 seconds, the graphic nature of these pictures (posted without the resolution I would have liked) and the fact I have no clue what the person viewing the images is doing, I am opting out. I think everyone should be able to make their own, well informed, choice.
As a frequent flyer, I am still kind of stumped as to why folks are so up in arms about these? Personally, it seems to me to be a bit of "thou dost complain too much..."
To me, the issues with real meat are those of a Constitutional level, not an "oh my God, you saw my winkie!".
So, if complaining loudly enough gets a response, then how about you show me a Constitutional basis for the RealID? Come on now, show me somewhere in the Constitition that it eliminates the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption - if you are fighting terrorists... THESE are some of the more revealing things I would like to see.... and I will gladly show you just about anything you want of my physical person... including, but not limited to, my winkie.
Ahh, not bad... the only concern I have left is where to put our personal belonging... I'm not sure I can trust anyone to watch over my stuff while I'm in the scanner. You guys should think that through.
Trollkiller said...
I just thought of something, what do you do with the large breasted women?
If the MMW only penetrates the clothes but does not go past the skin, I could see someone stashing something under their breast...
It is not as easy of a feat as you may think. Yes, I suppose a larger breasted woman, or even a larger person could hide something under a skin fold. I would assume that the process of raising your arms could dislodge a strategically placed item.
May I suggest same sex viewing? As a female, I would much prefer another female viewing my image. Maybe it would be a little more difficult, but if it takes 60 seconds to view each image it wouldn't be that hard to judge who the next person in line is and have a screener of the same sex ready. Guys seem to care less then women, maybe they would prefer a female viewer too....
Oh...and btw. Thanks for posting the images. The recommendations on here to have these images visible at the checkpoints are good ideas.Just so everyone knows what they are getting into... I like the fact that the viewer won't see the passenger, but I wouldn't mind seeing the viewer. I can see where people with metal implants, who always set off the metal detector and receive a groping may opt for this scanner, but I don't see the benefit to someone who would otherwise pass thru without a problem.
Alright guys, let's give credit where credit is due.
Thanks DHS/TSA/DOD whatever, for posting these...
They are not the strip show, that at least I myself were expecting...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the operator could be seen by the public and maybe the signs need to be in Spanish, Chinese, Swahili or whatever, but come on...
This minor accomplishment is huge for what normally is such an unnesecarily secretive agency...
Maybe this blog can end up actually being more than just a PR tool...
A few tech questions:
You claim the images are never stored, how is that achieved.
1: Do the images only exist in memory space?
2: If the image ever placed on a hard drive of any kind, they are in fact "stored".
3: If the images are in fact placed on a hard drive of any kind, which wipe method does the device use to ensure no trace is left:
US DOD 5220.22-m(8-306. /E,C and E)
US DOD 5220.22-m(8-306. /E)
Gutmann
Pseudorandom Data
?
Does it include cluster tips?
If the image only exists in memory, what method is used to protect against a memory dump? Is the image encrypted in memory space? Is the memory volatile or non-volatile?
Any technology professional will tell you that words "can't happen" are not in the technology dictionary. In fact, any time any technical claim that something was "unhackable" it has quickly been proven to the contrary.
On more question, you claim the device uses a proprietary image format, how was this achieved?
Did the creators code an entirely new image format? or was this format modeled off of another format?
Anonymous writes:
Those are not acceptable and they are also not what your scanners will see. You admit that you had L3 specially create them for you for this purpose as opposed to taking them from a real machine.
Look, give Bob a break on this one.
He's said, repeatedly, that the MMV machines don't have the ability to preserve images, so that screeners can't make copies of individual passenger's scans. This is an attempt to respect passenger privacy.
So, when a thousand bloggers have been asking for copies of the scans, HE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM, BECAUSE THE MACHINE CAN'T MAKE A COPY! He had no choice but to go back to the manufacturer and ask them to provide the images.
YAY! The whiners can finally whine about something else now.
Wait nevermind, we want higher res photos, photos of what a large breasted woman looks like to make sure they are not hiding anything. If a child goes through is it considered child porn?
We want to know what file format, is it memory or not? Is the person looking at me a male or female? Are they gonna be skinny or fat?
Does members the ACLU have to go though, I think they should have to, mandatory. Don't trust those poeple as far I can throw one.
HMmmm, can't think of anything else to whine about the MMW, guess I got to go back to the dog post to whine about the inhumane doggy treats they give.
That post is very good, thank you it is very interesting ;)
Anonymous said...
YAY! The whiners can finally whine about something else now.
Wait nevermind, we want higher res photos, photos of what a large breasted woman looks like to make sure they are not hiding anything. If a child goes through is it considered child porn?
We want to know what file format, is it memory or not? Is the person looking at me a male or female? Are they gonna be skinny or fat?
Does members the ACLU have to go though, I think they should have to, mandatory. Don't trust those poeple as far I can throw one.
HMmmm, can't think of anything else to whine about the MMW, guess I got to go back to the dog post to whine about the inhumane doggy treats they give.
And the idiot troll has something else to try his unique brand of sarcasm on. Why don't you go back to the witty banter you had about bathroom scales?
Christopher,
We are not asking for the screeners to be in the public area viewing the scans. We are asking for the person to be scanned and viewer (same sex) to be in a separate location, where the scan and analysis is done. Look up how it is done in London.
Christopher
Having the employee doing the screening review out where s/he can be observed by the public does not require the image to be viewable by the public. Put the employee's back to the wall and have the screen facing the wall, or use a hood, or use a privacy cover on the screen to narrow the viewing angle. Just a few top of the head ideas. BUT have the employee viewing the screen out in public so we can see that s/he doesn't point out "interesting" subjects to coworkers or snicker or otherwise act inappropriately.
That said, I will choose to opt out as I do not want your employees looking at the non-metallic contents of my pockets. particularly when they are out of my control on a table someplace.
It really seems like you are just looking for excuses to conduct a more thorough search.
Christoper said...
A couple of bloggers have advocated for the officer viewing the image to be out in the public area. We specifically require the remote location to protect the privacy of passengers using the machine. We just don’t think it’s appropriate for other passengers, airport, airline employees or just anybody walking by to see the images, much less snap a photo with a camera phone or anything else and post that image to TMZ.com or who knows where. That’s also why officers are not allowed to bring anything, including phones, bags or other items into the remote viewing location.
Ok Christopher, that is a load of bull. If traveler's privacy was an issue you would not fondle our underwear in view of other people.
Privacy of the person being screen is easily accomplished by blocking the area behind and to the sides of the screener with cubicle walls and placing a privacy screen the monitor.
Be honest, the reason why you want to hide the TSO viewing the image is you don't trust your people. You don't trust that they will behave themselves and not make crass or stupid comments within earshot of the passenger.
Seeing some of what the TSA hires I really can't blame you for wanting to hide them.
The other reason you wish to hide the TSO viewing the image is it will allow males to view females and vice-versa.
Logistically it would be a nightmare to have same sex screeners viewing the image.
You would either need two machines or two people in the viewing area with one turning their back at a time. Production would stop if one of them had to use the restroom.
The simple solution without having to buy two machines for every station is to place the screener viewing the image by the machine and staff those positions with nurses.
Most people are not afraid of a nurse of either sex seeing them naked. The thought process is the nurse has seen it all before.
Give the nurses a different uniform shoulder patch with the medical staff and snake emblem to differentiate them from your regular TSOs.
When a passenger objects because the viewer is not the same sex you simply tell them "it's ok they are a nurse".
Added bonus is you will have someone that is properly trained to handle a medical emergency unlike now when you must rely on being lucky.
Kudos to Chris Harrington that was a good catch, but what if had been someone else?
Anonymous said...
A few tech questions:
You claim the images are never stored, how is that achieved.
1: Do the images only exist in memory space?
2: If the image ever placed on a hard drive of any kind, they are in fact "stored".
3: If the images are in fact placed on a hard drive of any kind, which wipe method does the device use to ensure no trace is left:
And a whole bunch of other geeky stuff.
Wow, and I thought I was picky. You left out the possibility of intercepting the data as it is being sent from the MMW to the viewer. I mean is the data conduit set up with vibration and vacuum sensors? What about shielding? Is the data encrypted from point A to point B? Will they have armed guards stationed along the whole conduit?
I am being a bit snarky but everything above except for the armed guards was standard security for the data line running to the secure print lab at Pratt & Whitney.
Ok that was fun, now let's deal in the realistic world, the data (images) from the MMW device are not valuable enough to worry about data wipes and purging the memory so that absolutely no residual data is left.
I am more concerned about a TSO being able to sneak in a thumb drive with a screen capture program on it. Even if they don't have a screen capture program they can simply hit the Print Screen key and paste the image into Paint.
To Blogger Bob or Christopher:
Has the TSA tested the program to see if you can capture the image with PRT SCR and Paint?
I read two posts with interest, one from an anonymous individual and one from Christopher who thought it a good idea to add onto Bob's comments on the blog post. First to Christopher's comment:
While we’re still collecting acceptance stats, the early word is that a great majority (more than 85 percent) of passengers prefer using this machine in lieu of a pat-down, which contrary to one poster takes much longer than 5 seconds and requires physical contact.
While I am not privy to your raw data or to your sampling methods, my best guess is that the people whom you have sampled are not fully aware of what some random individual in some unknown part of the airport will see (they have not seen all 4 pictures that we fought so hard to see for example and do not necessarily know that they will have to stand with their hands in the air with pockets empty prior to saying that "yeah, sure, if you don't have to touch me, I'd rather go through the machine."). If you are honest with people and present WBI for what it is, a virtual strip search, and show them the pictures, your acceptance rate for this will plummet.
And on to our Anonymous poster who writes:
YAY! The whiners can finally whine about something else now.
Wait nevermind, we want higher res photos, photos of what a large breasted woman looks like to make sure they are not hiding anything. If a child goes through is it considered child porn?
We want to know what file format, is it memory or not? Is the person looking at me a male or female? Are they gonna be skinny or fat?
Does members the ACLU have to go though, I think they should have to, mandatory. Don't trust those poeple as far I can throw one.
I know you think you are so very right in your outright condemnation of the good people (including myself) who are holding the TSA (and by extension our whole government) to a high standard of truth as "whiners." To do that though shows a sad and remarkable ignorance of what this country is really about.
After we won our independence from the British we were so fearful of centralized government power that we set up a government under the Articles of Confederation that could not truly hold the country together. Faced with this the founding fathers replaced the Articles with the Constitution which provides for substantial but limited powers for the federal government. And even that was too much for some without an explicit declaration of inviolable rights that would be reserved to individual citizens, which is the principal reason the Bill of Rights came into being concurrently with the Constitution. It is our right as American citizens to petition our government for redress when we feel we have been wronged by the government -- directly or indirectly and to force the government to carry out its actions in the light of public scrutiny.
You Sir, may well support the TSA and everything it does. That's fine. That is your right. I, on the other hand, do not. It is my considered and reasoned opinion that the TSA oversteps constitutional limits on government infringement on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self incrimination, freedom from deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law, and equal protection under the law. I feel that it generally pushes the limits of what the courts have defined as reasonable warrantless administrative searches. I feel that its upper management is not fit to occupy the offices it does based on its inability to properly manage budget priorities and on the misdirection of limited resources to the areas of airport security that provide the least actual additional security for anyone. That is my opinion and it is my right to express it. There are others out there with opinions not dissimilar to mine who have expressed them here and in other forums.
You may disagree with me on any or all points and may in fact debate me, but to call me or anyone else a "whiner" does not advance the discussion and just makes you look rather foolish.
On the other hand, the freedom of expression gives you the right to make a fool out of yourself, and I've got a pretty thick skin personally (and I'll bet most of the other "whiners" in here do too), so if you really need to call people names like some kind of schoolyard bully for doing the right thing, well you go right ahead.
Bravo to the TSA for finally doing the right thing. While I would definitely not post those pictures on the cover of reader's digest or hang them in a kindergarten classroom they aren't that bad.
But there is another problem.
You've actually responded to blog comments.
Do you know what that means?
Twice as many comments about the insane 3-1-1 rule as before. More requests for you to reveal how you violated the laws of chemistry.
So how much snargleberry juice did Professor Snape say you needed for the exploding potion?
Ayn, adding on to the following:
You've actually responded to blog comments.
Do you know what that means?
Twice as many comments about the insane 3-1-1 rule as before. More requests for you to reveal how you violated the laws of chemistry.
It also means a great many more questions about how only a mere 7 years after 9/11 that the TSA is just "thinking" about the fact that not everyone who goes into the sterile areas of an airport gets checked each time that person enters. This to me represents as big an actual security risk as the MMW represents an unconstitutional invasion of personal privacy.
I actually had seen some frontal images in several newspapers. What you posted were of a lesser quality than I saw in the LA Times, which, by the way, was an official TSA test.
Don't think for a nanosecond that you have made this issue go away by a myopic view that we will all go away because you have honored our request -- no, our DEMAND -- for full disclosure.
You haven't -- the fight has just begun. How about these for starters:
1. The 85% of those you polled who said they preferred the strip search over a grope responded under a stressful and high-pressure environment. They had already been selected for a secondary, which, especially under the stress of a checkpoint, will force people (especially infrequent flyers) into a less than reasoned choice. Had they been given full disclosure -- all images, active RF emitter, separation from their belongings -- and had more then 5 seconds to decide, there's no way this 85% figure would hold up. So, don't flatter yourselves. Your "poll" was basically for people to decide between lethal injection and the firing squad.
2. I demand to confront my accuser. If I ever submit to this strip search, I want the same opportunity to look my accusers right in the eye, just like at the checkpoint. I don't buy your argument that we can't see the images. The X-ray guy is right in front of me with the screen away from the passengers. Do the right thing and put the stripsearcher right in front of me. Besides, how will I know his first name and badge number when I fill out a compliment form???
What are you afraid of?
3. Being separated from one's personal belongings for this period of time is simply unacceptable.
4. It's only a matter of time before you find someone who is physically unqualified to go through this thing. Other posters have mentioned large-breasted women or obese people with rolls of body fat. Then, I fully expect a hoard of screeners to violate the ADA, someone's civil rights, and several other discrimination laws.
5. This thing is an active RF emitter, and you have not come clean on its parameters and potential hazards, both individual doses and long-term exposure.
6. Like several other posters, I simply don't believe your assertion that the images can't be saved, transmitted, or printed. You can't buy any IT system on this planet today that does not contain these features. The best you can do is to disable them, which is a simple command from a sys admin guy. There is a buffer or temporary file somewhere is this system, it simply can't operate without one. If it's temporary, it can be made permanent.
7. How soon before this stripsearch device becomes mandatory?
How much of our money are you spending on this garbage? As I said above, the fight has just begun.
TK-
to be fair you are assuming that they are using a viewing console/program with some base OS that we are all familiar with. That may or may not be the case, so lets take a look!
Given that the brochure shows the viewing console as a screen keyboard and mouse, I think we can make a few assumptions/comments:
1) there is some form of controller somewhere. And given that there doesn't appear to be any interface capabilities on the machine, its likely remote. Something needs to be used (hardware and software) to initiate the scans and control the machine and take the image.
2)(based on that) there needs to be some sort of interface that can be used to load software upgrades and other sorts of things into the machine. What type of interface?
3) looking through the brochure, I notice that the viewing screen has fast forward, play, stop, and rewind buttons. That seems to me that the scans must be stored somewhere otherwise there would be nothing to rewind to...
4)It has a keyboard...why? all the controls on the screen used for viewing appear to be more than controllable through the mouse. Does CTRL ALT DEL kick you out of the full screen forced program?(like it does on a lot of internet portals including those at mcdonalds and disneyland)
5)It states that it runs on a windows based PC...that makes the anonymous technophiles concerns much more valid. Where is the PC, what is used, who has acces, what ports are on it.
6)what does the enhanced scanning
option in the brochure refer to?
7)To challenge thou who said "they had to go to the manufacturer to be able to save the pic because the machines can't" Well they generated it now so how did they do that. Also, they had rear shots already posted...care to explain TSA how you got these?
I'll come back in two weeks and ask for all the answers again...
So you say the images are not offensive but you will not put the examiner in a public area?
Jim,
Re: "So, when a thousand bloggers have been asking for copies of the scans, HE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM, BECAUSE THE MACHINE CAN'T MAKE A COPY!"
Sure he can -- You get a waiver from a willing scanee, take a digital SLR camera into the room and take photos. You show the room where the TSA agent sits, and the actual screen that they will be looking at.
Ok guys I can't stand it anymore, the TSA logo on the Twitter site is choppy. I took the liberty of cleaning it up for you.
Large Logo
Small Logo
I think this system is great i would rather stand in this for 2.5 seconds than letting somebody pat me down i dont know why i feel very odd doing that... thanks a lot for clearing up some of the miss conceptions about this system..
Blogger Bob, Chris, et al-again, thanks for finally providing the MMW images.
To follow-up on, I believe it was Blogger Bob who, in an earlier thread re: the MMW machines, outlined a list of facilities where these machines are currently in use, namely a variety of courthouses & at least 1 prison. I should have asked you at the time, but who is subjected to the MMW machines in those facilities? Those who are entering 'voluntarily' (such as judges & guards) or 'involuntarily' (I'm pretty sure you can figure out who I'm talking about).
You see, I can think of only one reason a prison would employ a machine like this & that's to negate the need for cavity searches. Frankly, any machine that could find contraband in a cavity, will leave little to the imagination.
Again, if those who have been screened using this machine in an airport knew this, my guess is your '85% acceptance' rate would fall thru the floor.
Christopher,
Could you please tell us how those acceptance rates were measured? If they were a tally on the answer to a question like "please step into that machine" then 85% is actually quite low, considering we have been conditioned over the years to do whatever a TSA officer says to do "or else".
The only fair assessment would be if the person is clearly told they have two equal choices: (1) step into the machine that will take an image of their body like these (show the pictures you posted for us) which will be viewed by an officer in a remote location or (2) get a pat down of such and such areas of your body, with the back of the hand of officer X (show officer).
I am sure that given these choices, some persons would prefer not to be patted, while others would prefer not to have an unseen stranger see the outline of their body. We just have to ensure the choices are fair, and that "acceptance rates" are measured to reflect a fair choice.
I wrote:
"So, when a thousand bloggers have been asking for copies of the scans, HE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM, BECAUSE THE MACHINE CAN'T MAKE A COPY!"
The Dave replied:
Sure he can -- You get a waiver from a willing scanee, take a digital SLR camera into the room and take photos. You show the room where the TSA agent sits, and the actual screen that they will be looking at.
And then all of the conspiracy theorists (who might be right, of course) will complain that this isn't the actual image, because the process of taking a high-quality photo of a high-quality screen will still, inevitably, lead to a loss of quality on the image. And they'll still demand a copy of the actual image seen on the screen.
So, Bob loses either way ...
Trollkiller said...
Ok guys I can't stand it anymore, the TSA logo on the Twitter site is choppy. I took the liberty of cleaning it up for you.
Thanks, Trollkiller. Hey, let me know if you are looking for a job in the web or blog field.... I know people...
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
What about people with different kinds of bodies (transgender, intersex, etc)? What are you doing to protect this vulnerable population from the ignorance of your agents?
THIS IS A NO-WIN SITUATION.
Neil said...
Thanks, Trollkiller. Hey, let me know if you are looking for a job in the web or blog field.... I know people...
If you think someone may be interested in my opinionated talents you can email me at troll.killer@rebelmodel.com
p.s. You can post this as I can kill that addy if it gets too clogged with spam.
well, there go my 4th amendment rights. privacy is apparently a thing of the past in this country. (don't suggest the whole - if you don't want to fly, you don't have to. business trips require you to fly.)
also - as someone who's pretty decent with computers. if you can't "download/copy" an image to save it, all you have to do is print screen and paste it into a paint image or word doc, so don't be as naive to say that these screeners can't keep a little memento if they don't want to.
Trollkiller said...
Logistically it would be a nightmare to have same sex screeners viewing the image.
No it wouldn't be a nightmare. It may be more complicated than having just one xray operator assigned, but not a nightmare. If a male is in the machine, than the male operator would be viewing, and the female operator could be collecting the items of the male passenger...or at least watching the items.
Great, good job.
However, I am still going to have to pass on using this technology. See, some of us have already had events in our lives that show us as succeptable to radiation effects and don't wnat to try it again.
In my case, it appears that I aquired cancer from electromagnetic radiation. While I survived the cancer and the treatment, I am not going to accept "dosage levels" that YOU say is safe, if I know I am in the small percentage that is already proven on the wrong end of the bell curve.
Bob & Christopher:
Why are the mmwave images not SSI? If TSA's rationale for protecting x-ray images is that release would allow terrorists to learn TSA's configurations and capabilities, does this not also apply to mmwave images? Have you just undercut your own arguments?
Bob,
I know it took some time but thanks for being thorough. I can also see that all will never be happy. I will continue to view this blog, it does not guarantee fast answers but it is good to see answers.
You won't have to worry about the transgender population because officers that see the x-ray image will not be able to see who goes into the MMW portal.
Well Bob and Chris, you appear to have hit a home run with the posting of the images. But, as we can see, some people are never satisfied nor will you be the first to do so.
So, your think your operators are good enough to visually detect a snap blade tucked under a guy's junk from these thumbnails? Either you are showing better images to your operators or you are showing worse images to us.
Are you going to use your Threat Image Projection to try to manage your visual detection rates on this system as well?
HEY WINSTON!
winstonsmith said...
[snip] Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.
GAO audit 08-48T
...GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers. The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. .... In addition, the second device was an IID created by combining commonly available products (one of which is a liquid) that TSA prohibits in carry-on luggage. .... Tests that GAO performed at a national laboratory in July 2007, in addition to prior tests in February 2006 that GAO performed in partnership with a law enforcement organization in the Washington, D.C., metro area, clearly demonstrated that a terrorist using these devices could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf
Anonymous said...
So, your think your operators are good enough to visually detect a snap blade tucked under a guy's junk from these thumbnails? Either you are showing better images to your operators or you are showing worse images to us.
Are you going to use your Threat Image Projection to try to manage your visual detection rates on this system as well?
You just look for the guy walking real slow and careful.
Would TSA like to discuss the accruacy of the MMW images at the following link?
http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave2.jpg
I read an interesting piece recently about a screening at DCA: See here. Would you care to comment?
Engineer chiming in here...
There are two aspects to electromagnetic safety. One is frequency (wavelength), the other is amplitude. Sufficient amplitude is always dangerous, but some frequencies are safe - which is why our bodies have organs trained to detect certain frequencies. We call these organs "eyes". Unless the TSA is considering some different range of frequencies to be MMW (and I doubt they are doing that) then we are discussing frequencies that are between microwave and infrared - milimeter wave as is described.
Low frequency (high wavelength) radiation is non-ionizing. That's important to consider. While the amplitude can be dangerous (and there's nothing to indicate that the TSA is using such amplitude) the frequency really is safe. This type of radiation is of a higher frequency than the microwave used to cook your food, but is less than that of visible light. The worst that a large does of it can do is to cause you to overheat. This could result in death as the heated water molecules cause cell membranes to rupture, and certain organs in our body have high fluid content (such as the eyes which would cause blindness). But assuming there is no heat damage from the exposure then as soon as the radiation is removed the person is in a safe environment. Our bodies can absorb a certain amount of heat, which is why we can take hot showers and can go out on hot days. In this case the only real consideration is amplitude, and we'd know pretty quickly if we were being subjected to too much.
On the other hand are the high freqency (low wavelength) radiation, such as x-rays or gamma-rays, ionizing radiation. If the TSA had used actual x-rays then there would be cause for concern because there really is no safe dosage, no safe amplitude. Because it is ionizing, the effect is lingering, and therefore cumulative. This is the radiation that causes cancer because it breaks up atomic bonds. Many years after exposure this type of radiation can still be present which is why radiation meters (geiger counters) still read higher than normal levels in Hiroshima.
No regular reader of these comments could mistake me for a defender of the TSA, but since the TSA is using non-ionizing radiation, the only physical concerns that we should have are amplitude. The privacy concerns, the 4th amendment concerns ... well, that is another issue entirely, and one the TSA really should be disbanded over.
GAO audit 08-48T
Because if it's a GAO report that talks about undisclosed liquids or detonators and was conducted in a unnamed "national lab" (presumably just like the lab they have on airplanes), why it must be the Gospel truth.
Of course, the government would never misguide its citizens for its own political gain. Why just the other day, I saw those stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq and Congress cut off all funding for the Iraq War because the oil there was paying for everything and then some.
Yes, anonymous, I've read the GAO audit, where they fail to identify HOW they violated the laws of chemistry or physics.
Because the 3-1-1 potion has a few key requirements:
1. You can mix them under conditions more primitive than a fully stocked laboratory. You need to be able to mix them in the terminal or on an airplane.
2. The individual chemicals have to fail to trigger the explosives sniffer.
THAT potion can only be brewed by a Hogwarts graduate. Do you think that may be why the TSA keeps not answering, relying on anonymous "useful fools" to keep up the statist security theater?
Anonymous said:
Well Bob and Chris, you appear to have hit a home run with the posting of the images. But, as we can see, some people are never satisfied nor will you be the first to do so.
You're right -- we're not satisfied. You know why? We, The People, require answers to these questions:
1. Where is your Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of this device? You are supposed to publish a draft PIA and permit public comment. Even Hazel, or whatever her name is, would remind you of that.
2. Tell us your standard for deleting and overwriting images. Even you bloggers and Kippie himself know that just hitting the "delete" button doesn't delete a file or image.
3. Tell us how we are going to be in sight of our possessions at all time. Tell us how you are going to ensure that either a screener or someone else will steal our stuff while we're being strip-searched.
4. Provide us with independent, peer-reviewed science concerning the amount of exposure to RF radiation, both single dose and long-term. Tell us how you will keep stray RF radiation from contaminating the innocent public who happens to walk by this thing. What is your "keep-out" zone and how will you designate it at every checkpoint?
See, TSA, we have a LOT of other legitimate questions. We, The People, require answers before we will permit you to use this device on us.
Get busy...
An Anonymous Person has tried to answer my call for validation of 3-1-1 with the following:
HEY WINSTON!
winstonsmith said...
[snip] Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.
GAO audit 08-48T
...GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers. The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. .... In addition, the second device was an IID created by combining commonly available products (one of which is a liquid) that TSA prohibits in carry-on luggage. .... Tests that GAO performed at a national laboratory in July 2007, in addition to prior tests in February 2006 that GAO performed in partnership with a law enforcement organization in the Washington, D.C., metro area, clearly demonstrated that a terrorist using these devices could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf
First, may I thank you for linking to a document. This is the kind of thing that actually helps advance a discussion. I am familiar with this document, but took a moment to re-read it (fortunately it is pretty short). The downside is that this particular document does not really make your case. Let's look at it.
First, a quick review of what the GAO was looking to achieve:
"At the Committee’s request, GAO tested whether security gaps exist in the passenger screening process. To perform this work, GAO attempted to (1) obtain the instructions and components needed to create devices that a terrorist might use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers and (2) test whether GAO investigators could pass through airport security checkpoints undetected with all the components needed to create the devices."
The GAO report does in fact state quite clearly that the investigators were able to get the component parts of both IEDs and an IID through the checkpoint even after 3-1-1 had been implemented including the liquid component of the IID. Interesting to note, the report states explicitly that the IID had liquid components to it but is silent as to the composition of the IEDs. It is likely, however, that if the IEDs had liquid components the report would have mentioned it though since it mentioned the liquid component of the IID. The report does also state that the IEDs and the IID, when assembled were most effective and could in fact cause extensive damage to a plane in flight.
What the report did not say, however, whether it would have been possible to assemble the IEDs or the IID outside the confines of a laboratory environment. It's one thing to get all the pieces to the puzzle in one place and quite another to put them together -- especially in the close quarters of an airplane. Dealing with volatile liquids in a plane in flight is an iffy proposition at best. Many explosives and incendiaries are highly temperature sensitive and can only come together in narrow temperature bands. These things are not addressed by the GAO report, just that under laboratory conditions they were able to create IEDs and an IID.
If you do a little reading up on the Bojinka plot (one of the favorite red herrings people like to pull out to justify 3-1-1) you'll find out that the people who were behind it abandoned the plot because the liquid explosives were too volatile to be reliable (despite the fact that they did manage successfully to plant a bomb that killed an individual on a Japanese airliner as part of a test for the larger plot).
So really, what you have given us is not much more than we had. We know that a liquid component (as to which, we don't know) of an IID can get through a checkpoint despite 3-1-1. We know that the GAO managed to get non liquid components of IEDs and and IID through security (which really kind of falls outside the discussion of 3-1-1). We know that IEDs and IIDs can be built and detonated in the right conditions but we don't know the nature of the IEDs or the IIDs or the conditions under which the testers built them so we can draw no real conclusions there.
Really the only apparent conclusion that we can draw from the report is that the TSA is incompetent -- or at least that it was at the time the GAO ran the tests. The GAO did say that it provided recommendations for improvement to TSA after it ran its tests; however, it is anyone's guess whether the TSA has actually implemented any of them or how well as we don't know what the recommendations were and I have a feeling that were we to ask the TSA would simply hide behind "SSI".
Again, thanks for bringing this study up. Even though it does not really make the case, it is definitely worth taking a look at these things.
Wow.
If this goes into affect then I don't know if I will be flying again. What a great way to kill the airline industry.
Think of all the Muslim women and their fathers, husbands and brothers. This would go over like a lead balloon.
Just a couple of responses:
First:
Anonymous said...
Would TSA like to discuss the accruacy of the MMW images at the following link?
http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave2.jpg
Those are backscatter images, not MMW.
Second:
Peter A. Stinson said...
I read an interesting piece recently about a screening at DCA: See here. Would you care to comment?
Lunitic Fringe comes to mind.
HEY WINSTON!
winstonsmith said...
An Anonymous Person has tried to answer my call for validation of 3-1-1 with the following:
HEY WINSTON!
winstonsmith said...
[snip] Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.
First, may I thank you for linking to a document. This is the kind of thing that actually helps advance a discussion. I am familiar with this document, but took a moment to re-read it (fortunately it is pretty short). The downside is that this particular document does not really make your case. Let's look at it.
Yes, by all means, let us look at it.
You go on to post:
The GAO report does in fact state quite clearly that the investigators were able to get the component parts of both IEDs and an IID through the checkpoint even after 3-1-1 had been implemented including the liquid component of the IID. Interesting to note, the report states explicitly that the IID had liquid components to it but is silent as to the composition of the IEDs.
My post quoted the report which you missed despite your re-read.
The GAO report states The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. It is hardly silent on whether the IEDs used explosives.
You go on to state:
We know that IEDs and IIDs can be built and detonated in the right conditions but we don't know the nature of the IEDs or the IIDs or the conditions under which the testers built them so we can draw no real conclusions there.
Is it fair to characterize your request as a request for the US government to prepare a How To guide? A guide titled "How To Construct IEDs And IIDs That Can Blow-up An Airplane And That TSA Has A Difficult Time Detecting ". Perhaps it could be subtitled "So Gadflys will feel better about the 3-1-1 rule".
I would prefer my tax dollars not be spent creating such a document.
Don't worry about your tax dollars being spend creating such a document - you cannot give instructions on how to do the impossible.
Ah Mr(s) Anonymous, ya caught me:
My post quoted the report which you missed despite your re-read.
The GAO report states The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. It is hardly silent on whether the IEDs used explosives.
I did in fact miss the fact that in your post and in the GAO report the IED was made up of a liquid and a low yield detonator. I would submit to you though that whether IED or IID, the argument is the same and just underlines the conclusion of TSA's general incompetence. The GAO was able to sneak the component parts for these devices through the checkpoints. The GAO report does not speak to whether once past security that the investigators would actually have been able to assemble a working device.
You continue to ask whether it would be fair to characterize my request as a request for the government to produce a "how to" manual for IED production. The answer to that is no. I actually would like the government to stay out of it. I do not trust the government, the US government under its current leadership in particular, but governments in general, to tell the truth about much of anything these days. I would like an independent non-governmental scientific body to come forward and demonstrate that there is a basis in science for 3-1-1 because a person or persons with malicious intent could so easily combine liquids, gels and aerosols while in an airport or on a plane to create something capable of causing damage to the plane or its passengers, or that, in the case where an individual brings through a simple explosive liquid or gel in a container that limiting the size of the container to 3.4oz makes sense in terms of limiting the amount of damage that could be done or even making a viable device.
Now mind you, whether we take or shoes off or not; whether we continue with 3-1-1 or not; whether we submit to TSA's electronic peep show or not; none of this makes any difference until TSA actually secures the secure areas of the airports. While individuals (airport workers) can still enter and leave the sterile areas without being checked each and every time they enter; until all vehicles entering the sterile areas are checked each and every time they enter; and until 100% of cargo that goes into the holds of the planes is inspected 100% of the time the TSA checkpoints might as well not be there for all the real security they actually provide.
You guys are cracking me up. The initial questions about the 3-1-1 rule centered on binary liquid explosives. In other words two liquids that could be combined while on a plane to make an explosive.
Some posters asked the TSA to prove that you COULD combine two liquids on a plane and make a successful explosive. Those posters claim that it would be scientifically improbable to do such a thing, citing lack of a controlled environment, and lack of specialized equipment.
In defense some posters point to the GAO report that states, unless I missed something, that the explosive components they carried contained a single explosive liquid and a detonator. Not two liquids combined to create an explosive.
The covert testers were able to sneak their devices onto airplanes while working within the 3-1-1 rule. They even rigged the test to be sure they got a secondary screening and yet they were still able to board with the destructive devices.
Before we go any further on this issue we have to decide what we are talking about. Are we talking about a single explosive liquid or are we talking about an explosive that is created by mixing two liquids?
Huh. Just thought of something: Given that some posters are freaked out about the "immodest" images, what the heck is going to be the reaction from people with stronger conservative cultural backgrounds, like say... Islamic? I imagine that there are a lot of people who would take image with having themselves or more importantly to them, their wives/daughters scanned..
Personally, I think that if you're going to use images like this at the airport, what is even the point in blurring the faces?
Anonymous said...
Wow.
If this goes into affect then I don't know if I will be flying again. What a great way to kill the airline industry.
Think of all the Muslim women and their fathers, husbands and brothers. This would go over like a lead balloon.
At this point the Muslims, transgendered or anybody else can opt out of the MMW and take a pat down instead. If someone wants to opt out because of modesty issues I have no problem with that.
What bugs me is the Sikhs. Self pat downs of turbans??? Seriously how retarded is that?
Explain how a man can walk through security with head gear on that can hide a good amount of contraband and then they are either not screened because we don't want to hurt their feelings or they are screened but in a half a$$ed manner.
If you can run your hand up my butt crack then you can touch a doo rag.
Before anyone thinks I am being flippant about touching someone’s sacred cloth, I am not. The turban is NOT sacred and there are no religious edicts banning another from touching it. Read this from the Sikh Network. Even if there was an edict banning another from touching it, that is still not my concern. If your religion, or morals, does not allow for you to participate in a security screening find another mode of travel.
This goes for Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Jehovah Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Pagans, or any other religion.
Anonymous said...
Would TSA like to discuss the accruacy of the MMW images at the following link?
http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave2.jpg
Allow me to discuss that image with you, it is a fraud. If not an outright fraud then the image did not come from the MMW machine being employed by the TSA.
Take a look at theL3 ProVision sales brochure. The image you are looking for is on the third page down.
Magnify the image and you will see it looks nothing like the one you posted. Note that on that image the back strap of the bra is plainly visible.
On the image you posted there is no outline or blurring to indicate clothing. Pants seams, cuffs, collar, buttons and zippers should be visible to a degree. If the machine can pick up the dimples in his back or individual testicles then it should be able to pick up the zipper.
Taking a closer look at the testicles reveals something odd. They seem to be hanging pretty free for testicles that are supposed to be under clothes. Talk about the ultimate commando.
On even closer inspection of the arm in the far left and far right frames shows what appear to be bones. Look at the fingers and the lower arm. On the arm you can see what appears to be the Radius and the Ulna.
My judgment is this is a backscatter X-ray image and the person being X-rayed wore the thinnest clothing possible for the best picture. In any case it did not come from the L3 ProVision MMW device.
While I hope this technology remains an option, the moment it becomes mandatory and I'm forced to use it, I'm going to start wearing tassels and give y'all a show!
Ayn R. Key said...
Engineer chiming in here...
There are two aspects to electromagnetic safety. One is frequency (wavelength), the other is amplitude. ...
Very good explanation, you should write for howstuffworks.com
I only wish the TSA would have answered the question like you did rather then them saying "it's safer than a cell phone".
Hey Neil, you and I were on the same page with the logo. I told my wife you should just use the seal and I see you did just that. Good show.
.... wait a second ... did you bug my house? Aw man... hey I just scratching that time.... I swear...
Christopher said ; "A couple of bloggers have advocated for the officer ...to be out in the public area. We just don’t think it’s appropriate for (the public) to see the images"
Christopher, more that "a couple" of posters have called to have the _operator_ in public.
Why do you spin this into a call to have the _images_ viewable to the public?
We want to see the operator. Keep the images viewable only by the operator. But let us see the person who is screening us.
Bring this process into the daylight. Take it out of "back rooms".
I see enough behavior from some TSA staff in public that makes me cringe. I hate to think of what some of your staff would be doing if they are put where we cannot see them.
I hope others will be contacting legislators with their wishes and concerns.
Previously asked, still unanswered; Are the deployments of this device all ready settled? Can we get you to switch to a cheaper more transparent method of doing this?
To answer the question about binary explosives, neither is correct. A binary ewxplosive is two components. One Liquid + One Liquid, or, One Liquid + One Solid, or, etc...
So you see any two combination of materials that when "Combined" produces an explosive compond = a binary explosive.
Great explanation by "any r. key" of how the MMW works in layman's terms. We should put together a FAQ from the posts we've gotten on this blog!
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
Still no response to the question of why the mmw images are not SSI but x-ray images are. I guess TSA has shot its litigtion strategy for SSI protection in the foot. I recommend everybody here start making FOIA requests for x-ray images. Once TSA denies the request for SSI reasons, EFF or EPIC can sue.
So what is the procedure for using this device?
First, the metal detector beeps,
Then the person chooses the MMW over the patdown,
Then the MWW operator either sees some thing on the scan or not and passes the person on.
Do they pass people if they don't see anything, or pass them if they see something non-threatening?
If someone with a metal implant sets off the metal detector, and then the MMW detects nothing outside the skin, do they then breeze on through, even though the MMW doesn't "clear the alarm"?
If someone sets off the metal detector, and then the MMS shows a non-tittilating view of a nipple peircing, do they then breeze on through, cleared by the one piece of metal seen on the MMW?
I'd still think you would always need a third inspection like a hand-wanding to localize the metal detector alarm, else someone could wear some chaff and carry a blasting cap in a less MMW-visible place.
What good is the MMW? Does it just provide a virtual pat-down so TSOs don't touch PAX?
Neil: "We should put together a FAQ from the posts we've gotten on this blog!"
FAQs are only useful if the Frequently Asked Questions actually get Answered.
Is the liquid rule 3oz or 100ml? Why can't TSOs enforce it consistently?
Brian said...
While I hope this technology remains an option, the moment it becomes mandatory and I'm forced to use it, I'm going to start wearing tassels and give y'all a show!
May 13, 2008 11:42 PM
..........................
May have to start a line of metallic Mylar undies for flyers.
CBGB said…its about time...I wouldn't want my kindergarden seeing those but they are not outright offensive May 9, 2008 6:35PM
I agree they are not offensive. I would have no problem showing them to my three year old daughter. They are not offensive unless you are offended by what you were born with. These pictures are no more offensive than:
The Statue of David
Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man (1492)
A Nude Barbie Doll
Slim Goodbody
Phil said... Will operators of this machine see only still images, or will they see live video? May 9, 2008 9:35 PM
They will see a still image that rotates.
Anonymous said... i would much rather have a guy look a my backside, then touch it. May 9, 2008 9:57 PM
While I understand that some will never agree to this, I feel that most will feel the same way you do.
GI said... Why would TSA use these primitive pictures, when there is technology like in several links shown, that is capable of so much more detailed pictures? Don't you waste money when you only use the second best technology? May 9, 2008 10:30 PM
When we’ve attempted to use the detailed images, the public has reacted negatively. We realize that security is very important, but we also want to protect your privacy as much as we can. We want to find images that the public can live with.
Anonymous said...Would TSA like to discuss the accruacy of the MMW images at the following link? http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave2.jpg May 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Those are backscatter images. Not MMW.
Anonymous said... Still no response to the question of why the mmw images are not SSI but x-ray images are. I guess TSA has shot its litigtion strategy for SSI protection in the foot. I recommend everybody here start making FOIA requests for x-ray images. Once TSA denies the request for SSI reasons, EFF or EPIC can sue. May 14, 2008 12:11 PM
If you go back and look at our post about shoes, you will see that we posted X-ray images of footwear. Those images are normally SSI. The TSA Administrator has the authority to publicize SSI. We also had to seek his approval to post these images.
Thanks,
Bob
EoS Blog Team
"You're not the only one who's confused - I'm working on a post about that this week. Thanks for posting your comment!
Lynn
EOS Blog Team"
Hi, Lynn;
Let us see what the MMV does at full power, zoomed in. We have access to the manufacturer's PDF, and it seem that TSA is claiming to run the unit in a lower resolution than it is capable of producing. I, for one, would like to know what you are really looking at.
When we’ve attempted to use the detailed images, the public has reacted negatively. We realize that security is very important, but we also want to protect your privacy as much as we can. We want to find images that the public can live with.
Ok, so what you're telling We, The People, is that you published a lesser quality of image than what your screeners will look at inorder to placate the masses? Give me a <> break! How patronizing can you people be?
The TSA Administrator has the authority to publicize SSI. We also had to seek his approval to post these images.
If you had to go to this level in your organization, you are more pathetic than even I could imagine. And, Kippie obviously has way too much time on his hands.
Oh yeah -- where is that PIA I asked about a few days ago? Do you have to get Kippie's approval on that, too?
Dear Bob,
How about addressing our concern about the hidden person looking at the images? I, for one, would consider going for the scan versus the pat down if (and only if) I could see my own image and the person looking at the image.
On the other hand, the idea of a hidden person seeing something that has the capability of being a very detailed scan and that I can´t see does not sit well with me.
Bob said: Anonymous said... Still no response to the question of why the mmw images are not SSI but x-ray images are.
* * *
If you go back and look at our post about shoes, you will see that we posted X-ray images of footwear. Those images are normally SSI. The TSA Administrator has the authority to publicize SSI. We also had to seek his approval to post these images.
Bob, it's really interesting that the Administrator would do that. As a lawyer involved in trying to get SSI in general, and x-ray images specifically, from TSA, I assume the Administrator will now authorize release of SSI for other purposes, such as allowing citizens to defend themselves in court. Or is the right to defend one's self not as important as posting on a blog?
Or, did Kip assume that posting the MMW images was blessed by his Chief Counsel? Inquiring minds want to know.
I think if you put my wife or daughter in one of those machines I would be deeply offended as a husband, father, and Christian man. Any Christian Father who allowed his daughter to be subjected to that kind of sexual abuse is not worthy of the Name of Jesus.
So Bob, it's now within your power to tell Americans what their morality should be? Is there no end to the wisdom of our fascist protectors in the TSA?
Frankly Bob, I think some 3rd rate bureaucrat is about the last person on earth I want to hear comment on morality. You people make me sick with your willing participance in the destruction of our liberties, the shaming of our citizens, the theft, the farce, the fearmongering, the constant drumbeat for war against everyone and everything, and your utterly shameless disregard for anything that is true or good.
This garbage is proof of how low our nation has stooped, that we would let our mothers, wives, and daughters be stripped so that we could feel "safe."
What a nation of gutless cowards!
Feel free to personally email me if you don't like it. Unlike so many pro-TSA anonymous cowards, I put my real name and email address on here.
winstonsmith said...
I would like an independent non-governmental scientific body to come forward and demonstrate that there is a basis in science for 3-1-1
The executive & legislative branches of the U.S. Gov't find the 3-1-1 rule to be rationale.
So have the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
You don't trust those governments either? Then stop sitting on your backside and organize a Coalition of Travelers and fund your own independant study.
As a government agency, TSA will do as it pleases no matter what constitutional rights they violate. After all, those in power seem to think it's only a piece of paper anyway. They’ve come up with all kinds of situations where the Constitution doesn’t apply, all in the name of keeping the masses safe.
Trust Uncle Sammy to delete the images? Even of “hot babes and god forbid, children?” Trust them from mission creep? Believe what guv'mint tells us with their great reputation of honesty and full disclosure? Surely you jest. As a flyer we’re supposed to trust every TSA employee to be 100% on the up and up? Now that’s really funny.
The pat down can't be posted on the internet or used as entertainment at the TSA employee Christmas party.
Because of this BS with TSA, I've turned in my silver frequent flyer card for a set of car keys. Despite the fact that Tuesday May 13, I hit a deer on the interstate during a 900 mile drive I am not getting on another plane. I'll continue to take my chances with the wild animals – they’re safer than the US government. Oh ya, my privacy was intact and I didn’t have to worry about my laptop being stolen – ahem, sorry…confiscated
BOB:
actually Bob I have to disagree. They are far more offensive than the statue of David. The statue of David is art, taking electronic strip search pictures of me isn't, its called voyuerism and in most places its illegal for layman.
NEIL:
I hope your embarassed or at least turned a little rosy cheeked makign that post. You literally just said (in more words) that the commenters on here are great because we do your job. Why would we need to do your job Neil? Could it be because we understand whats gonig on and your just PR hacks?
Toby said...
I think if you put my wife or daughter in one of those machines I would be deeply offended as a husband, father, and Christian man. Any Christian Father who allowed his daughter to be subjected to that kind of sexual abuse is not worthy of the Name of Jesus.
First Preacher Toby let me correct you on something. YOU are not worthy of the Name of Jesus. I am not worthy of the Name of Jesus, no one except Jesus is worthy of the Name. Salvation is a GIFT, you can't earn it, you can't inherit it and nothing you do will ever make you worthy of it. (can I get an Amen?)
Second, what sexual abuse are you talking about? The fact someone sees your wife or child "naked" is not in and of itself sexual abuse and to call it that is a slap in the face to people that have been subject to real sexual abuse.
One of the reasons the screener is put in another room is to prevent your wife or daughter from being sexually harassed or abused.
If you want to oppose this technology because you are modest, fine. Just don't attempt to puff your position with religion or sexual abuse. It diminishes your argument to nothing but background noise.
Toby said...
So Bob, it's now within your power to tell Americans what their morality should be? Is there no end to the wisdom of our fascist protectors in the TSA?
Frankly Bob, I think some 3rd rate bureaucrat is about the last person on earth I want to hear comment on morality. You people make me sick with your willing participance in the destruction of our liberties, the shaming of our citizens, the theft, the farce, the fearmongering, the constant drumbeat for war against everyone and everything, and your utterly shameless disregard for anything that is true or good.
This garbage is proof of how low our nation has stooped, that we would let our mothers, wives, and daughters be stripped so that we could feel "safe."
What a nation of gutless cowards!
Feel free to personally email me if you don't like it. Unlike so many pro-TSA anonymous cowards, I put my real name and email address on here.
It is in Blogger Bob's power to give his opinion on morality as much as it is yours.
The only difference is you do yours from a pulpit and he does his on this blog. Bonus goes to Blogger Bob because he doesn't pass the plate when he is done.
Frankly a 3rd rate preacher is the last person I want to tell me what my morality should be. Yes preacher man you may know the verses but do you know the God? Do you know or have the capability to comprehend the subject? Those that have ears hear, those that have eyes see. Are you blind and deaf?
As for the cowards that post anonymously, most have not taken the time to figure out how to put a handle on their post. Those that have may not want to post their email because they are afraid of self righteous people like yourself will spam their inboxes with useless drivel.
An Anonymous Person Writes in response to an earlier post of mine:
winstonsmith said...
I would like an independent non-governmental scientific body to come forward and demonstrate that there is a basis in science for 3-1-1
calling me a
The executive & legislative branches of the U.S. Gov't find the 3-1-1 rule to be rationale.
So have the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
You don't trust those governments either? Then stop sitting on your backside and organize a Coalition of Travelers and fund your own independant study.
Two points: 1) the fact that some (but not all) other governments have agreed to participate in 3-1-1 or their local equivalent does not constitute a basis in science for the policy; 2) I actually really like the idea of getting together an independent coalition of travelers to do an independent study. That's a terrific idea. I realize you meant the comment as a slam against me personally but the fact is that a lot of people have displayed their ignorance and nationalism by flinging all sorts of offal in my general direction and once in a while something good comes of it. I'll work on this one. More details to come. Thanks for the suggestion.
CBGB said:
NEIL: I hope your embarassed or at least turned a little rosy cheeked makign that post. You literally just said (in more words) that the commenters on here are great because we do your job. Why would we need to do your job Neil? Could it be because we understand whats gonig on and your just PR hacks?
Hey CBGB, may I suggest you do some homework or read a a book or or two?
I suppose you rant against Amazon.com and Netflix too? They use their customers to rate products and movies instead of doing it themselves.
So, it's nice that you, "understand whats [sic] gonig [sic] on and your [sic] just PR hacks"... May I also suggest that you pick up this book as well?
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
Book recommendations Neil? Cool!
I'd start with this then how about this one.
Semdley is a particular hero to me. Anyone who thwarts Prescott Bush and industrialists from pulling off a take over of our government is AOK in my book.
I love the statue of Smedly in the North passage into Philly City Hall.
I was going to post a link over to The Project for the New American (newamericancentury.org) but it looks like they forgot to pay their bill.
That is the site that has Cheney, Rumsfield, Libby, Wolfowitz, etc. stating that the US must ignore all laws and treaties we don't like. That we have to have regime change in Irag, Iran, Syria and other enemies of Israel, restart or nuke program, put weapons platforms in space etc.
I also love Eisenhower's speech about: "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex..."
Anyone have a reading recommendation about how Kermit Roosevelt assasinated the elected moderate President of Iran? And how we placed and backed a bloody, secular murderer in control of Iran?
All typos and errors are my own. I'm a Chicago Manual of Style type of fellow myself. But I left the darn thing home in my other pants.
,>)
T. Saint
Anonymous May 15, 2008 4:46 PM wrote:
The executive & legislative branches of the U.S. Gov't find the 3-1-1 rule to be rationale.
So have the following countries:
Usually legislators and chief executives are politicians instead of chemists. They have to rely on reports issued by agencies, and the TSA has failed peer review on 3-1-1.
Neil,
There is value in mass opinion, but Neil, you are abusing the principle.
The principle is that the collective intelligence of a group, when each member is acting independently, is greater than the intelligence of any individual, even if that individual is an expert. The only exception to that rule is when one is an expert of rarified degree, such as a Steven Hawking or a Wolfgang Mozart, but experts of that caliber are very rare.
Put into practice, it was demonstrated at country fairs that while the average person was more likely to be wrong when guessing the weight of a side of beef, the middle of the bell curve of their guesses was more likly to be right than that of a butcher or meat inspector.
But Neil, you are abusing that principle. On the one hand, when it is advantageous to the TSA, you are willing to admit to the law of the crowd. On the other hand, when it is advantageous to the TSA, you say "we are experts, trust us, and our explanation is SSI." You at the TSA are trying to have it both ways.
Also, mass collaboration has an inverse application. While the collective intelligence of independent agents is greater than that of any individual agent, the collective intelligence of any committee is less than that of any individual agent.
T. Saint said:
Book recommendations Neil? Cool!
I'd start with this then how about this one.
Semdley is a particular hero to me. Anyone who thwarts Prescott Bush and industrialists from pulling off a take over of our government is AOK in my book.
Touché. 1984 is a tour de force for sure, but the Semdley book is pure rubbish in my opinion. Instead of Semdley, how about we appropriately substitute Mark Steyn's classic, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it?
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
P.S. The technical problem with publishing to the blog has been fixed. We've been short-handed regarding moderators. As you may know, this is collateral duties for all of us here at TSA. We have "real jobs" and helping out with the blog is something we do becuase we belive in the power for Gov 2.0 and eDemocracy!
Neil,
Thank you. Did not know of Mark Steyn's works.
"Steyn argues that, contra the liberal cultural relativists, America should proclaim the obvious: we do have a better government, religion, and culture than our enemies, and we should spread America’s influence around the world—for our own sake as well as theirs." Emphasis mine.
Sounds like the classic neocon doctrine. We are the biggest kid on the block, nobody else must ever challenge us. They should do what we say.
When I read Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et als. manifesto for essentially a "Pax Americana" I wondered how they were going to get the rest of the world to stand still for it.
My thoughts were: if they can pull this off, God bless America. If they can't God help us.
Lacking a sound moral base. Lacking humility and honesty, they have so far been miserable failures. Wait, they have had one great success, looting the treasury.
Interesting that the neocons at New American Century kept it to spreading democracy. It is interesting that Steyn says "we" have a "better religion".
I had thought that not having a national religion was one of our greatest strengths and freedoms.
,>)
T. Saint
T. Saint said:
"Steyn argues that, contra the liberal cultural relativists, America should proclaim the obvious: we do have a better government, religion, and culture than our enemies, and we should spread America’s influence around the world—for our own sake as well as theirs." Emphasis mine.....
I had thought that not having a national religion was one of our greatest strengths and freedoms.
Hey, I enjoy the give-and-take as well. I think the context of Steyn's comment regarding religion is that he does not grant moral equivalence between faiths that promote peace and love, with faiths that promote hatred and terror. The Judeo-Christian faith is one of tolerance and freedom to live as you choose. Faith's which teach you should not have the right to choose what you believe (enforced by decapitation) are by any measure of civilization, inferior.
Anyway, that is not the gist of the book. Steyn uses humor and an acid tongue to make his points. I've read the book and I recommend that American's do as well. You may not agree with his political philosophy, but the demographic arguments he makes are quantitative not qualitative.
-Neil
TSA Blog Team
Neil said...
P.S. The technical problem with publishing to the blog has been fixed. We've been short-handed regarding moderators. As you may know, this is collateral duties for all of us here at TSA. We have "real jobs" and helping out with the blog is something we do becuase we belive in the power for Gov 2.0 and eDemocracy!
Hey Neil, let me suggest you use FireFox for your browser, it has a spell checker and will let you catch typos like your misspelling of "because". Just to be clear to everyone, that was not a swipe. I suck at spelling and rely on spell checkers.
Neil I would like to suggest hiring outside moderators like me to approve posts.
I have no access to SSI, I have no CYA agenda, and I could use the extra cash. I would approve solely based on the stated rules and any post that fell outside the rules would be saved for final disposition by the Official Blog Team.
You have my email let's see what we can work out.
I'm actually more concerned about the mental health of the screeners then I am my sense of privacy.
Pretty much if you want to see me naked all you have to do is ask...
That and then be ok with not sleeping for the rest of your life as you replay the visuals each time you close your eyes...
How does this protect us from people who smuggle IED's in their rectum? Oh wait, it doesn't... More waste brought to you by the TSA at the expense of privacy.
Well at least we can all tell that armpits are a good place to hide a weapon when trying to get onto an airplane.
These images, and the entire concept, do nothing to increase safety and are a gross invasion of privacy. I have the sinking feeling where the day will come that I won't be able to get on an airplane because I refuse to let a stranger either view me naked or feel up my chest and crotch. This is disgusting. What has the US come to?
Dan said...
I'm actually more concerned about the mental health of the screeners then I am my sense of privacy.
Pretty much if you want to see me naked all you have to do is ask...
That and then be ok with not sleeping for the rest of your life as you replay the visuals each time you close your eyes...
EYE BLEACH, get your EYE BLEACH here....
To the anonymous poster who listed countries that find the 311 rule rational:
I recently flew through 4 of those countries, and none of them use the 311 rule UNLESS you are flying to the US. They do not find the rule rational - they were forced to enforce it for US flights.
Anonymous said...
To the anonymous poster who listed countries that find the 311 rule rational:
I recently flew through 4 of those countries, and none of them use the 311 rule UNLESS you are flying to the US. They do not find the rule rational - they were forced to enforce it for US flights.
You know it took that person a long time to type the list and here you go killing it with facts. That is so mean...
@ May 16, 2008 12:46 PM
Hmmm. I know there was more back and forth on that. It was there Friday.
I can't find the posts today.
'sup with that?
Are you deleting posts after they are up? Without markig them as removed?
Anonymous said...
@ May 16, 2008 12:46 PM
Hmmm. I know there was more back and forth on that. It was there Friday.
I can't find the posts today.
'sup with that?
Are you deleting posts after they are up? Without marking them as removed?
Yeah there were a couple of posts that took a hard left turn. I think after they were posted someone at headquarters said "get that crap off of there now" and they got nuked without getting marked.
The Blog Team has been pretty good about marking posts that were deleted after initial approval.
I will cut them some slack on these not being marked and one of the deleted posts was mine.
To Blogger Bob or Christopher:
Has the TSA tested the program to see if you can capture the image with PRT SCR and Paint?
Knowing how much L3 likes linux, I hardly doubt the MMW system will be running any version of Windows. However, I would recommend checking via the promotional materials available.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single imaging system the TSA uses for screening that does in fact use any kind of Windows operating system. I'm not saying that it's not possible there is one out there, and that doesn't apply to the other machines in the checkpoint, but...
Linux is relatively inexpensive to set up and run reliably and securely in purpose built and used hardware. So it'd be the logical choice here as well. And since Linux can be configured in an infinite number of ways, it's highly likely that there will be NO print screen button (none of the consoles for any imaging system use a QWERTY keyboard of any kind, IIRC) nor will there be an easy way to access anything like "paint".
These images, and the entire concept, do nothing to increase safety and are a gross invasion of privacy.
Really? The concept of trying to determine that you have nothing hidden on your person, without requiring you to be bothered removing your clothes or let someone grope you physically does nothing to increase safety? Certainly it does... Not touching you means the TSO won't catch whatever communicable disease of the week you may have, nor will they then pass it on to other people. A gross invasion of privacy? Not as gross as that commited on a daily basis by Amazon, Wal-Mart, or ANY photo processing lab at which you may have ever developed film.
Of course, we could just back the government out, but require that the Airlines carry enough insurance to fully cover a catastrophic tragedy like 9/11. Then I'm sure the insurance companies and airlines would be quite a bit less invasive. At least, they wouldn't tell you about it...
Yes, anonymous, I've read the GAO audit, where they fail to identify HOW they violated the laws of chemistry or physics.
Because the 3-1-1 potion has a few key requirements:
1. You can mix them under conditions more primitive than a fully stocked laboratory. You need to be able to mix them in the terminal or on an airplane.
2. The individual chemicals have to fail to trigger the explosives sniffer.
THAT potion can only be brewed by a Hogwarts graduate. Do you think that may be why the TSA keeps not answering, relying on anonymous "useful fools" to keep up the statist security theater?
If this is magic, and not science, how is it that many commercially available binary solid/liquid explosive mixes are capable of being prepared underwater, in darkly lit confined caves, etc? While being relatively inert prior to mixing?
How about the slushes/slurries?
Explosive foams?
By all means, if you are an expert chemist in the field of explosive manufacture, you can determine that it is in fact possible. Why, chemists come up with new things everyday. Theories are developed, tested, retested, laws are pushed, stretched, are revised... etc.
As for what the sniffers check for, I bet they aren't configured to pick up Tang. For that matter, would solid lithium (a metal with some energetic qualities) trigger them?
This activity is clearly against the US Constitution. What options do people have to refuse this abuse if they are morally or religiously oppose?
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What is the quantity of radiation travelers are to be exposed to in 2.5 seconds? And will you be providing at least 1 mg of vitamin C and water to passengers to assist the repair of damaged tissue? According to medical science there is no healthy dose of radiation.
Anonymous said...
Those images look altered to me. In the original (see the link bellow to original images) found on line, underwear and nipples were clearly visible.
Are you talking about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Backscatter_x-ray_image_woman.jpg
That's backscatter X-ray... which is different from MMW WBI.
And, I don't see any nipples.
How about what I would rather: None of this nonsense waste of my tax dollars AT ALL.
Airports are plenty secure and have been for years. All we need to do is look at airplane safety statistics and see that terrorism or not, air travel is still way safer than things we do EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Period. The end. Its more than safe enough already. Really there arn't that many people looking to blow planes up, and on the rare occasions that they do it, their death toll is still dwarfed by simple auto accidents.
Besides, its all false security anyway. Even if you can stop terrorists from hitting planes, they will just move elsewhere, completely negating all of your work, and making us waste money putting these same security measures into their next target.....
or maybe they will just start blowing up the huge lines that you are creating...in front of your checkpoints. Wouldn't THAT be irony. Going to put checkpoints in front of the checkpoints?
Will we use millimeter to screen people entering the line to wait for the milimeter wave machine? Maybe we can just start putting them all the way back to the traffic intersections leading up to the airport...
Hell we can put them all the way back to peoples neighborhoods and homes. Then we will truely be FREE of terrorism.
-Steve
Anonymous said...
To Blogger Bob or Christopher:
Has the TSA tested the program to see if you can capture the image with PRT SCR and Paint?
-----
Knowing how much L3 likes linux, I hardly doubt the MMW system will be running any version of Windows. However, I would recommend checking via the promotional materials available.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single imaging system the TSA uses for screening that does in fact use any kind of Windows operating system. I'm not saying that it's not possible there is one out there, and that doesn't apply to the other machines in the checkpoint, but...
Linux is relatively inexpensive to set up and run reliably and securely in purpose built and used hardware. So it'd be the logical choice here as well. And since Linux can be configured in an infinite number of ways, it's highly likely that there will be NO print screen button (none of the consoles for any imaging system use a QWERTY keyboard of any kind, IIRC) nor will there be an easy way to access anything like "paint".
Sorry to kill your Linux buzz but the L3 runs Windows or at least the viewing operator station does. From the L3 brochure "Operator Console: Standard Windows®-based PC"
The control icons look, from what I can see from the brochure, to be pretty standard. For all we know they could have written the operator console program in VB.
So PRT SCR + Paint would work unless either has been disabled by the program. That is why I asked if it had been tested.
anonymous said...
These images, and the entire concept, do nothing to increase safety and are a gross invasion of privacy.
----
Really? The concept of trying to determine that you have nothing hidden on your person, without requiring you to be bothered removing your clothes or let someone grope you physically does nothing to increase safety?
Certainly it does... Not touching you means the TSO won't catch whatever communicable disease of the week you may have, nor will they then pass it on to other people.
A gross invasion of privacy? Not as gross as that commited on a daily basis by Amazon, Wal-Mart, or ANY photo processing lab at which you may have ever developed film.
Sorry friend, your analogy does not hold. First, all those places you mentioned are NOT part of the U.S. Government or State Government. Take note of that point I will be coming back to it later.
Second, if you take your film to a photo lab you know that the prints have a chance of being seen by employees of that photo lab while they are doing the job you contracted with them to do.
If those same photo lab employees were showing your prints to everyone in the joint that would violate your expectation of privacy and therefore be actionable. The same goes for the information you provide to Amazon or Wal~Mart to make a purchase.
When in public, people have a diminished expectation of privacy compared to when they are sitting at home. We expect to have security cameras or for that matter other people observing our actions.
When we go to the airport we expect a further degradation of our expectation of privacy when we enter a security checkpoint. The diminished expectation of privacy is limited to an ID request, a trip through the metal detector, and the x-ray and/or hand screening of our property.
What we don't expect, and would have no reason to expect, would be a TSA agent reading the contents of our papers, pursuing the content of our laptops or other data storage devices, or the ability to view us through our clothing.
Because the TSA is a government agency and not a private enterprise, it has the extra burden of complying with the U.S. Constitution.
The MMW device, if made compulsory or if the citizens being subjected to it are unaware of the its ability to see through clothing, could violate the 1st, and 4th Amendments the consequence of violating those Amendments would in turn open the door for violations of the 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.
Special bonus, the current confiscation of property at the checkpoints in my opinion violates 5th and possibly the 14th Amendment.
Besides, its all false security anyway. Even if you can stop terrorists from hitting planes, they will just move elsewhere, completely negating all of your work, and making us waste money putting these same security measures into their next target.....
You know, that's true in a sense. But I keep wondering, why haven't they done that in the U.S.? Why do we keep getting intelligence that shows they are fixated on the threat to civil aviation, when there are many many other venues that offer a higher impact, in human lives, than a single plane? Or even in a repeat of a 9/11 style event?
I think terrorists can in some ways be as narrow sighted as ourselves (by which I mean everyone in the United States, in one sense or another) when considering their options. Also, aircraft present such an awful way for the terrorist elements to score more propaganda. "Look at how much has gone into security! And still we can smite the" (infidels, capitalists, socialists, insert target group here) "! Our cause is just, or surely we could not succeed!"
Then again, we may all just be in a rut...
Nice. Just one more reason that I'll never fly again.
Security theater at its finest.
What a misstep.
How about the officer monitoring the scans does their work sitting in one of these scanners all day for all of the passengers to see. Only seems fair.
I doubt many officers would want to take that job, and that should tell you how bad an idea it is.
I agree with the other posters that the image of what it looks like should be on a sign before you are scanned (or on a sign-off form that the person approves).
For me, a train is the only way to fly these days with how much security craziness has occurred.
I live in Europe and after reading this there's no way I will ever fly back to the US again.
Wouldn't be simpler to ask all people to walk naked in airports and in airplanes? It wouldn't be as hypocritical as this is.
"For security purposes, please remove all your clothes."
The problem with these scanners is that they need to be calibrated. If for some reason something went wrong, a person may appear naked on the screen, before it got recalibrated. I do not like the idea of someone getting a picture of me naked without my knowledge/concent, even by accident. I will decline, and then be patted down. Even a strip search would be preferable, as that would be done by someone my gender.
It just feel like an intrusion of which I have no control.
So, by randomly selecting a handful of people to be scanned, you think you're going to catch the one terrorist out of tens of thousands of people who showed up at the airport that day? Or you think that a terrorist who is not deterred by metal detectors and random manual searches will be deterred by that miniscule chance he'll have to go through one of these? Or you just want to waste a whole lot of taxpayer money? Air travel would be cheaper, faster, more pleasant, and safer if there were no TSA.
Judging by the pictures provided this technology does not seem to be able to scan beyond a first layer of clothing and cannot scan through a second layer even as thin as a bra or underwear. So basically this, presumably multi-million dollar, piece of equipment could rendered useless with a $5.00 pair of long johns.
Bravo.
Simple question for the guys who deployed this stuff -- Are you comfortable with some young TSA guys seeing your daughter or loved one coming down the ramp and "flagging" her for MMW inspection?
Imagine the guys checking her out on the screen, naked before them. Imagine the urge they'll have to make comments?? Or imagine yourself passing through this machine and knowing people are looking at you in full nudity??
I truly don't understand how as Americans we can be so scared of "evildoers" that we give up all of our civil rights that our forefathers fought for and are the basis for rights in this country??
i feel completely uncomfortable knowing my family, myself, my wife could pass through this machine at any moment.
When is this going to stop? At what point do we as Americans step up to the TSA and say "no more?"
It sickens me to hear people say "hey, it's no big deal, it will make my commute faster." Inch by inch, the thinly-veiled "security" measures are put in place, and more and more of our rights are being taken away. Do I not have the right to fly without being subjected to something like this?
I know, they say it is optional. But for how long?
Look back at the history of "security" measures put in place since the DHS took over airport screenings... First it was shoes, then laptops, then jackets, then "SSSS" on your boarding passes, then pat-downs, then liquids, then explosive detectors, and now body scanning.
Where does it stop? At what point does it become "too much?" Cavity searches?
And the bit about the images not being stored or copied. Why should we trust this agency? They already disclosed private information and lied about it.
Why don't you clearly post sample images at the screening area, and also clearly inform passengers that they have an option to opt-out of this scan? If so, I think you'd find the acceptance rate much lower. I think most people are simply ignorant about how invasive the scan is and the TSA wants to keep it that way.
This is truly disturbing. It's a sad day when Americans will willingly submit themselves to strip searches (virtual or otherwise).
I'm visiting my sister this summer and that's my last flight for the foreseeable future. Airport security is now beyond ridiculous and given the choice between x-rays (millimeter wave images) and staying home, I'm staying home. I'm tired of playing these games. I don't really need to be anywhere that I can't drive to anyway.
And can we discuss all the reasons why tooth PASTE is not a liquid?
Actually I think I would rather be patted down by someone who had to look me in the eye, than to submit to a remote search by some anonymous glorified clerk.
Personally, if you are going to get that detailed in searching my person I want to see the bench warrant authorizing it and stating exactly why *I* am under suspicion of whatever specific crime. This blanket excuse doesn't qualify.
Besides I think our bigger threat lies in what's en route to the US airports not taking off from them.
I am not walking through one of those things. Guess I'll have to stop flying soon.
This hysteria reminds me of a recent conversation with one of my Japanese students. After hearing the comment, "An American is mathematically more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a terror attack," she replied, "Wow, I didn't know there was that much lightning in America."
I am wondering how TSA will scan a young child? Have you ever tried to get one to stand still for a second or two let alone with their hands in the air?
What is TSA going to do for a parent who is traveling with young children and no other adults? Will the parent have to trust one of TSA's people to carefully watch their kids while screening?
As far as bags are concerned, there have been quite a lot of reports of people loosing stuff during pat downs, how much more will be stolen by TSA employees during this peep-show?
As far as morals go, my husband and I have one flight planned. After that, I am taking the train or driving. I WILL NOT allow anyone to see what is rightfully my husbands alone. Even the docs I go to have a "prescreening" process that I have them go through before they get to lay one hand on me...and they have to be female. My husband does the exact same thing for his male docs. So why in the world would I allow anyone else to see that belongs to my husband?
By the way, I am a US citizen who was born in the US. The only record I have is a moving violation...one. There is NOTHING in my records OR in my manner that suggests that I am going to try and do someone harm. Where is the probable cause? Where is the search warrent? If someone has to have a warrent to enter my home without concent, how much more important is a warrent for someone touching me or doing a strip-search?
I am really concerned about MY RIGHTS as a US CITIZEN, not about what TSA can get away with!!!
Those of us with medical devices or implants apparently no longer have a right to keep them private. If you put me through that machine, you'll see my catheter. If you pat me down, you'll feel my catheter and order me to reveal it, because it sure doesn't feel like a natural part of the body (and it isn't). Someone with an ostomy bag is going to have the same sorts of concerns. What about our right to body privacy and not to reveal to the world what our medical problems are? Gone!
I gave up flying several years ago. The only reason I would fly now is to go to get a kidney transplant. And even then, I'll drive if I can possibly manage it, or take the train.
Mikhail Baryshnikov CHOSE to wear tights for his career.
He wasn't just some guy who wanted to travel freely ( remember when freedom meant something in this country) and had to be subjected to some low level "security" people taking pictures of his genitals.
This type of justification ( "well, it's not as bad as...") is just stupid, but par for the course in the bumbling "war on terra" and Homeland Stupidity.
DISGUSTING! ---This is why I don't even bother with flying anymore. Thank God my new job does not require travel.
I don't want to be patted down or seen naked on an x-ray scan, or remove my shoes, or transfer my toiletries into tiny bottles or have my luggage rifled through and questioned why I have nail clippers......... All for the purpose of transportation. It's certainly not comfortable sitting in those crowded coach seats.
Terrorists have done more damage on planes with seemingly harmless items.
Why not restructure those planes so that 1 or 2 security people sit at front and back of the plane. No one goes behind them except flight crew. All passengers will be in front of them in full view. And if a situation arises, there will be 2-4 of these people ready to charge at them from both ends of the plane.
They should be able to carry stun guns or whatever else would be safe to use on a plane to subdue a dangerous person. Rather than dumping so much money into these expensive x-ray machines and invasive and embarrassing searches, put the money into trained security people to keep us safe.
I'm not saying to forget about the metal detection machines. Yeah let's leave the obvious in place, but if I have to bare myself to all those people standing around inspecting me and my luggage, I much rather travel by car (even at these astronomical gas prices), or by train. Yes it takes much longer depending on the destination, but I can pack what I want, as much as I want & how I want it. And I don't have to"virtually" disrobe.
This new x-ray machine has got me so riled up even though I don't fly anymore. Nonetheless, it's the principal of the matter. I thought I lived in the best nation in the world where privacy was respected like nowhere else on earth. But things are changing and we are not as free as we once were. Our liberties have been encroached upon, little by little we will soon have no privacy at all. Let's not forgot how everything is electronically recorded these days (these naked x-rays too perhaps) and how many instances there have been of major companies and government agencies "losing" thousands or personal records / Social Security #'s.
It seems the airlines should be paying ME to fly if I have to stand there naked just for the "privilege" of transportation! HA!!!
I'm 32 yrs old folks. I'm no prude, but I'd like to hold on to my dignity. This ain't the doctor's office!!
I was recently selected for a random pat-down, that is I dint set off any alarms but I was patted down anyway. I do not oppose this measure in the name of greater security and halting evil do-ers but after having been "felt up" out in the open in public (I voluntarrily declined a private screening favouring speed an efficiency over privacy) I would much rather have been scanned than touched.
This is the reality of the day,
despite 1,000's upon 1,000's of our most beloved sacrificed in war to insure our freedoms, 19 men have taken it away in a single act of terrorism.
Our freedoms are being diminished even more every day. Right now, its a machine looking through your clothes. It's another chip. Tomorrow, it will be a machine looking at your brain wave patterns or someone routinely monitoring the things you read.
Benjamin Franklin summed it up brilliantly a long time ago when he stated that any society that sacrificed freedoms for security, deserved neither.
By giving up these freedoms, we have spit on the graves of those who sacrificed everything they could to gain them. We have dishonored them and ourselves and we have done it by bending to the will of 19 terrorists. What will we give up when they attack again?
Everyone, including the US government admits that they are unstoppable if they are determined enough. Everything we have given away, only helps by mitigating the minor players. The real bad guys are out there still and planning.
The mastermind to the attacks on 911 is still free. And we stand in line so people can see under our clothes, just to be able to travel?
How twisted is that?
Why is the MMC scanner at the Denver airport scanning people who aren't even boarding a plane, or going through the checkpoint itself? Why is the monitor for the scanner at the Denver airport placed out in a public area?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/31/millimeter-wave-scan.html
Funny, the computer in this brochure shows the pelvis area blurred, but not the face, whereas the TSA post shows the face blurred and not the pelvis. This just makes me feel like they are doctored already, but thanks for trying TSA.
http://rebelmodel.com/tsa/mmw.pdf
HI,
I have a hard time reconciling the statement "...We specifically require the remote location to protect the privacy of passengers using the machine." with the pictures of Denver airport doing the rounds lately.
Could someone explain how "remote location" can be understood by anyone to mean "in the hallway of an airport"?
Thanks.
If you want to see this issue fully debated you just have to wait until someone snaps a pic of Naomi Campbell, Britney Spears... (insert name of favourite celep here) as they are zapped by one of these things. Hey, its just a picture of them in a public place (in mm rather than visible light) and so perfectly legal to publish it, right ?
And how exactly are we to be assured that you are deleting the images, after so many cases when the TSA does not follow its own policies? (E.g. grounded planes with broken sensors from an inspector climbing on them.) And why would deleting them make it okay? No one wants to be seen this way by screeners in the first place.
Opting out.
If you require the monitor to be in a remote location, then please explain why Denver's is right out in the concourse for all to see, snap, or whatever.
Photo available at
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/31/millimeter-wave-scan.html
TSA needs to get its act together. I actually feel LESS safe with you guys "on the job."
My body is neither particularly attractive nor particularly ugly, so I have no reason to mind if I am seen with microwave vision. However, if the requirement to "remove all objects from pockets" applies to the paper money and various cards normally in them, I would rather be patted down.
Christopher of the EOS blog team wrote:
"We specifically require the remote location to protect the privacy of passengers using the machine. We just don’t think it’s appropriate for other passengers, airport, airline employees or just anybody walking by to see the images, much less snap a photo with a camera phone or anything else and post that image to TMZ.com or who knows where."
Christopher, has that policy changed?
As reported by eyewitness Mark Frauenfelder (Boing Boing: Millimeter wave scan machine at Denver Airport, August 31, 2008), TSA is now using the electronic strip-search machines on the public with the operator's terminal in full view.
Frauenfelder wrote:
"I snapped this photo of a passive millimeter wave scan machine set up in the main entrance hall at Denver International Airport on Friday evening. The machine was swiveling back and forth, searching people who didn't even know they were being scanned. I'm sure some of the people scanned weren't passengers; they were simply coming to pick up or drop off friends and relatives.
"I wanted to see if they would scan my 11-year-old daughter as she walked by so I walked over to the desk with the computer monitor on it. I got a peek at the monitor for a second or two before one of the bald guys to the left of the TSA agent jumped in front of me and said I wasn't allowed to look. I couldn't tell which person was undressed on the monitor."
Very interesting read, thanks for that
Good information!
I agree with this comment :
"You don't trust those governments either? Then stop sitting on your backside and organize a Coalition of Travelers and fund your own independant study."
Phil wrote...
"As reported by eyewitness Mark Frauenfelder (Boing Boing: Millimeter wave scan machine at Denver Airport, August 31, 2008), TSA is now using the electronic strip-search machines on the public with the operator's terminal in full view."
The posting you cite is a picture of a different machine than the one which produces the image in the original post. I don't think the policy has changed with regard to that original machine. The picture from Denver is of a standoff, passive millimeter wave machine, as opposed to the active one which requires you to stand in a portal similar to (but larger than) a metal detector. A TSA document (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_st_sodtp.pdf) claims the passive millimeter wave machine does not produce personally-identifiable images. Since that's a matter of interpretation I'm not sure how it compares to the WBI images in this post.
Im curious as to how many rads this machine exposes people to.... And what are any long term effects of using this machine..... These things just seem like a public danger and the TSA stepping all over the Constitution the whole little long day
I think it would be better to see actual images at their FULL RESOLUTION before making any kind of conclusion. I doubt the screens are viewing such a tiny image. (Yes I did click on the picture to see it full size)
lol... if you ensure so much privacy why are you putting scans of people on the internet...
anyways, thanks for the conditioning. can't wait for your barcodes and bracelets version...
is there a fasttrack lane for this?
Search without a warrant. Period. Not Constitutional -- therefore not lawful.
All this thru the walls and clothes stuff is sexual abuse. Let's call it by its real name. It is not surveillance.
Anyone scanning your body through your windows, roof, or clothes, without your consent, is nothing more than a federal peeper. Thanks for institutionalizing Stalinist-style, sexual abuse.
Officer scanning in the back room talking to the officers up front on the radio,
"Security, we have a Code 10 here."
I have worked in groceries stores long enough to know what a "Code 10" in aisle three means.
I feel much safer knowing that those who support the TSA are less willing to assure our privacy, safety, and rights, and more willing to make snotty remarks toward people who have asked questions that could have easily been answered if we were all being honest with each other.
I guess I'll be looking for a boat and a car ASAP.
You know what I say... Who cares... If someone wants to see my weiner then let them see it. I choose to use the service of the airport. If you have a problem then drive or swim to where you want to go. That is what is wrong with this country today. Everyone want to complain about something, If you dont like it, then take the bus.
totally reasonable IMO and I feel that this type of scanning will save lives. good work.
We were just on a trip to Germany 3 weeks ago for 2 weeks, I'm glad we aren't planning to go now! I think these should be EVERYWHERE and leave it up to the public to either use it or not and be FULLY searched! I'd use it without question especially if it meant getting through without the worsening hassle of flying as it is now. We will NOT be flying in 2010 because it is ridiculous to have all the hassle and for what? The bad guys still get through!
I have travelled to America numerous times but will not be returning again. I limit my cell phone use and do not use wireless networks. I have worked in telecomms and done many studies and much research in this area so am aware of the risks. So therefore I have no intention of standing in front of a machine that will be bombarding my entire body with microwaves. (I don't care how many times they say they are weaker than would be required to cook a meal!)
That and the toilet ban (imagine how many people will still be queuing at the one hour point when people will be forced back to their seats, on a busy flight, before taking into accounts routine delays waiting for a landing slot, go-arounds, delays to disembark etc) mean that travelling has become far too unpleasant to be desirable and all because of such a tiny miniscule risk of something that could happen anywhere (in a sports stadium, shopping mall, public place.)
I guess this means the terrorists have won.
Why do they have to hide the images in another room if they are so harmless/sexless? What would be wrong with everybody seeing a harmless/sexless image? Every precaution that they mention seems to be a precaution against the agents "getting off" on the pictures and against them using the machine to sexually abuse and expoit the passengers.
Okay, I'm all for "security" and whatnot, but do you have to do that for EVERYONE? Even 5-year-olds? If I were a parent, I'd definitely object to both pat-downs AND revealing images of my child. And for teenagers, that's as bad as sexting! If it weren't for "security"'s sake, it would probably be ILLEGAL (*coughpedophilescough*)! I'd really rather not be raped by some crusty old TSA officer's eyes, thank you very much. And wouldn't they just make the whole process of security screening slower? I really don't think these are the right option.
I see good in this, and I hope it is not abused. As rough and processed as these images are, the ability of some people to misuse a technology has never ceased to amaze me. Or the rest of the world it seems.
All in all, though, a good step forward and in the right direction.
I'm curious... If most people's primary issue is that the operator will see graphic images of their body... Why don't they just program the software to only show a skeleton and concerning metal/chemical items (ala Total Recall)? Why have an outline of soft tissue (breasts, gentials, skin) etc. The human body stripped of it's soft tissue is pretty unattractive.
i agree with me24000 plus the fact that we have lost our freedoms, privacy, and it's feeling like we are in a prison the way our bags get checked and having to put everything in see through bottles. tsa's don't really mean we are safe just more exposed against our wills. next thing you know we will all be riding naked on the plane. as americans of our own country we are treated unfairly. what a waste of money and more like a punishment!
The TSA images are not what they will be seeing. One of the manufacturer's web sites states that the resolution is 3mm X 3mm - That's about 1/10". They focus on the genital area, which is their primary target.
Want your kids scanned like this?
What happened to the 4th amendment?
The images are deleted? REALLY?!?!??? You might want to re-think that statement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/body-scan-images-from-sec_n_670170.html
I am completely shocked about the lies and corruption the TSA is allowing with this sort of technology. The fact that it was supposed to "not save ANY images" is an outright lie in every sense of the word. The fact that TSA agents are 90% uneducated high-school dropouts confirms that this will be a nightmare. The privacy 'assurance' that TSA is promising is impossible. They have morons now that can barely run the ticket check counter efficiently and expect this to be under lock and key. BULL! This is just another ploy to gain another advantage on the american people.
Can you see my tampon in this imaging?
Liars. It's people like you that undermine people's trust in government, and give the crazies all the ammunition they need. You'll be seeing obscenities painted in reflective medium on my scans.
When I 1st heard of these scanners I knew that I would never fly again if they became mandatory. On October 1st, 2010 I entered the Columbus, Ohio airport not thinking that I would be shoved into one. When I realized that there was something very different from what I had been through in the past (even a pat-down years ago), I immediately protested & said, "Wait! do I have to do this?" The TSA officer replied, "Yes! You need to put your foot here and your foot here" as he pointed to two rectangles on the floor. I was literally thrown to the wolves. And because I protested so, the image of my breast area wasn't seen by the pervert in the little room and I therefore had to go through a "pat-down."
These machines are prohibited for those under 18 because of child molesters. As a victim of rape I cannot see the difference. A pervert is a pervert and anonymity cannot be assured because these machines do possess the ability to store and record images. Not only were my "constitutional rights" to privacy broken, but my "human" rights were broken.
Getting on a plane to see my boyfriend who is soon to be deployed to Iraq was hard enough. The events that occurred in Columbus immediately crossed boundaries,
which resemble those that were crossed before. The control they had over me, mind & body, should NEVER be in their possession.
I Think the viewer in the closed off room should be ran thru the scanner before each shift and have his/her nude scan posted at the entrance of the scanner so the passengers can check him/her out also; kinda like "you show me urs and ill show you mine!" i mean its only fair if the operator refuses to post his/her scan the passengers should have a right to pat the operator down! OR BETTER YET to be completely fair the image of the operator is only shown to the passengers for the same amount of time they "check" us out ....Or better yet why wear clothes? if everyone was naked where would they put it? and also can they see tampons????thats a good question!
Today was the second time I had the 'freedom' of feeling violated by my country. And what are my choices? Submit to violation by a machine that I have not idea the long term effects or be 'patted' down in the name of national security. Seriously, I want to know if there are any 'WOMEN' managing these decisions. Freedom is no longer 'FREE' for any of our citizens. We have become a society built on fear. Very SAD day in our history.
Are TSA employees required to leave cellphones and cameras outside the viewing room?
Was anyone fired for the incident where the TSA was found to be keeping the images on file, in violation of TSA guidelines?
Pilots union have lodged complaints that frequent scans may harm pilots and urged pilots not to be scanned. What is the risk to travelers?
I'm a male and my religion does not permit me to allow other men to touch my genitalia - even through clothing.
Can I request a pat-down from a female TSA agent?
1. All employees are representatives of a company but no ONE person can speak up about what each of their employees is about. You say that the images will not be released and that the officers are professionals conducting their jobs appropriately but I disagree and only time will be evidence of what the human nature is capable of. Even Soldiers of ALL nations have at one time or another embarrassed their nation with immoral and unethical acts.
2. Many are stating that "the terrorists have won" because such methods and technologies are being implemented.. uh, duh. I know the terrorists aren't particularly interested in the show and tell at the TSA lines but taking away our rights and freedoms of privacy are just one step closer to their goal... what is their goal? well, im sure it is a long list and not easily described in one sentence but I think it is safe to assume that when you tear the moral of the people they become susceptible to attacks of any kind whether physical or emotional.
Conclusion: Let's find more dignified ways of treating our citizens and stop the terror internally.
Yours truly,
M01
This blog post is propoganda. Prove this is an open forum by posting this comment.
I can not believe that there is no ability to store images. It would make sense to store images if contraband or weapons were found on a person, it would be evidence. I don't like the idea of the scanners to start with, but I like the fact that we are not being told the truth even less.
The TSA should be profiling it is effective.
my concern is what about emf's or radiation? the machine is a huge x-ray so if x ray machine's can give a person cancer what about tsa's anything that can see through us like that must give off some form of dosage? tell you honestly i would feel invaded more by a large daunting machine than to be pat down. personally i don't care if someone touches me. machines are scarier.
There's all this talk about how these machines are employed at prisons and courthouses... that's an implication that the average citizen having the audacity to travel through an "American" airport has the right to be treated like a felon getting strip-searched before being sent to their cell.
TSA has a demonstrated history of incompetence. Adding technology to give full view of breasts and penises is not going to improve competency. Some creep sitting in a dark room examining womens' breasts all day does not make me feel any safer than I felt traveling before or since 9/11. The whole of TSA is based on a bunch of unsubstantiable hype that has already been demonstrated to be ineffective at catching anybody who actually wants to commit an act of terrorism.
I will not fly anymore.
I will not be subjected, or allow myself to be subjected to a stranger touching my body, my intimate areas. And no matter what the TSA says if you are in public and allow an image to be taken of you, no one can guarantee that it will be used against your wishes.
Yes you finally posted images of the scans, however, they look so much different than the ones others have posted on other sights. I understand that there are some people out there that will exaggerate the real image making them look more like “photographs” than black and white scans. But your posting is a “cleaned up” version of what is really being seen that it is akin to not posting the images at all. Why lie about what the images really looks like unless telling the truth will outrage even the most passive traveler. I believe you have deliberately misled the public about what is “really” going own. Shame on you. I have chosen not to fly until these “Scanners” are permanently removed from our airports. I have also contacted my Congress person and State Senator about my possession as well. I vote and will vote my opinions every time. Politicians be ware.
What is visualized when a traveller with a urostomy and colostomy enter the scanner? What happens nexy? Questioining? How is that handled? Doing the waistband run will not work with folks with such right? How will the modesty of the person be protected?
Please continue to educate the public about the MINISCULE amount of radiation especially compared to what they're about to receive on a flight.
Also, I have absolutely no objection to the scanned images.
Why are the few who choose to see something sinister or lewd in outlines of a human body so vocal. How about the majority who understand the viewer of the images is doing a very boring repetitive job, not getting kicks out of the viewing.
Why don't you have the more recent posts first? Today's conversation in light of the Thanksgiving travel challenges and recent developments make it more relevent than 2 year old posts and some might not take the time to page to the end to see it's still a "current" topic!
I have 2 daughters flying in from opposite ends of the country today and I'd much rather err on the side of safety than ridiculous 'pervert-viewing images' concerns.
Thanks
cs
I thought these images couldn't be saved?!?! How do you explain the one at the top of the article?
For all those who are against this, I pose this question:
If given the choice to be on a plane with everyone who went through the scanner, or on a plane with everyone who didn't - which would YOU choose?
Terrorists stop at nothing. They will do what they can to make sure their mission is completed. In case you didn't hear, one had a bomb IN HIS UNDERWEAR! How else is the TSA supposed to find that in a "non-invasive" way??
And what's even worse, is that terrorists are becoming even more cruel - just recently two bombs were found in stray dogs who died due to poor stitching before they even made it onto the plane.
It might be 10 seconds of privacy invasion. It might be uncomfortable. Yes, it sucks. For those of you who weren't directly affected by 9/11 it probably sucks even more. But please just get over it.
These people will stop at nothing. Would you really prefer privacy over safety...or better yet, your life?
Just something to think about.
For those of you who are _for_ this, I pose this question...
What is special about blowing up an airplane?
The chance to kill 100-200 people? There are literally thousands of softer targets. Malls, churches, concerts, theaters, office buildings, etc. Are you really willing to be x-rayed or groped _every_ place you go?
Or is it that if we don't feel "safe" then we might not fly? I'm not sure this matters any more for me. I don't feel like being groped and/or getting a full-body x-ray every time I fly - so I am done.
But to answer your question - I'd take the plane where no one was groped or x-rayed. And as soon as someone does offer this - I will take it.
Isn't it true that there is another type of scanner which produces much clearer images that closely resemble naked photographs? Isn't it the backscatter images that are so controversial and offensive? If I am correct, while this blog is technically correct in that it identifies the images as millimeter wave, it is misleading with regard to the images that may be taken.
Post a Comment