It’s tinfoil hat time. I’ll give you a couple of seconds to don your protective headwear and then I’ll begin.
[Intermission Music]
OK. Let’s go… It’s been brought to our attention that the photos we provide of the millimeter wave (MMW) whole body imager (WBI) are different than the ones that CNN used in their article earlier this week. Yes, you are correct. They are different. One photo is a stock image given to us by the vendor and the other is a screen shot taken from a CNN video. Two different photos of two different people…
-Here is what 60 minutes saw, filmed and aired last December. Notice the part at 00:53 where Leslie Stahl says “To be frank, I thought I was going to see something almost pornographic and it’s not.” The video clip also shows the actual image on the screen as the officer sees.
-Here is what CNN filmed.
-Here is what Salt Lake’s KSL TV filmed.
-Here are the stock photos that TSA uses on its web and blog pages.
-Here are the front and back images that CNN used in this week’s article.
Also, there is scuttlebutt that TSA is trying to be hush-hush about this technology. In addition to the links I provided above, here are all of the places we have talked about Whole Body Imaging here on the blog:
-The First Significant Deployment of Aviation Security Technology Since the 1970s
-Catch a Wave and Avoid a Pat Down
-Safety & Privacy Concerns Regarding the Millimeter Wave Whole Body Imager
-You asked for it...You got it, Millimeter Wave images.
-Pilot Program Tests Millimeter Wave for Primary Passenger Screening
-CNN Article: Airport security bares all, or does it?
-Will Children be Screened by Whole Body Imagers?
There you have it. (Remove hats now) Have a great holiday weekend.
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
155 comments:
OK. Let’s go… It’s been brought to our attention that the photos we provide of the millimeter wave (MMW) whole body imager (WBI) are different than the ones that CNN used in their article earlier this week. Yes, you are correct. They are different. One photo is a stock image given to us by the vendor and the other is a screen shot taken from a CNN video. Two different photos of two different people…
................................
The image provided by CNN is quiet a bit more revealing that the image provided by TSA.
You say the image from CNN is an actual screen shot from the Strip Search Machine.
If this is correct you knew that the image supplied by TSA was not an accurate depiction.
Thanks for clearing that up Bob!
*Sigh* I think some of the people that comment here are 12. "Some"
Bob, you have a lot of nerve making fun of people requesting some common sense and better management from TSA. In the meantime, TSA excesses are driving down airline revenues, and eventually, that will cost you your job. "Tin foil hats"? Back off. And listen up...if pax complaints about TSA are not taken seriously and addressed, you'll be sorry you spent your time being snarky instead of responsible.
Thanks for clearing this up. I think one of the gents is just a bit more well off than the other.
Who cares what images are the same or not? What we care is that they are images: That makes them inapprorpiate. Why not use technology that does not generate images and that can detect items in body cavities (metal detectors, puffers, etc)?
Any technology that uses images will always fall into the tampon paradox: If it can´t see a tampon, it is useless, if it can, it is too invasive and should not be used.
Shame on you for saying that anyone questioning TSA's dishonest behavior with regards to these strip-search machines is some sort of a paranoid loon -- particularly given that you're doing so in the same post in which you admit TSA has been providing inaccurate information regarding the images the strip-search machines produce.
When do you plan to address any of the dozens of questions people has asked about what steps TSA is taking to make sure citizens and screeners alike know that the virtual strip-search is not mandatory, and that citizens can refuse to be strip-searched?
Bob, multiple posters at Flyertalk are reporting that TSOs are insisting that all of a traveler's shoes, including those in their bags, be placed directly on belts for screening. How do you reconcile this with Lynn's statements that citizens are merely advised to do place the shoes they are wearing on belts, not required to do so? Why are TSOs now demanding that shoes in carryon bags be screened on belts? How do you plan to deal with an increase in travelers unable to remove shoes for medical reasons, that is, because of allergies to stupidity?
Bob, when will you post strip-search images at the same size and resolution they are seen by the machine's operator?
Why are you so afraid to answer our questions?
It's irresponsible for a government institution to link to a video ("Elevator music for Star Wars", apparently copied from Family Guy) that may have been posted in violation of copyright law.
Why does the official post have such a condescending tone? It's unnecessary and inappropriate.
TSA will probably start taking you all more seriously when you stop referring to them as "strip search machines." Oh, the drama!
And there are signs at the checkpoint indicting going through the whole body imaging machines is not mandatory. Not TSA's fault the public can't be bothered to read posted signs.
This post is exactly what I would expect. The TSA is yet again responding to legitimate public concerns and criticism with a barrage of smoke and mirrors.
I don't think even Bob can deny that the strip search machines are a public relations disaster, which will be added to various other public relations disasters they already have. The snarky condescension only makes it worse, since it shows once more the TSA's contempt for travelers.
What the TSA is saying amounts to this: We've decided to improve aviation security by strip searching every passenger who enters the checkpoint with a new very expensive scanner. We're putting some measures in place behind the scenes that are meant to address your privacy concerns. We say they adequately protect your privacy, so it's your own fault if you choose not to believe it. If you really have an unfounded paranoid fear of the WBI scanners, you can get to the airport a little earlier and ask for an old-fashioned pat-down. It's your choice. Do you want to fly today?
Anonymous said...
TSA will probably start taking you all more seriously when you stop referring to them as "strip search machines." Oh, the drama!
.......................
And perhaps we will give some credence to TSA when truth overrules spin.
"TSA will probably start taking you all more seriously when you stop referring to them as "strip search machines." Oh, the drama!"
No drama, just simple and accurate statements of fact.
"And there are signs at the checkpoint indicting going through the whole body imaging machines is not mandatory. Not TSA's fault the public can't be bothered to read posted signs."
Where are the signs posted, and how large are they? Do the signs include accurate images of the scans seen by the strip-search machine's operator, at the same size and resolution that the opreator sees? Are TSOs informed that the strip-searches are not mandatory? Is each passenger told that they can decline to be photographed naked by the government?
Why do these questions so upset Bob that he refuses to answer them?
Bob, you can never win with many of these posters... no matter what the topic, and no matter you tone. If you take a serious approach, they nail you for that. If you take a light touch to a topic, they get you on that too. And so on.
On the other hand, many of the regular posters to this blog simply self-justify THEIR behavior, and delare you as being "snarky". I've noticed they seem to love that word - snarky - and apply it to you often, and at the same time blissfully ignore their terrible behavior and attitude.
However, when they do, on a few occasions, admit to their nasty attitudes they blame it on TSA. I don't know about you, Bob, but no one controls me that much. Was it Rousseau who said, and I will paraphrase: "I enjoy myself inspite of them". Maybe they should heed those words?
But what is sad is that some of those who post on this blog have declared that if someone does not agree with their opinion regarding TSA that person is either ignorant and/or naive. Wow. Stunning amounts of self-grandeur. This from people who claim to support democracy. This hyprocracy makes no sense to me.
"Bob, when will you post strip-search images at the same size and resolution they are seen by the machine's operator?
Why are you so afraid to answer our questions?"
It doesn't matter what pics he posts, you won't believe anything short of a naked picture of someone is the "real" picture the screeners see. Since you won't believe anything posted,why do you ask the question?
LOL... Great post Bob!... don't mind the haters, their bummed you might find their stash and their mellow will be harshed on their vacation in San Francisco.
Please keep up the good work! And please continue poke these trolls in the eye at every opportunity
Quote from Anonymous: "TSA will probably start taking you all more seriously when you stop referring to them as "strip search machines." Oh, the drama!"How can we take TSA seriously when it completely obfuscates what it does?
Calling it a strip search is callign it what it is. The ACLU has called it as such too - so it's not just us "tinfoil hat" types Bob's implying we are.
"And there are signs at the checkpoint indicting going through the whole body imaging machines is not mandatory. Not TSA's fault the public can't be bothered to read posted signs."Well, when the signs are placed away from it and you have to search AND TSA is not forthcoming about what it is, it IS the TSA's fault.
I've seen the sign at BWI. It's not in front of the sign - it's off to the side in such a way that it's not easy to see. Signs aren't any good if they're tucked off in a corner or out of the way. Furthermore, I saw no efforts made by any TSO's to educate people as to what was actually going on.
You can blame the public all you want. If TSA isn't telling people what's going on, what the machine does and that it's optional, there's a problem. There's even more problems if TSA is essentially bullying people into using the machines, threatening them with patdowns that will take longer, etc.
I'm going thru BWI tomorrow morning. I'm sure I'll see the sign tucked off to the side and TSA still not explaining the machine and implying that the optional patdown (if offered at all) will be worse than just being stripsearched.
Considering POTUS was at the archives yesterday where our most scared national documents are found, I find it ironic that TSA finds this fits within the constitution and that Obama's allowing stuff like this to go on.
Robert
re: Shoes
I just flew out of RDU and the TSA there didn't say 'please' or 'you have the option to' nope they said "All shoes MUST be placed on the belt NOT in the bins" after the attitude the document checker was giving everyone and they fact I just wanted to be home I didn't bother to ask why the disconnect between the 'published' 'official(????)' comments are contradicting the actions on the ground.....
Bob:
What screening do the MMW operators undergo before starting their shifts to ensure that they do not have any cell phones/cameras/other imaging equipment with them before entering the screening room?
Since you say that images are deleted immediately after their use, how are they deleted? Is it a secure deletion in which the image is overwritten with junk data, or is it simply "deleted", leaving it vulnerable to being undeleted to anyone with the proper software?
What steps are taken to secure property while a traveller is in the MMR scanner?
Waste of money. You put passengers through this
"show" and let $5/hour janitors walk right around security. They couldn't be bought and all passengers are criminals.
See the disconnect here?
Here we are with the same old cry babies. If I said it once, I will say it a thousand times. If you don't like it, don't fly. You all act like the whole world is upset about this. The reality is eveyone is fine with it but a few. Some of you crying the loudest have admitted you don't even fly. And this has nothing to do with airlines making money. Their revenue is down because of the economy.
Just a reminder...
It's a holiday weekend. We won't be back to work until Tuesday. I might moderate a little when I get a chance, but as for right now, I'm off to the pool!
Have a great weekend.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
Bob said...
Just a reminder...
It's a holiday weekend. We won't be back to work until Tuesday. I might moderate a little when I get a chance, but as for right now, I'm off to the pool!
Have a great weekend.
Bob
EoS Blog Team
If you go through one of the nude-o-scopes you will need to wear a shirt that says "I was in the pool!"
Anyone can opt out of using this technology. 1) There are signs posted at the airport that inform passengers of this fact. 2) At tsa.gov under Our Approach – Whole Body Imaging it is clearly stated that the use of this technology is voluntary. 3) This blog has repeated on many occasions that anyone can opt out of being screened by this device, just like you can opt out of being screened by the walk thru metal detector. 4) TV News reports and newspaper articles have stated these facts.
Bubbaloop said… Who cares what images are the same or not? What we care is that they are images: That makes them inapprorpiate. Why not use technology that does not generate images and that can detect items in body cavities (metal detectors, puffers, etc)?
Any technology that uses images will always fall into the tampon paradox: If it can´t see a tampon, it is useless, if it can, it is too invasive and should not be used.
Metal detectors detect metal, not explosives. Puffers are notorious for breaking down due to dirt and humidity at airports. No one has ever stated that this equipment can see inside people. It provides and image of the outline of their body. Your tampon paradox will only be solved if TSA hires a bunch of radiologists to perform screening functions.
Gee, Bob, I hope you come back all refreshed so you can answer some of the legitimate questions you've been dodging!
I will never understand why people get so upset over this. TSA is here to protect our sky's for goodness sake...get over it!
Why are TSOs now demanding that shoes in carryon bags be screened on belts? I have yet to do that & unless it comes straight from the top I have absolutely no intention of doing that. It just sounds ridonkulous.
Imagine, the plenty of women who fly through everyday who carry abou 15 pairs of shoes. If HQ says that women have to take those 15 pairs out of their bag just so I can see them separatley, they better have a darn good reason of doing so, otherwise I find it useless & selfish.
I wonder if Bob will have more tinfoil comments after the first reports of screeners being overheard discussing passengers' anatomy over their lunch break. But that's ok, after all Bob with his utterly unprofessional tinfoil hat comment has already demonstrated that the TSA has zero respect for the travelling public.
So why not let the grunts objectify the passengers. After all it's in the name of security theatre.
How about when the first images start getting passed around? Oh wait, that's right cameras will be banned from the screening room. And I'm sure every TSO that works in the screening room will be subjected to the same strip-search to ensure they're compliant.
I ran across this blog and from the looks of it, there are quite a few geniuses who enjoy whining about TSA like little girls, rather than coming up with their own solutions on how to keep a bomb off a plane. Let's hear it - - what's your suggestion? With today's available technology, how do you keep explosives off an airplane? Since the technology currently in use may not be perfect, let's just ask everyone to self-certify before they board a plane, stating they are not a terrorist, and that they are not carrying explosives. Would you send your mother on that flight?! Time to pull your head out and face a little reality.
I hope you enjoyed your pool time Blogger Bob, now it is school time. (I am so punny)
As a photographer I am sure you are well acquainted with image manipulation.
The fact that the image released by the TSA is of a different person than the CNN image is of no consequence.
The reason you can see the penis and testicles on the CNN image is not due to anatomy but due to the image settings the operator was using.
Take a close look at the CNN image and you will see the brightness control is positioned at 100%, contrast is about 75% and the lighting is about 90%.
Human nature being what it is, I can guarantee that most if not all of the MMW WBI devices in the field are set to a similar setting to allow the operator to see every detail of the PAX.
The images released by the TSA most likely were made at the MMW WBI's default setting. The default images are completely benign compared to what the device is capable of producing and is producing on a daily basis.
Because the "normal" in field setting of the device shows much more intimate genital detail than the images posted on the signage, if you can find the signage, means the supposed 99% of the PAX that choose the MMW WBI are basing their "choice" on a lie.
Hope everyone has a fantastic Memorial Day/ Week. Off topic: IDK what everyone else here is doing but I plan on having a cookout as well as taking time out of my fay to see some memorials.
I can see where people are coming from when they say this is revealing. But it's a small price to pay for security.
Have fun at the pool! I know I will. :D
You're absolutely right, Bob. Everyone at TSA HQ is wearing a tinfoil hat. I'm surprised they let you tell us that though - isn't that information SSI?
Bob, I know you cannot answer this question, but I want you to consider it anyway. Do you agree with the company line on the MMW scanners? We know the resolution can be improved, we know the images could (not can) be saved. We know they are much more graphic than originally argued. We also know you are required to parrot the company line whether you agree with it or not.
But do you actually agree with the company line? Don't answer that.
If you do agree, then you're doing everything correctly and I pity you. But if you do not, instead of making snarky comments about tinfoil hats your time would be better served saying "I understand you have concerns and I will take these concerns to TSA management."
If you do the latter it would reveal that one can work for the TSA and still have a conscience and a respect for the fellow human being.
If you do the former it shows that the case truly is hopeless and senior blog responsibility should be turned over to someone a lot less jaded who would then use this blog for its intended purpose - TWO direction communication.
Please consider the question - do you agree with the company line?
Congratulations to the TSA leadership types, you should be proud.
Of 216 Federal Agency Subcomponents
TSA rank at 213 of Overall Index Scores for Employee Satisfaction and Commitment only beating out the FAA, National Drug Intelligence Center and the Office of Postsecondary Education for the coveted bottom spot of all scored agencies.
Good job TSA!
Nate said...
It's irresponsible for a government institution to link to a video ("Elevator music for Star Wars", apparently copied from Family Guy) that may have been posted in violation of copyright law.
May 22, 2009 2:24 PM
Hush, the clip falls under fair use.
Please stick to real issues.
Anonymous said...
I ran across this blog and from the looks of it, there are quite a few geniuses who enjoy whining about TSA like little girls, rather than coming up with their own solutions on how to keep a bomb off a plane. Let's hear it - - what's your suggestion? With today's available technology, how do you keep explosives off an airplane? Since the technology currently in use may not be perfect, let's just ask everyone to self-certify before they board a plane, stating they are not a terrorist, and that they are not carrying explosives. Would you send your mother on that flight?! Time to pull your head out and face a little reality.
May 24, 2009 4:01 PM
I suggest you poke around the blog a bit more before deciding that solutions have not been offered.
To help bring you up to speed the following solutions have been offered by the posters to this board in order to increase security.
1. Screen ALL that enter the sterile area including TSOs and airport workers. Screen all that leave the sterile area including TSOs and airport workers.
2. Secure ALL luggage after screening. If an item can be stolen from a bag and item can be placed in a bag. A simple strapping machine can fix this hole on the cheap.
3. Properly inform passengers as to what the MMW WBI does and how it works so they may make an informed consent. Those that refuse the MMW WBI get patted down.
4. Dump the illegal parts of the TSA's "procedures" like the forced ID verification, the SPO-7 and dump the worthless parts of "procedures" like the failed BDO program. Take the money from those bad parts and put them to better technology like puffers that work.
Anonymous said...
*Sigh* I think some of the people that comment here are 12. "Some"
May 22, 2009 1:07 PM
-----------------------------------
I couldn't agree more! The one's that keep harping about thier questions not being answered are the worst. It doesn't matter how many times or how you answer the question they have the same response. I suspect it's because it's not the answer they want. In truth I believe there are only one or two of these folks using several post names to make it seem as if there are more of them.
----------------------------------
DoogieSD said...
LOL... Great post Bob!... don't mind the haters, their bummed you might find their stash and their mellow will be harshed on their vacation in San Francisco.
Please keep up the good work! And please continue poke these trolls in the eye at every opportunity
May 22, 2009 6:28 PM
----------------------------------
YOU MAY HAVE HIT ON SOMETHING! :>)
----------------------------------
As a frequent traveler I would just like to say THANK YOU TSA for all you do to protect me and my loved ones... Thank you too Blogger Bob and Staff.
At least the failed ETD puffer machine program was objective. It's high false alarm rate and maintenance problems are inherent in a 1-in-a-billion event detection problem.
On the other hand, this MWW imaging program still relies on visual inspection. If you tune/desensitize your operators to have a manageable false-alarm rate on 2,000,000 people per day, you will tradeoff your ability to detect the 1-in-a-billion terrorist. The statistics will work like your BDO program: Your MWW visual search will trigger on the the most MMW-unusual 0.01% of passengers, and find that only 1% of those are "artfully concealing" some non-dangerous item, while reducing the problem of the 1-in-a-billion terrorist to blending in with the 99.99% non-MMW-unusual people.
In response to Trollkiller’s solutions…
1. Great idea. The only problem we face is the increase to TSA’s budget due the massive increase in workforce. As a rough guess based on the airports I have worked at we would need to take our screening workforce from about 40,000 up to around 60,000.
2. Good idea. The only downside is that bags are actually easy to get into, for instances zippers can be popped and then resealed.
3. Done it. Please refer to my comments on May 23, 11:54 am. The information is out there.
4. ID checks have always felt like a cheap version of security to me, SPO-7 I don’t know what you are referring to, and the BDO program does work.
I know the public doesn’t see the value in the BDO program, many TSO’s feel the same way. If you examine how the international community conducts security, places that are frequent targets of terrorism often use programs similar to the BDO program. For instance, Israel, with all the threats that they face why would they allow their security forces to use useless techniques. By the way, Israel also performs multiple ID checks as you pass through their security, there must be something to the ID checks.
I second Trollkiller's post from May 26, 2009 5:08 PM.
Many of us have offered very specific, actionable suggestions to improve the TSA's operations in general, and both the checkpoint experience and baggage security in particular. Most of these suggestions have been ignored. Some have been dismissed with no indication that they're been given any real thought. A token few have been implemented, but not enough to address the systemic problems with the TSA.
That's why the frustration level is as high as it is. It's also part of the reason the TSA is more than a little short on credibility, leading to the skepticism regarding what they do and don't do with image from their WBI machines.
Mark
"Dump the illegal parts of the TSA's "procedures" like the forced ID verification"
Trollkiller, what do you make of The Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 4016 (c) (2), which is where TSA is mandated by Congress to insure the identity of anyone who flies?
One thing I'd like to know --
Since I'd have to empty my pockets before entering a WBI imager, what procedures are in place to keep my belongings in sight and protect them from theft?
Under the old WTMD procedures, I could keep my ID, cash, a credit card, and boarding pass on my person. That way, if my carry-on got stolen, I'd still have money and my "papers". Under an "empty pockets" procedure, if my bag got stolen, I'd have literally nothing but the clothes on my back.
I'll be interested to see if / what the answer is.
Mark
Greatest post of all time. Thanks Bob, I nearly fell out of my chair reading that.
Now, if we could just get people to stay on-topic, life would be grand.
TK said...
“Screen all that leave the sterile area including TSOs and airport workers.”
Not to be a Debbie Downer but the plan of exit screening would need a change to the law. All one would have to do is refuse to partake in exit screening and be escorted out of the sterile area. Then, you would have the question of what is a prohibited item in the non-secure area of the airport?
Just wondering what your ideas on this subject are.
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
@Mark VII: "Under an "empty pockets" procedure, if my bag got stolen, I'd have literally nothing but the clothes on my back. I'll be interested to see if / what the answer is."
This is my real concern about the WBI scanners, for the exact reasons you mention. I've raised it several times here, as have a few other people. I've used the "got feedback," which has gone unacknowledged. So it appears that the TSA's answer is to ignore it. Since the Security Experts at headquarters who made the decision to deploy the scanners didn't think of it, it obviously can't be important.
And besides, the TSA's job is primarily to protect aviation from terrorist threats, and secondarily to notify the police of any other violations they happen to discover during screening. The security of passengers' belongings is entirely outside the TSA's mission and definition of security. The TSA bears no responsibility for loss or damage to passengers' property, even when that loss or damage is caused or facilitated by the the TSA's screening procedures. So if someone ever does make a fuss when the tray or bag containing their wallet is stolen during WBI scanning, the TSA will issue a press release denying any responsibility and reminding passengers that they are responsible for securing their belongings.
And they wonder why we have so little regard for the TSA.
TSORon: Now, if we could just get people to stay on-topic, life would be grand.
We are on-topic. The WBI scanner is a strip search no matter how the TSA wants to spin it or evade the truth. And TSA employees take every possible opportunity to show their complete contempt for us with condescending posts and comments.
How much more on-topic can you get?
TSORon writes:
Now, if we could just get people to stay on-topic, life would be grand.Is it on-topic to complain about people who aren't staying on-topic? (I sense an infinite loop coming on ...)
Well, I'll try to jump into the fray here:
I understand and support all the calls for honesty and full disclosure in implementing WBI technology. My question is; "Why do so many of you insist on banning this machine?" I have spoken with many passengers who like having a "hands-off" screening option, and only a few who prefer a pat-down to the WBI. Where is the problem in allowing individual passengers to exercise the choice that they prefer?
spotnik said...
Well, I'll try to jump into the fray here:
I understand and support all the calls for honesty and full disclosure in implementing WBI technology. My question is; "Why do so many of you insist on banning this machine?" I have spoken with many passengers who like having a "hands-off" screening option, and only a few who prefer a pat-down to the WBI. Where is the problem in allowing individual passengers to exercise the choice that they prefer?
May 28, 2009 3:33 PM
.............................
Did these people fully understand just how revealing the Strip Search Machine images are?
If the images were like the SPO-7 images as displayed on this site then I would have little issue with this technology. But they are not, the MMW Strip Search Machine clearly images a persons complete anatomy down to the finest point. Well above any reasonable level needed to find weapons or other contraband.
RB writes:
I understand and support all the calls for honesty and full disclosure in implementing WBI technology. My question is; "Why do so many of you insist on banning this machine?" I have spoken with many passengers who like having a "hands-off" screening option, and only a few who prefer a pat-down to the WBI. Where is the problem in allowing individual passengers to exercise the choice that they prefer?
The question, as I see it, is this: what about the third option, of having neither a pat-down nor a WBI scan? Is that option going away?
As I understand it, at a "normal" airport right now, most passengers clear the checkpoint without having a pat-down. Pat-downs are performed only if (a) a passenger fails to pass the WTMD scan, or (b) the passenger is arbitrarily selected for additional screening. But the vast majority of passengers don't have to go through this.
At six of the airports where WBI is being piloted, passengers are offered a choice between WBI and a pat-down. But the third option, of just walking through the WTMD and continuing on if it doesn't beep, isn't being offered at those six airports. Either you have to allow someone to pat you down, or you have to allow someone to look at your anonymized semi-naked form. Both are invading one's privacy; which one is more invasive is a matter of personal opinion and personal preference.
Now, if TSA was offering the choice between WBI and a pat-down only for passengers who need secondary screening, I wouldn't have a problem. Those passengers are subject to a pat-down anyways, and offering them an alternative choice is a good thing.
The question becomes whether or not this level of screening, normally only performed as secondary screening, will become the norm for all passengers. Yes, this is a pilot study right now. But we've seen pilot studies become standard practice in the past. (It used to be that taking one's shoes off was only recommended; now, it's required.)
How likely is it that WBI/pat-downs will be mandatory? Well, I suspect TSA can't answer that. (After all, this is a pilot program, and they deserve the right to see what the data tells them.) So we're left to speculate ... and the speculation tends to reveal more about the biases of the responders than the issue itself.
So, that's the question in a nutshell for me. It's not a question of WBI versus a pat-down. It's a question of WBI versus a pat-down versus neither ... and whether the "neither" option is eventually going away.
RB said...
Did these people fully understand just how revealing the Strip Search Machine images are?
If the images were like the SPO-7 images as displayed on this site then I would have little issue with this technology. But they are not, the MMW Strip Search Machine clearly images a persons complete anatomy down to the finest point. Well above any reasonable level needed to find weapons or other contraband.
May 28, 2009 4:47 PM
......................
At least some of them do. One even referenced the CNN article which has stirred up so much controversy. I will admit I do not always have time to have a lengthy discussion of the technology with every passenger who brings up the topic. Most of the passengers I encounter are more interested in getting on their flights than in further discussing MMW.
What I have found is that most of the passengers who like this technology seem to have spent at least some time researching it, and have come to their own conclusions. Most of them do not seem to believe that there is a prurient interest behind a TSO viewing images in a remote location. Some just appreciate the time savings (the reports I have heard are that it is much faster than traditional screening) and the option of getting screened without physical contact.
As someone who doesn't particularly like to be touched myself, I have to say that I would choose to use this technology over a pat down. Especially with all the positive reports I have heard from frequent travelers. (And yes, I even looked at Trollkiller's side-by-side comparison.)
As to the "reasonable" argument, that's really for the courts to decide. I understand the concern, but, again, there are people in this country who feel a pat down search is far more intrusive than the image this machine produces. MMW and the pat down search both confirm that there are no weapons or explosives hidden in or underneath the clothing. So long as that screening objective is achieved reliably, I am in favor of offering the passenger a choice.
Quote from H2H: "Not to be a Debbie Downer but the plan of exit screening would need a change to the law. All one would have to do is refuse to partake in exit screening and be escorted out of the sterile area. Then, you would have the question of what is a prohibited item in the non-secure area of the airport?"Why not just make one up? TSA cites its own regs all the time for why it must do stuff. You know, like it did for the mandatory ID bit? Create a reg, cite it and enforce it.
Works on the general public, right?
Robert
HappyToHelp said...
TK said...
“Screen all that leave the sterile area including TSOs and airport workers.”
Not to be a Debbie Downer but the plan of exit screening would need a change to the law. All one would have to do is refuse to partake in exit screening and be escorted out of the sterile area. Then, you would have the question of what is a prohibited item in the non-secure area of the airport?
Just wondering what your ideas on this subject are.
-Tim “H2H”
EoS Blog Team
No change of law needed. For TSA people make that part of the condition employment. Failure to submit to screening on exit, send them packing. If they have nothing to hide it should not be a problem. ;-)
For everyone else the same law that allows the random screenings at the gate allow for screenings on exit. If someone refuses the screening on exit they are breaking the law and you may fine as you wish.
Title 49: Transportation
PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES
Subpart B—Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons
§ 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.
(a) No person may:
(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.
BTW secured areas are different than sterile. (I know picky picky picky)
Anonymous said...
"Dump the illegal parts of the TSA's "procedures" like the forced ID verification"
Trollkiller, what do you make of The Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 4016 (c) (2), which is where TSA is mandated by Congress to insure the identity of anyone who flies?
Just to be clear I am talking about the illegal forced identification verification as a crietion for granting access to the sterile area. (now you know why I shortened it to "illegal ID verification")
Anyhow, on with the post.
(Paragraph spacing is mine for readability)
PL 108-796 - INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
SEC. 4016. FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS.
(c) FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNTERTERRORISM TRAINING-
(2) IDENTIFICATION OF FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS- The Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Director of Federal Air Marshal Service of the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration),
shall ensure that Transportation Security Administration screeners and Federal air marshals receive training in identifying fraudulent identification documents, including fraudulent or expired visas and passports.
Such training shall also be made available to other Federal law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies located in a State that borders Canada or Mexico.
Are you sure you got your cite correct? 4016 (c)(2) does not say anything about authorizing the TSA to using forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.
TSO Jacob said...
In response to Trollkiller’s solutions…
1. Great idea. The only problem we face is the increase to TSA’s budget due the massive increase in workforce. As a rough guess based on the airports I have worked at we would need to take our screening workforce from about 40,000 up to around 60,000.
2. Good idea. The only downside is that bags are actually easy to get into, for instances zippers can be popped and then resealed.
3. Done it. Please refer to my comments on May 23, 11:54 am. The information is out there.
4. ID checks have always felt like a cheap version of security to me, SPO-7 I don’t know what you are referring to, and the BDO program does work.
I know the public doesn’t see the value in the BDO program, many TSO’s feel the same way. If you examine how the international community conducts security, places that are frequent targets of terrorism often use programs similar to the BDO program. For instance, Israel, with all the threats that they face why would they allow their security forces to use useless techniques. By the way, Israel also performs multiple ID checks as you pass through their security, there must be something to the ID checks.
I will run the numbers backwards.
4(a). From this article in USA today, 160,000 people were subjected to extra BDO scrutiny, of these 15,000 were referred to law enforcement, of the 15,000 referred to law enforcement only 1266 were arrested.
Over all failure rate equals 99.21%, of those that the BDO deemed nefarious enough to refer to a LEO the failure rate equals 91.56%.
Sorry with that kind of failure rate the TSA can not claim success.
4(b) The SPO-7 is a MMW device the TSA is using illegally in the public areas of the airport.
4(c) Forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area is not just cheap but illegal under the current law. (scroll down to "Illegal ID verification and the new laws.")
3. But is it good information? The signage needs to be PROMINATE, not hidden. The images on the sign must be true images and not the sanitized ones. The ability to opt out needs to be highlighted.
I am sure that a few airports are providing the proper info, but there are too many independent sources saying the signs are hidden.
2. If the bags are strapped the nefarious individual would have to go fishing instead of opening the bag for a quick look. If perchance some airport worker or TSA employee went fishing #1 will find those guys out.
1. Increase the workforce, if need be. I would rather pay 60,000 people to have proper security than 40,000 people and have security theater. So would the majority of posters to this board. Personally I think if the TSA stopped doing mission creep they would have more than enough people.
AAARRRR BBBBEEEEEE said...
Did these people fully understand just how revealing the Strip Search Machine images are?
Well RB, if you're worried about that then now is a good time to work on your beach bod before you catch some x-rays :D. BUt seriously, since passengers can choose how they wnat to be screened is there really a problem?
ps. looking forward to TK's response to...
Anonymous said...
"Dump the illegal parts of the TSA's "procedures" like the forced ID verification"
Trollkiller, what do you make of The Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 4016 (c) (2), which is where TSA is mandated by Congress to insure the identity of anyone who flies?
May 27, 2009 12:40 PM
spotnik said...
RB said...
Did these people fully understand just how revealing the Strip Search Machine images are?
If the images were like the SPO-7 images as displayed on this site then I would have little issue with this technology. But they are not, the MMW Strip Search Machine clearly images a persons complete anatomy down to the finest point. Well above any reasonable level needed to find weapons or other contraband.
May 28, 2009 4:47 PM
......................
At least some of them do. One even referenced the CNN article which has stirred up so much controversy. I will admit I do not always have time to have a lengthy discussion of the technology with every passenger who brings up the topic. Most of the passengers I encounter are more interested in getting on their flights than in further discussing MMW.
What I have found is that most of the passengers who like this technology seem to have spent at least some time researching it, and have come to their own conclusions. Most of them do not seem to believe that there is a prurient interest behind a TSO viewing images in a remote location. Some just appreciate the time savings (the reports I have heard are that it is much faster than traditional screening) and the option of getting screened without physical contact.
As someone who doesn't particularly like to be touched myself, I have to say that I would choose to use this technology over a pat down. Especially with all the positive reports I have heard from frequent travelers. (And yes, I even looked at Trollkiller's side-by-side comparison.)
As to the "reasonable" argument, that's really for the courts to decide. I understand the concern, but, again, there are people in this country who feel a pat down search is far more intrusive than the image this machine produces. MMW and the pat down search both confirm that there are no weapons or explosives hidden in or underneath the clothing. So long as that screening objective is achieved reliably, I am in favor of offering the passenger a choice.
May 28, 2009 6:54 PM
..................................
Ok, couple more questions Spotnik,
How did we go from screening being good enough one day by using WTMD's & Pat Downs if needed to either a person submits to a Strip Search or a Pat Down is required?
That is a pretty big leap in procedure!
Has the screening that TSA has been doing for the last several years been that defective?
Are the images placed near the Strip Search machines similar to those CNN publish or more like those that Bob posted here? In other words are people really seeing what the images TSA is seeing look like?
Is the disclosure that the Strip Search is optional readily seen from the lines people are herded in with adequate time to read the signage?
I would prefer to not be felt up by some unknown TSA employee but I also see no reason to be Strip Searched just to fly on a commercial aircraft.
I have a trip to Florida comming up soon, I have decided to drive rather than be abused at the hands of TSA.
The airlines will be the ones to pay the price this time.
And that is the reality of this abuse by TSA, killing off air travel in the United States.
I have a question for the Blog Ops.
When TSA rolls out some new screening system such as the MMW Strip Search Machine does anyone outside of the TSA evaluate how the public will respond to the screening method and does anyone outside of TSA such as the United States Attorney review the intended screening method of compliance with current law?
Or is it just your Googling legal staff that reviews these kind of issues?
Surely these questions can be answered since it does not delve into ways and means of security processes.
George said
"And besides, the TSA's job is primarily to protect aviation from terrorist threats, and secondarily to notify the police of any other violations they happen to discover during screening."
Actually, the secondary "Job" you mention here is not an official job at all. It is their practice unfortunately. So, we have a fully operationalized dragnet searching approximately 2,000,000 people a day.
Well RB, if you're worried about that then now is a good time to work on your beach bod before you catch some x-rays :D. BUt seriously, since passengers can choose how they wnat to be screened is there really a problem?
..............................
Anon, it is a problem if the people being Strip Searched don't realize or understand that is what is going on and to what degree the images reveal their naked form. That is why I use "Strip Search" when talking about this invasion of personal privacy, that is exactly what is being done to these people.
Lets talk abot that choice of screening for a second.
A few weeks ago it was WTMD and a pat down if an alarm could not be resolved.
Now suddenly it is either a Strip Search or a Pat Down regardless!
How did we go from one point to the extreme of the other point overnight?
Why is a Strip Search or a Pat Down suddenly required to fly on a commercial aircraft?
If this is required of passengers how can TSA justify not screening 100% of those who enter the secure areas of airports?
"there are people in this country who feel a pat down search is far more intrusive than the image this machine produces. MMW and the pat down search both confirm that there are no weapons or explosives hidden in or underneath the clothing."
So does the walk-through metal detector, which is completely non-invasive. TSA has failed to justify that there is any need to take a naked picture of, or grope, every air passenger. That is because there is no such need, and TSA is overreacting as per its standard operating procedures.
Trollkiller, what do you make of The Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 4016 (c) (2), which is where TSA is mandated by Congress to insure the identity of anyone who flies?
May 27, 2009 12:40 PM
May 29, 2009 2:46 AM
.........................
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/108-796/108-796_intel_reform.html
SEC. 4016. FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS.
(a) Federal Air Marshal Anonymity.--The Director of the
Federal Air Marshal Service of the Department of Homeland
Security shall continue operational initiatives to protect the
anonymity of Federal air marshals.
(b) Authorization of Additional Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for the use of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in addition to any amounts otherwise authorized by
law, for the deployment of Federal air marshals under section
44917 of title 49, United States Code, $83,000,000 for the 3
fiscal-year period beginning with fiscal year 2005. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
(c) Federal Law Enforcement Counterterrorism Training.--
(1) Availability of information.--The Assistant
Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and
the Director of Federal Air Marshal Service of the
Department of Homeland Security, shall make available,
as practicable, appropriate information on in-flight
counterterrorism and weapons handling procedures and
tactics training to Federal law enforcement officers
who fly while in possession of a firearm.
2) Identification of fraudulent documents.--The
Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and the Director of Federal Air Marshal
Service of the Department of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Homeland
Security (Transportation Security Administration),
shall ensure that Transportation Security
Administration screeners and Federal air marshals
receive training in identifying fraudulent
identification documents, including fraudulent or
expired visas and passports. Such training shall also
be made available to other Federal law enforcement
agencies and local law enforcement agencies located in
a State that borders Canada or Mexico.........................
I see nothing that mandates TSA to check ID in this section.
All it says is that training will be required. Nothing more!
Anonymous said...
ps. looking forward to TK's response to...
"Anonymous said...
Trollkiller, what do you make of The Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 4016 (c) (2), which is where TSA is mandated by Congress to insure the identity of anyone who flies?"
I answered but I think they got the section number wrong. I see nothing in sect. 4016 (c) (2) that mandates the TSA to do anything other than get training.
And besides, the TSA's job is primarily to protect aviation from terrorist threats, and secondarily to notify the police of any other violations they happen to discover during screening. The security of passengers' belongings is entirely outside the TSA's mission and definition of security. The TSA bears no responsibility for loss or damage to passengers' property, even when that loss or damage is caused or facilitated by the the TSA's screening procedures. So if someone ever does make a fuss when the tray or bag containing their wallet is stolen during WBI scanning, the TSA will issue a press release denying any responsibility and reminding passengers that they are responsible for securing their belongings.
And they wonder why we have so little regard for the TSA.
___________________________________
This is completely wrong. Funny how many people make things up on this page. I am not even sure of why things like this are posted.
When things are taken at my airport, video is looked back on, people are chased down. Usually the person who took the belongings are caught. We don't act like we don't care or that it never happened.
Whatever you could post on here to make TSA look bad, I know you will. But a lot of things written on here are garbage.
"there are people in this country who feel a pat down search is far more intrusive than the image this machine produces. MMW and the pat down search both confirm that there are no weapons or explosives hidden in or underneath the clothing."
So does the walk-through metal detector, which is completely non-invasive. TSA has failed to justify that there is any need to take a naked picture of, or grope, every air passenger. That is because there is no such need, and TSA is overreacting as per its standard operating procedures.
___________________________________
And you are incorrect. A metal detector does not detect explosives. How would a metal detector pick up something that is not metal. Think.
When TSA rolls out some new screening system such as the MMW Strip Search Machine does anyone outside of the TSA evaluate how the public will respond to the screening method and does anyone outside of TSA such as the United States Attorney review the intended screening method of compliance with current law?
___________________________________
Of course everything that happens at TSA first goes through a lawyer. You think that a government agency the size of TSA does not have lawyers working for them.
I am not sure as far as attorneys outside of TSA.
And as far as getting feed back from the public. What do you think they are doing. This is why these machines are only at some of the airports. This is a trial to see how the machines work, and what people think about the machine.
You anti-TSA people better get out and use the machines so you can complain about them. Because from what I hear is the passengers that have agreed to use them, love them. It is faster and easier, etc.
It is just the handful of complainers on this blog that really want to make a big deal about these machines. And sorry but I don't think that is going to get you anywhere.
Anonymous (TSO?) May 29, 2009 1:42 PM: When things are taken at my airport, video is looked back on, people are chased down. Usually the person who took the belongings are caught. We don't act like we don't care or that it never happened.
-------------------------
Is that actually the TSA's answer to the very serious concern about separating passengers from their identity papers? If we have to rely on videotapes and "chasing down" thieves after a theft has occurred, it means the TSA's so-called security has FAILED. Any "security system" that makes it impossible for people to protect their valuables and prevent theft is a FAILURE, regardless of how effective it is at finding oversized lotion bottles.
If that's really all the TSA can offer passengers to protect their property during a strip search, it only demonstrates that they're MORE incompetent and arrogant than anything critics critics complain about. There's no need for us to post anything here to make the TSA look bad. You do an excellent job of that all by yourselves!
"This is a trial to see how the machines work, and what people think about the machine."
Then why is TSA not giving people accurate information and signage about these strip-search machines and what they do? Why is each passenger not told they can opt out of being strip-searched?
Anonymous said...
When TSA rolls out some new screening system such as the MMW Strip Search Machine does anyone outside of the TSA evaluate how the public will respond to the screening method and does anyone outside of TSA such as the United States Attorney review the intended screening method of compliance with current law?
___________________________________
Of course everything that happens at TSA first goes through a lawyer. You think that a government agency the size of TSA does not have lawyers working for them.......
////////////////////
Anon, how can I accept anything you say?
Who are you?
Do you work for TSA?
HQ staff?
Are you a TSA, LTSO or perhaps a STSO?
I specifically asked about lawyers outside of TSA.
And when people are being Strip Search and don't fully know what is happening then any data from that event is bogus.
Does TSA fully inform the people who are about to be Strip Search just what the machine does and do they fully know just how revealing the images are?
Is signage and pictures such as those CNN printed far enough away from the Strip Search Machines for people to have time to understand what is being asked of them?
I suspect TSA is operating just like the crooked butcher who has their thumb firmly on the scale when weighing meat.
Results for any trial can be skewed for the desired results.
TSA has proven that truth, integrity and honestly telling the public what is going on is not very high up on the TSA priority tree.
Bob - setting aside the fact that it is blatantly inappropriate for a government employee to make fun of the people who pay his salary, I was struck by your defense of the whole body imager. Because a news person doesn't think the image is pornographic, that settles it? Perhaps you might want to brush up on the law of what is and is not pornography, Bob.
You might learn something.
RB said...
Ok, couple more questions Spotnik,
How did we go from screening being good enough one day by using WTMD's & Pat Downs if needed to either a person submits to a Strip Search or a Pat Down is required?
That is a pretty big leap in procedure!
Has the screening that TSA has been doing for the last several years been that defective?
Are the images placed near the Strip Search machines similar to those CNN publish or more like those that Bob posted here? In other words are people really seeing what the images TSA is seeing look like?
Is the disclosure that the Strip Search is optional readily seen from the lines people are herded in with adequate time to read the signage?
snip...
May 29, 2009 9:17 AM
..........................
Sure, RB,
Screening procedures are determined by intelligence and security experts who get access to a lot more information than I. Any commentary I might offer on the reasoning behind procedure changes is pure conjecture.
I have noticed, in my time in the "blogosphere," that there are many people who claim that they have carried all manner of prohibited items through security. Bruce Schneier routinely makes comments and posts articles about what he considers to be problems with TSA security. Flyertalk has members who routinely trade stories about how to "smuggle" items through security, and at least on member who openly offers classes in "artful concealment." I suspect these factors may have something to do with TSA's interest in developing new screening technologies.
As to what people see when approaching the WBI machine: I don't know. My airport does not have one of these machines, so I must trust the reports from the traveling public in order to form any sort of opinion on the technology. Again, the majority of travelers who have chosen to talk with me about this new technology seem to be well informed, and still generally like the WBI machines.
you have a lot of nerve making fun of people requesting some common sense and better management from TSA.
I grow tired of Blobber Bob's derisive tone on this blog. As though he has to suffer our criticism as some form of lunacy.
If he's not genuinely interested in blogging the truth, then let's just let him go back to abusing us at his local airport, like all the other power-hungry TSA "officers" (I put it in quotes because they like to consider themselves law enforcement, even though they're not).
I don't need a tin hat... I don't believe the TSA is sending out secret brainwaves in the blog - I just believe they're an unneccessary intrusion in our daily lives. And I believe that this guy has an unnecessary attitude towards the public he is paid to serve. That's right - PAID to serve. He must be one of the 99% of the TSA who got a performance bonus last year for such outstanding work.
The best I can tell, to receive such a bonus last year at the TSA, you needed only arrive at your post and be able to inhale and exhale without assistance.
I go thru the imagers at the Sunport in Albuquerque. personally, I would walk thru naked if it made the whole thing go faster; and have been tempted on one or two occasions to just strip down to underwear and bra to make a statement.
I travel twice a week for 6 years and the whole thing annoys the crap out of me.
On the other hand, I want to see my image... there should be no reason why I shouldnt be able to see it, it is a picture of me...
Trollkiller said...
"Anonymous said...
ps. looking forward to TK's response to...
"Anonymous said...
Trollkiller, what do you make of The Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 4016 (c) (2), which is where TSA is mandated by Congress to insure the identity of anyone who flies?"
I answered but I think they got the section number wrong. I see nothing in sect. 4016 (c) (2) that mandates the TSA to do anything other than get training."
The section listed is incorrect.
However,
Title VII
Section 7720 says in part:
"The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft"
In other words, this gives the legal authority for the Security of Homeland Security to require TSA to inspect all identification of all domestic travellers in the United States. There are other sections dealing with international travellers, but you can rest assured they allow DHS the same legal right to check id.
I suggest you read the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 more throughly before you say it is illegal for TSA to check your identification when travelling.
This needs to be stopped. It's hardly appropriate taking full body photos of people. Soon people are going to stop travelling because of the invasion of privacy.
What I don't understand is why in all the photos do they clearly show the underwire blocking out the image? Are you saying that they system can not see behind clothing that is tight on the skin? If so what use is the machine?
Is that actually the TSA's answer to the very serious concern about separating passengers from their identity papers? If we have to rely on videotapes and "chasing down" thieves after a theft has occurred, it means the TSA's so-called security has FAILED. Any "security system" that makes it impossible for people to protect their valuables and prevent theft is a FAILURE, regardless of how effective it is at finding oversized lotion bottles.
If that's really all the TSA can offer passengers to protect their property during a strip search, it only demonstrates that they're MORE incompetent and arrogant than anything critics critics complain about. There's no need for us to post anything here to make the TSA look bad. You do an excellent job of that all by yourselves!
May 29, 2009 5:42 PM
___________________________________
Nope the post has nothing to do with people being seperated from their papers. It has to do with the fact that someone commented that TSA bears no responsiblity for lost, stolen or damaged property. Which is entirely not true. But if you want to turn it around, like everyone turns everything around and say that we do not care about someone being seperated from their papers, then take it as you will.
At our airport their is not even a MMW machine. So I have no idea what the rules are for that and weather or not you have to seperate yourself from your wallet. That had nothing to do with my comment.
And about the incompetent and arrogant comment as far as TSA and your property.....
TSO's are always supposed to make sure that the passenger can see their property or if requested they must retrieve it for the passenger. (Now like I said before I do not know the rules as far as the MMW goes) A passenger never HAS to put their wallet through the xray. If their is metal in your wallet, get it out, and leave your wallet in your pocket. Your ID's and boarding pass, even if the airport does not check them, you can still hold on to them. Even with jewelry, you do not ever have to take it off if you do not want to be seperated from it.
And by the way, people put their wallets through all day long (and not because they are asked to, they just send them through). The only place I hear complaining is on this site.
PS. Do not buy wallets with money clips built onto them.
Anonymous TSO, May 29, 2009 4:51 PM: "Of course everything that happens at TSA first goes through a lawyer. You think that a government agency the size of TSA does not have lawyers working for them."
Of course they have attorneys. But so did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, whose loyal attorneys Gonzales, Yoo, and Bybee wrote memoranda that provided "legal" justification for torture, warrantless wiretapping, and anything else the administration needed to evade legal and constitutional constraints. I would thus expect that the TSA's lawyers provide similar services to justify whatever TSA management decide to do. I would never rely on lawyers working for the government to protect our liberty and privacy.
"And as far as getting feed back from the public. What do you think they are doing..... You anti-TSA people better get out and use the machines so you can complain about them. Because from what I hear is the passengers that have agreed to use them, love them. It is faster and easier, etc"
How many of those people who "love them" are fully aware of what the machines do-- specifically that they're strip searches? It's quite obvious from the TSA's PR efforts that want to obscure that reality, and dismiss those who criticize them as irrelevant:
Just ignore those VERY FEW complainers who keep WHINING AND MOANING about a "strip search" and an "invasion of privacy." I don't know why they always want to make the TSA look bad. Maybe it's because they hate America? Trust us. We're telling you the truth. It's completely wrong to call the scanners a "strip search." It's not a strip search at all. Far from it. It's just a fast, passenger-friendly, and very very safe machine that will get you on your way much faster while fully protecting your privacy. When we tested the WBI scanners, 99.9% of passengers we surveyed were enthusiastic about how fast and convenient those scanners were. So who are you going to believe? A VERY FEW whiners who have nothing better to do than continually insult the many hard working patriotic TSOs who keep America's airplanes safe from a horrible threat, or the overwhelming majority of people who have tried the scanners and LOVED them?
Jim Huggins said:
“Now, if TSA was offering the choice between WBI and a pat-down only for passengers who need secondary screening, I wouldn't have a problem. Those passengers are subject to a pat-down anyways, and offering them an alternative choice is a good thing.”
Jim, I actually like that idea. I don’t know where the TSA is going with this new technology, but using it to clear individuals who need additional screening is in my opinion its best use.
Anonymous said:
"Title VII
Section 7720 says in part:
"The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft"
"In other words, this gives the legal authority for the Security of Homeland Security to require TSA to inspect all identification of all domestic travellers in the United States.""
Perhaps you should consider a course in reading comprehension.
A proposal to set minimum ID standards equals a mandate to inspect all ID documents? Hogwash.
Somebody wrote: "Because from what I hear is the passengers that have agreed to use them, love them. It is faster and easier, etc"
From TS/S just this morning:
"The TDC tells me to go to the MMW machine since "it's quicker." I told him no way, he proceeded to hem and haw about how I needed to "get used to these machines" since they'll be everywhere soon. I just ignored him and stood in line for 10 minutes. The mother in a family behind me asked why I was so opposed to "the other line." I explained what the machine is/does and she was mortified. Funny though since the WTMD was still substantially quicker than the MMW."
When passengers know the true nature of what the MMW does they can then make an informed choice as to whether to use it or not - and the TSA will no longer be able to claim that the "acceptance rate" is 99%.
Anonymous said:
"Title VII
Section 7720 says in part:
"The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft"
"In other words, this gives the legal authority for the Security of Homeland Security to require TSA to inspect all identification of all domestic travellers in the United States.""
----
Firstly, it's section 7220, not 7720.
Secondly, you left a very important part of that section out. The section states that the Director proposes minimum standards for identification. But... it says that the Director has to take those standards for approval before Congress:
(2) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the standards under paragraph (1)(A) to the Senate and the House of Representatives on the same day while each
House is in session.
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Any proposed standards submitted to Congress under this subsection shall take effect when an approval resolution is passed by the House and the Senate under the procedures described in subsection (b) and becomes law.
---
In other words, the standards had to have been brought before Congress by June 17, 2005 (6 months after the law was enacted). I can't find anywhere where Congress approved the proposed standards. If you can, please show me.
Dunstan said...
Anonymous said:
"Title VII
Section 7720 says in part:
"The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft"
"In other words, this gives the legal authority for the Security of Homeland Security to require TSA to inspect all identification of all domestic travellers in the United States.""
Perhaps you should consider a course in reading comprehension.
A proposal to set minimum ID standards equals a mandate to inspect all ID documents? Hogwash.
Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension, and maybe if you read the entire article from which I post only a small part you wouldn't make this mistake.
This was not a proposal. That was your first misunderstanding of what you read. I will explain it to you. It means the Secretary was to decide what the standards for identification was to be prior to someone boarding an aircraft. The Secretary was to "propose" what kind of check or ID was required to fly. From there the decision was made - a mandate if that is the term you are looking for - as to what was acceptable and what was not. That has been done, and is a continuing thing.
Do you understand now, Dunstan? You dont have to like it, I don't have to like it. It simply is what it is.
Here's a pro millimeter wave person:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6195466
As I may be getting a replacemnt hip in a few years, I understand how they feel!
TSO-Joe
"Perhaps you should consider a course in reading comprehension.
A proposal to set minimum ID standards equals a mandate to inspect all ID documents? Hogwash."
Spin it back at ya: why wouldn't ALL be considered minimum? And the whole thing lasts less than 20 seconds.
Anonymous said...
“Title VII
Section 7720 says in part:
"The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft"
In other words, this gives the legal authority for the Security of Homeland Security to require TSA to inspect all identification of all domestic travellers in the United States. There are other sections dealing with international travellers, but you can rest assured they allow DHS the same legal right to check id.
I suggest you read the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 more throughly before you say it is illegal for TSA”
First the Section is 7220. Second, you should have included the rest of section istead of cutting only what you wanted. Here is what section 7720 (a) says in it’s entirety:
“(a) Proposed Standards.—
(1) In general.—The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft; and
(B) may, from time to time, propose minimum standards amending or replacing standards previously proposed and transmitted to Congress and approved under this section.
(2) Submission to congress.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the standards under paragraph (1)(A) to the Senate and the House of Representatives on the same day while each House is in session.
(3) Effective date.—Any proposed standards submitted to Congress under this subsection shall take effect when an approval resolution is passed by the House and the Senate under the procedures described in subsection (b) and becomes law. “
So then, was the ID standard submitted to Congress and passed by the House and Senate to become law?
Anonymous said...
The section listed is incorrect.
However,
Title VII
Section 7720 says in part:
"The Secretary of Homeland Security—
(A) shall propose minimum standards for identification documents required of domestic commercial airline passengers for boarding an aircraft"
In other words, this gives the legal authority for the Security of Homeland Security to require TSA to inspect all identification of all domestic travellers in the United States. There are other sections dealing with international travellers, but you can rest assured they allow DHS the same legal right to check id.
I suggest you read the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 more throughly before you say it is illegal for TSA to check your identification when travelling.
I appreciate your attempt to hunt out the section that gives the TSA the authority to force ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area, sadly the section you quoted does NOT give that authority.
Another poster put forth the theory that everything (policy, SOP etc) that the TSA does is vetted by lawyers before being put in place.
If this is the case then it should be no problem for Francine Kerner and crew to to post EXACTLY what law gives the TSA the authority to force ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area.
The question of what law allows the TSA the authority to force ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area has been posed many times. To date the TSA legal team, lead by Francine Kerner, has been unwilling or unable to simply state what that law is.
The last time Francine Kerner graced us with an attempted answer to the above question, we were treated to a philosophical discussion based on feelings and Googled definitions, not case law or statutory law.
There is no explanation for the reluctance by the TSA legal team to state the exact law that grants authority to force ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area other then the fact they know it is illegal under current law.
Prove me wrong TSA, post exactly what law gives you the authority.
@Anonymous (TSO?), June 1, 2009 2:30PM: At our airport their is not even a MMW machine. So I have no idea what the rules are for that and weather or not you have to seperate yourself from your wallet..... And by the way, people put their wallets through all day long (and not because they are asked to, they just send them through). The only place I hear complaining is on this site..
I'm afraid you neglected to read and/or understand the "incompetent and arrogant comment." So let me clarify: Currently we indeed can take a wallet through the metal detector just as you describe, as long as any metal is removed first. But according to what Bob has stated here, that's no longer possible with the new strip search scanner. We have to empty our pockets so the anonymous screeners in their remote hidey-holes can clearly see every part of our naked bodies. In other words, the new strip search procedure requires passengers to be separated from their identity papers. The current procedure doesn't require that. That's the problem the TSA seems to be ignoring in their zeal to strip search everyone who wants to fly.
So as a competent and respectful TSO who wants to make the TSA look good, how do you address this concern? The TSA can obscure the fact that the scanner is a strip search, but the problem of having to be separated from identity papers becomes quite obvious when the TSO screams at us to empty our pockets.
This just popped up on TS/S:
"House to consider ban on airport body scans
By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily 06/01/2009
House lawmakers expect to take up legislation Wednesday that would prohibit government security officials from using controversial whole-body imaging machines to screen airplane passengers at primary airport checkpoints."
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090601_1067.php
As a frequent flyer, I have experienced a number of iterations of devices. I am not a fan of the body scanner however, it is not for reasons that have been given in previous posts. What does it buy me? I purchase specific belts so they do not set off the metal detector but, when I go through the image scanner, I have to remove it. Before I ever get into the line, I remove all metal objects from my pockets and place them in my case to go through the x-ray machine. With the body scanner, I have to remove ALL objects from my pocket including my paper money and even the hanky in my back pocket. I don't mind being scanned, I think TSA has taken enough steps to secure the image but I do resent being separated from my cash.
Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
HR 2027 IH
Bill before the House tomorrow.
Maybe this dance ain't over just yet.
For those against the Strip Search please contact your representatives.
"Spin it back at ya: why wouldn't ALL be considered minimum? And the whole thing lasts less than 20 seconds."
Spin is right. You are wrong.
RB: "Bill before the House tomorrow. Maybe this dance ain't over just yet."
It was over before the bill was introduced. There will be a little debate, probably including TSA representatives repeating the official party line about how friendly and unintrusive the scanner is, and how people who have tried it all love it. Then they'll recite the script that invokes 9/11, and remind the committee that it would desecrate the memory of the victims to weaken security by restricting the TSA's ability to protect us from the next attack.
And that will be the end of HR 2027. The one thing a politician fears more than terrorism is being branded "soft on terrorism" by his opponent in the next election. Privacy, liberty, dignity, and the expansion of TSA authority.... all unimportant compared with getting re-elected.
"Do you understand now, Dunstan? You dont have to like it, I don't have to like it. It simply is what it is."
Sure, I understand that you don't post very clearly, and you think that I should just take it on faith that you know what you are blogging about.
Dunstan said...
"Do you understand now, Dunstan? You dont have to like it, I don't have to like it. It simply is what it is."
Sure, I understand that you don't post very clearly, and you think that I should just take it on faith that you know what you are blogging about."
When did I ever said you need to believe anything I post? I cited the document. You could look it up yourself, as I did. You could read it more extensively, as I did. Believe it or not, it is your responsibility to understand the world around you, especially if you want to change it. Again, you don't have to like it.
Sandra said...
This just popped up on TS/S:
"House to consider ban on airport body scans
By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily 06/01/2009
House lawmakers expect to take up legislation Wednesday that would prohibit government security officials from using controversial whole-body imaging machines to screen airplane passengers at primary airport checkpoints."
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090601_1067.php
June 2, 2009 1:56 PM
Well i guess its back to WTMD and Pat-downs. Wait, you guys didnt like that before. Some folks are just hard to please i guess :(.
I urge everyone to contact their Representatives regarding House Bill 2027 and support them to get this passed. It will disallow the TSA from using this disgusting virtual strip search on people as a primary screening method.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2027:
Pass this on to all of your friends and family, let them know how disgusted you are with the TSA for trying to force this perverted process on you and your fellow Americans (and visitors to our great land!).
"
When did I ever said you need to believe anything I post? I cited the document. You could look it up yourself, as I did. You could read it more extensively, as I did. Believe it or not, it is your responsibility to understand the world around you, especially if you want to change it. Again, you don't have to like it."
Come out of the closet, and at least post under something other than anonymous. Gain a voice and therefore some credibility, and I might have a bit more respect for yor posts.
Care to comment on the eyewitness accounts of travelers being threatened with retaliatory hand inspection of baggage that has been cleared via the x-ray machine for refusing the electronic strip-search?
Anonymous said...
RB: "Bill before the House tomorrow. Maybe this dance ain't over just yet."
It was over before the bill was introduced. There will be a little debate, probably including TSA representatives repeating the official party line about how friendly and unintrusive the scanner is, and how people who have tried it all love it. Then they'll recite the script that invokes 9/11, and remind the committee that it would desecrate the memory of the victims to weaken security by restricting the TSA's ability to protect us from the next attack.
And that will be the end of HR 2027. The one thing a politician fears more than terrorism is being branded "soft on terrorism" by his opponent in the next election. Privacy, liberty, dignity, and the expansion of TSA authority.... all unimportant compared with getting re-elected.
June 2, 2009 5:42 PM
...........................
Perhaps it will not move forward.
The argument is not "Soft on Terrorism" but on a reasonable level of security.
That level has been exceeded when TSA Strip Searches children.
Now if you want to support the Strip Searching of children then go right ahead.
Dunstan said...
"When did I ever said you need to believe anything I post? I cited the document. You could look it up yourself, as I did. You could read it more extensively, as I did. Believe it or not, it is your responsibility to understand the world around you, especially if you want to change it. Again, you don't have to like it."
Come out of the closet, and at least post under something other than anonymous. Gain a voice and therefore some credibility, and I might have a bit more respect for yor posts."
Who really cares if you have respect for my post?
And, uh, wow! Maybe I misread you, but isn't it my right to retain my anonymity? Isn't that what you and so many people here are claiming about identification check, that it invades privacy? Why can't I have my privacy? I don't get the double standard.
And I have a voice: as proof, your responding to it; you don't like it, but it is there nonetheless.
And I wonder what you, or anyone else on this blog, thinks of the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals ruling in 2006 that no one has the right to fly (this was a case regarding someone who refused to show identification and was denied their flight). Just wondering.
As an interisting note, the specific law requiring citizens of the U.S. to show their identification is actually kept secret, according to the Justice Department, even to this day. This law was made available to the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals, but they have not released the law either.
On a personal note (as if my opinion really matters) I think the law should be made public.
BTW, here area a few links to some recent cases regarding TSA.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales_Opinion
http://vlex.com/vid/usa-v-aukai-29333647
Signed,
ANONYMOUS!
>OK. Let’s go… It’s been brought to our
> attention that the photos we provide
> of the millimeter wave (MMW) whole
> body imager (WBI) are different than
> the ones that CNN
BTW, all this talk of milimeter wave, coupled with the security concerns of RFIDs etc, makes me wonder if its not time to start a line of clothing with metal fibers in the weave, or foil lined pockets.
I mean... if you guys have mm wave, its only a matter of time before criminals have it too. The technology exists, its just going to get easier, cheaper, and smaller... just like everything else.
But yah, thanks for funding the development of technology thats going to be used by criminals the world over in a few years. Good work guys.
-Steve
Bob,
You earlier posted a comment on the TRIPSO website in one of their articles against scanning. Why I admit that I agreed with your comments on erroneous use of pictures, I also, somewhat agree with the authors point. Can you tell us any of the following?
Why does the TSA think that these machines are needed (ie what do they detect that the current machines don't)? What "real threat" would be caught by these machines that isn't caught today? Is this the least intrusive technology to achieve those goals? What other technologies have you considered?
I also posted this on his site
Bob from the PIA is the following statement:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_wbi.pdf
"2. Principle of Individual Participation
Principle: DHS should involve the individual in the process of using PII. DHS should, to the extent practical, seek individual consent for the collection, use, dissemination, and maintenance of PII and should provide mechanisms for appropriate access, correction, and redress regarding DHS’s use of PII.
Individuals undergoing primary screening will have the option to select a WBI screening. Individuals referred to secondary inspection are offered the option to undergo WBI screening as an alternative to the pat-down screening that would otherwise be required. Individual participation and consent is exercised by the individual’s selection of the screening method and no individual is required to use WBI for screening.
Consent is informed by the availability of brochures that explain the technology and show a sample image."
Where are the brochures?
How has any consent been attained without the availability of these brochures?
Any supposed consent information collected to date is apparently invalid.
> Who cares what images are the same or
> not? What we care is that they are
> images: That makes them inapprorpiate.
> Why not use technology that does not
> generate images and that can detect
> items in body cavities (metal
> detectors, puffers, etc)?
Why not just realize we hit the point of diminishing returns the moment we installed metal detectors at checkpoints?
We don't need any more technology in this area. Bombings and hijackings are such rare events because.... drum roll please... there are so few people in the world who believe it benefits them to do it, that nobody bothers.
and... @Joe:
Many THANKS! I just looked that bill up on Thomas and I do intend to support it wholeheartedly.
Course, Ed wasn't too supportive or apologetic when I let him know that one of his people got me to sign a petition to get him on the ballot under false pretenses... she told me he co-sponsored Barney Frank's bill to decrim pot, when he actually was against it.
Who knows though... maybe if this passes I will consider stepping foot in an airport again.
-Steve
@Joe and all other HR2027 supporters:
One thing I note is that the penalty for storing and misusing a persons image is "a fine or up to three years"
It seems to me this is too "slap on the wrist". I intend to ask my Rep to ammend this to at least a minimum $10,000 fine AND 1 year mandatory imprisonment per incident.
I mean, drug posession can get you years, and that "crime" has no victim. Seems to me this should at LEAST be a felony.
carp said...
"I mean, drug posession can get you years, and that "crime" has no victim."
ummm, what about the violence associated with the more hard-core drugs? many people, sadly children and the elderly, have been shot and killed because of drug deals gone bad, drive-by shooting over turf wars, etc...
carp said...
"Bombings and hijackings are such rare events because.... drum roll please... there are so few people in the world who believe it benefits them to do it, that nobody bothers."
Unless, of course, it happens to you or a family member, loved one, friend, right?
I wish I had it in me to be as cold as you to apply a simple cost-benifet-analysis like you did.
Do I have to divest my wallet prior to being screened by the millimeter wave whole body imager?
This question has popped up a few times. Here you go...
Your wallet must be divested prior to WBI screening so we can screen its contents via the X-ray.
We also need to be able to determine you have nothing on your person while being screened in the WBI.
If you choose to keep your wallet on your person, you will be referred for additional screening and your wallet will receive a physical inspection. The additional screening is not a threat or a punishment for not divesting, it's just security protocol.
It's always a good idea to place your wallet in one of your bags or a coat pocket. It reduces the chances of it being separated from your belongings. Also, you can request to have your property stay in your view.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob writes:
It's always a good idea to place your wallet in one of your bags or a coat pocket. It reduces the chances of it being separated from your belongings. Also, you can request to have your property stay in your view.
With respect ... why should a passenger have to specifically request that their property remain in their view? Could the SOP be changed so that the TSOs conducting the screening would be required to bring the passenger's belongings into their view while going through the WBI?
I wonder how many passengers are even aware that they can ask for their belonging to be brought to them during secondary screening.
> Unless, of course, it happens to you or
> a family member, loved one, friend,
> right?
>
> I wish I had it in me to be as cold as
> you to apply a simple cost-benifet-
> analysis like you did.
Then you shouldn't be making public policy.
You think I am not human? You think the thoughts of 5,000 deaths doesn't nearly drive me to tears when I think if it in those terms today?
You are dead wrong if you think that. You are dead wrong if you think I don't care that such horrid things would happen. I care about all manner of ways that man is bad to man.
It nearly makes me cry to when I think of the things anonymous said about drug related crime. Even more so when I have to point out the cold calculous of it: drug crime is a direct result of prohibition. Prohibition that puts sick people in jail and tears families appart, often worst than the drugs EVER would have.
However, public policy is about dollars and cents, and (sometimes) sence. Good public policy is not made by hot heads.
Want to know why I apply this cold calculous? Its because I have accepted what I see as the facts.
Facts like that terrorists choose their targets, they choose their methods. They apply the cold calculous of soldiers at war. Which makes my talk of dollars and sense sound warm and fuzzy.
Throw all the money you want at this problem. I solemely believe that you will NEVER solve it by implementing security measures.
At BEST you can make them switch targets to trains, or buildings, or the security checkpoint line (wouldn't THAT be ironic?)
So I am sorry for any loss that anyone has suffered, but, does it honor their memory to throw good money after bad?
Does it honor them to harass innocent people?
Does it honor them to use their deaths as a vulgar excuse to expand someones little political fiefdom?
Well, I think you know what I think. I think it dishonors their deaths when they are used as mere excuses.
So I will thank you not to assume I am nothing but a cold bastard. I have a wife, and a mother, just like you. I no more want to see people die than you do.
I just honestly and truely don't believe this junk is helping anybody. At all. Period.
Seriously, you want something to cry about? How about we put that money into healthcare.
How do you think I feel about my tax dollars being used for something that I honestly believe is a waste, when it could be used for, I don't know, maybe better treatments for cancer?
Hell, even better research on pain relief, or burn treatment. How about giving it to first responders, who can save lives be it terrorist or natural disaster?
Each of these causes FAR more pain in this world than terrorists ever could. I think thats fitting, because terrorists really don't deserve to be considered so important.
-Steves
> And there are signs at the checkpoint
> indicting going through the whole body
> imaging machines is not mandatory. Not
> TSA's fault the public can't be
> bothered to read posted signs.
What bothers me is that there are some people who feel that its a good idea to come up with concrete solutions to vague, undefined threats.
Just because you imagine something might be helpful, doesn't mean its a good idea... even if you can tweak the implementation until it skirts the law and public opinion enough to get away with it.
As I have said, this money is better spent on first response capabilities. Capabilities that actually help people and not just to promote mission creep. Not just on a system that will, most probably, do nothing but lead to "false positives" and cause people to be harassed and feel insecure in their persons.
Seriously, when I come to this blog I feel like someone who has landed on a japanese island inhabited by old soldiers who never found out that the war ended.
Though, I get the same feeling from the DMV. Did you know that, even though the police cars all have computers, and radios, and they look up your registration no matter what.... here in MA not having the actual paper on you is NOT ONLY a 45 fine, but... your insurance company gets to surcharge you for it.... and it counts as an incident towards mandatory "Safe Driver Training". Guess how I found out? 3 of my 5 incidents were similar paperwork issues. The last two were both the same 2 MPH accident.
But, you know, my government MUST be run by competent people. Right?
-Steve
So what's up, where are the brochures explaining the Body Imager? Can you post the link on the TSA website to them? I was unable to find it.
Also, why the retaliatory hand search of all carry-ons when one opts out of the Body Scanner? Is that just to "encourage" compliance?
In response to Carp's statement:
"drug posession can get you years, and that "crime" has no victim"
someone anonymously wrote:
"what about the violence associated with the more hard-core drugs?"
What about it? Unless he stole the item, someone's posession of something that he is prohibited by law from posessing is a victimless crime.
There is violence associated with many things, both legal and illegal. Posessing them does not per se harm anyone. If I am in posession of a knife, a gun, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, or cocaine, and I am located somewhere that it is unlawful to posess that item, who do you suppose is the victim of my crime?
"many people, sadly children and the elderly, have been shot and killed because of drug deals gone bad, drive-by shooting over turf wars, etc..."
Those are all by-products of prohibition. As we learned approximately 80 years ago with the repeal of Prohibition (of alcohol), an end to prohibition means an end to almost all of the violence that surrounded it. How many gangs do you think are shooting each other over alcohol these days?
The sooner we move from prohibitionist drug policies to regulatory drug policies, the sooner the violence you described will end.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Bob at TSA wrote:
"Also, you can request to have your property stay in your view."
We can request anything. Did you mean to write that if we request such then your staff are required to comply?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Jim Huggins said...
I wonder how many passengers are even aware that they can ask for their belonging to be brought to them during secondary screening.
With all due respect, if someone cared enough about their belongings then they would ask or atleast hint to the officer that they are worried about their belongings.
-James
@Phil
Thank you for elaborating for me. Drug prohibition is one of my personal hot button issues. I know people who are in jail currently for it. People who were not associated with violence.
Its not that its untrue that violent criminal gangs ship drugs, or that some come from places like Afghanistan.
The myth is that thats all that happens. Even in the current market there are plenty of good honest people just doing what they believe in. They go to jail for just as long.
Why is it that people have no problem blaming drugs for violence when... violence alone is already illegal outside of very limited approved contexts (I used to study martial arts too :) )
Anyway, I try not to get too off topic with it here, but, it is yet another example of how public policy can be just so out of touch with reality that it ceased to even be funny.... its just a crying shame.
You know I can cite the house or representatives debate on making marijuana illegal from memory... its that short.
It consisted of two questions. The first was "what is marijuana?"
The second was "What does the AMA say?"
Teh answer was a lie... the AMA had just got done telling the Senate what a bad idea it was. Even to the point of being told by a senator
"Doctor if you don't have anything good to say about what we are doing here, then why don't you go home".
But hey, maybe they make better public policy now. They created the DHS afterall didn't they? Surely they don't make boneheaded moves like that now... oh, unless you count passing bills they never read.....
-Steve
And that will be the end of HR 2027. The one thing a politician fears more than terrorism is being branded "soft on terrorism" by his opponent in the next election. Privacy, liberty, dignity, and the expansion of TSA authority.... all unimportant compared with getting re-elected.
June 2, 2009 5:42 PM
..................................
Looks like your crystal ball is defective Anon.
*** BULLETIN ***
HOUSE VOTES TO BAN NAKED-BODY SCANNERS AS PRIMARY SCREENING METHOD BY WIDE BIPARTISAN MARGIN (310-118)
Now, it's up to the Senate to pass a similar bill.
Phil said....
"In response to Carp's statement:
"drug posession can get you years, and that "crime" has no victim"
someone anonymously wrote:
"what about the violence associated with the more hard-core drugs?"
What about it? Unless he stole the item, someone's posession of something that he is prohibited by law from posessing is a victimless crime.
There is violence associated with many things, both legal and illegal. Posessing them does not per se harm anyone. If I am in posession of a knife, a gun, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, or cocaine, and I am located somewhere that it is unlawful to posess that item, who do you suppose is the victim of my crime?
"many people, sadly children and the elderly, have been shot and killed because of drug deals gone bad, drive-by shooting over turf wars, etc..."
Those are all by-products of prohibition. As we learned approximately 80 years ago with the repeal of Prohibition (of alcohol), an end to prohibition means an end to almost all of the violence that surrounded it. How many gangs do you think are shooting each other over alcohol these days?
The sooner we move from prohibitionist drug policies to regulatory drug policies, the sooner the violence you described will end.
--
Phil"
Ok, Phil, you've stepped out of the bounds of reality here...
Sorry, the more serious, or hard-core drugs, are clearly associated with violence. Sorry, you can try, but you can't successfully argue otherwise.
carp said...
" Unless, of course, it happens to you or
> a family member, loved one, friend,
> right?
>
> I wish I had it in me to be as cold as
> you to apply a simple cost-benifet-
> analysis like you did.
Then you shouldn't be making public policy.
You think I am not human? You think the thoughts of 5,000 deaths doesn't nearly drive me to tears when I think if it in those terms today?"
Uh, carp, I don't make policy, and it doesn't really bother me that I don't.
Of course you are human. Being human encompasses the entire range of the good to the bad.
@Bob: It's always a good idea to place your wallet in one of your bags or a coat pocket. It reduces the chances of it being separated from your belongings.
That just means coats and bags will now be more tempting targets for thieves, since they will likely contain wallets in addition to valuables. That does nothing to solve the inherent problem the strip search "security protocol" creates, and that the people who created it apparently do not care about.
Also, you can request to have your property stay in your view.
That's more like it! But could you please tell us more: Is this in the SOP? Are TSOs obligated to honor the request? Are they consistently trained to honor it? Will the strip search machines be positioned to allow passengers a view of their belongings? If not, can the passenger turn their head to maintain visual contact with the property while being strip searched? And what recourse do we have if a TSO responds to the request with "Do you want to fly today?"
Unfortunately, the actual rules under which TSOs operate are secret, and TSOs are neither consistently trained nor accountable for following them. So it's impossible to know whether statements that you or other blog team members post here are actual requirements, statements of your beliefs or opinions, or completely bogus statements in the hope of making complainers go away.
You regularly tell us what TSOs are supposed to do, but too often what we actually encounter at the checkpoint is entirely different. Things that "aren't supposed to happen" do happen with distressing regularity, and apparently are only a concern when something creates enough embarrassing publicity to require defensive spinning from Headquarters. So I have trouble with the concept of the security of my wallet and identity depending on whether a harried TSO chooses to honor my request. That is not how security should operate.
As I've said many times, this is a serious problem with the "security protocol" that someone high up at Headquarters needs to correct before they start rolling out the strip searches at airports across the country. It's a lot more significant than the concerns about privacy and "child pornography." When someone actually does find their wallet stolen during a strip search, I think the TSA will have a public relations disaster that dwarfs all the current ones.
What about those wearing clothing made of Cloth of Gold or other metallic cloth?
Looks like the House voted heavily against the MMW strip machine searches.
Guess you were wrong, Anonymous, when you wrote"
"And that will be the end of HR 2027. The one thing a politician fears more than terrorism is being branded "soft on terrorism" by his opponent in the next election. Privacy, liberty, dignity, and the expansion of TSA authority.... all unimportant compared with getting re-elected."
And so much for tin foil hats, Bob.
Thank you to all who signed the EPIC petition and who called their representatives on the MMW issue.
99% acceptance rate? I think not.
:-)
Bob, are you going to be sending the requisite number of tin foil hats over the U.S. House of Representatives? Looks like you'll need to order up 310 of them, since the House just voted 310-118 to ban the use of MMW as a primary screening device.
H R 2200 RECORDED VOTE 4-Jun-2009 4:10 PM
AUTHOR(S): Chaffetz of Utah Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
................Ayes....Noes....Not Voting
Democratic.......191.....61........9
Republican.......119.....57........2
TOTALS...........310....118.......11
I guess comenters here (you know, the ones you suggested wear tinfoil hats), opposed to efforts by TSA to drive most pax through this disgusting strip-search machine, have friends in Congress.
Was TSA wrong to try to make MMW a primary screening device, rather than an option for those who alarm the Walk-Through Metal Detector?
It's always a good idea to place your wallet in one of your bags or a coat pocket. It reduces the chances of it being separated from your belongings. Also, you can request to have your property stay in your view.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA Blog Team
June 3, 2009 11:00 PM
.......................
No Bob, it is a good idea to keep my wallet in my pocket where it belongs.
That way there is no way for it to be seperated from me or stolen at the checkpoint.
Hey guys, what are you going to do with all those MMW machines the representatives decided you shouldn´t use???
Sandra: "Guess you were wrong, Anonymous, when you wrote ... "And that will be the end of HR 2027."
The bill still has millions of miles to go before it becomes law. And now that the TSA has faced its first serious challenge from Congress in its brief history, they will do everything they can to stop it in the Senate. Or, more likely, in conference committee which works in secret behind closed doors, on the TSA's own familiar turf.
I expect the TSA to launch a more focused PR campaign that will simultaneously focus on fear and convenience, urging people to write to their Senator in support of the new friendly scanners that will make screening both safer and more convenient. We've seen some of that here. And if that doesn't work, the TSA administrator merely needs to remind the appropriate Senators that they will be personally accountable to the victims of the next terrorist attack for voting to deny the TSA a technology that would have prevented it.
The TSA has enjoyed a unique ability to do whatever it wants, without restrictions or oversight, in the name of "security." They will not readily accept any interference with their free rein and continued expansion of power and authority.
So unfortunately, I think I will be right in the end. But I nonetheless find it very encouraging that a majority in the House found the courage to challenge the TSA's juggernaut. That may portend good things in the long term.
And by the way, I think secondary screening is the proper role for strip search scanning. At least there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing to justify the significant invasion of privacy, as opposed to routinely invading everyone's privacy.
Jim Huggins said...
Bob writes:
Also, you can request to have your property stay in your view.
With respect ... why should a passenger have to specifically request that their property remain in their view? Could the SOP be changed so that the TSOs conducting the screening would be required to bring the passenger's belongings into their view
___________________________________
TSO's are always supposed to make sure that the passenger can see their property or if requested they must retrieve it for the passenger.
June 1, 2009 2:30 PM
I'd like to congratulate the House of Representatives on finally standing up to this agency and saying "Enough!" It's just a small step, but it's about time that somebody read the Fourth Amendment.
Mike
Winston, if you don't mind, please send me an e-mail at tsablog@dhs.gov
Thanks,
Bob
TSA Blog Team
@Anonymous, June 5, 2009 1:48 PM: TSO's are always supposed to make sure that the passenger can see their property or if requested they must retrieve it for the passenger.
As I asked Bob yesterday, what does it actually mean that they're "supposed" to do this?
Are these requirements actually in the SOP? Does the SOP specifically obligate TSOs to make sure the passenger can see the property, or to honor requests to "retrieve it for the passenger"? If so, are TSOs consistently trained in that obligation, and are they accountable for meeting that obligation?
And what recourse do we have if a TSO doesn't make sure that a passenger can see their property, and responds to a request with "Do you want to fly today?"
There are a lot of things that TSOs are "supposed" to do, as well as things that "aren't supposed to happen." But far too often, what we experience at real checkpoints is different from the "supposed" world of tsa.gov. That's why so many of distrust the TSA, and particularly why we oppose a "security protocol" that requires us to be separated from our identity papers before being strip searched.
It is not acceptable for the protection of our identity from theieves to depend on TSOs knowing and doing what they're "supposed" to do. We know from experience that we can't rely on TSOs for anything. The combination of secret rules and lack of accountability makes airport screening a crapshoot. Aside from the hassle, frustration, and now risk of identity theft it causes, it doesn't inspire much confidence in their ability to protect us from terrorists.
I'm still waiting for Bob or someone from the blog team to answer my questions about what actually requires (or doesn't require) TSOs to help passengers maintain continuous visual contact with their belongings. But I have a pretty good idea why they're not answering.
Anonymous wrote, in part:
"So unfortunately, I think I will be right in the end. But I nonetheless find it very encouraging that a majority in the House found the courage to challenge the TSA's juggernaut. That may portend good things in the long term."
I tend to agree with this assessment. The majority vote on banning primary screening by strip search together with the drubbing TSA apparently took over its attempted incursion into GA signal the beginnings of a sea change. TSA will fight tooth and nail, but this is the beginning of the end.
Anonymous writes:
TSO's are always supposed to make sure that the passenger can see their property or if requested they must retrieve it for the passenger.
Again ... why should the passenger have to request it? Why can't it just be part of standard procedure, every time, for the TSO to retrieve the passenger's personal property? Surely you wouldn't want the passenger's property to be left unattended, clogging up the area after the x-ray machine ...
Huggins wrote
Again ... why should the passenger have to request it? Why can't it just be part of standard procedure, every time, for the TSO to retrieve the passenger's personal property? Surely you wouldn't want the passenger's property to be left unattended, clogging up the area after the x-ray machine ...
So the TSO is supposed to guess which property belongs to you, or that from your view point you can't see everything. Take a little responsibility of your own. Unless you inform them that you can't see it how would they know.
As far as automatically retrieving your property, I think thats a bad idea. Do you have any clue how many times a passenger has accused a TSO of stealing property out of a bin just to find out that the passenger put it in his pocket and not the bin? It's bad enough to be accused of something you didn't do but then to have the passenger walk away after making a big scene and accusation without even appologizing, I have to say take responsibility for your own property. Ask for help! They will be glad to do it for you.
I wrote:
Again ... why should the passenger have to request it? Why can't it just be part of standard procedure, every time, for the TSO to retrieve the passenger's personal property? Surely you wouldn't want the passenger's property to be left unattended, clogging up the area after the x-ray machine ...
Anonymous replied:
So the TSO is supposed to guess which property belongs to you, or that from your view point you can't see everything.
No, not at all. Seriously, you're overthinking this.
"I'm sorry, [sir/ma'am], but we need to conduct a secondary screening. Would you please identify which bags are yours, so we can carry them for you over to the screening area?"
(See, you don't even need to tell the passenger that the reason the TSO is carrying the bags is that the passenger isn't allowed to touch them. You tell the passenger that you're doing this as a service to him/her, as a way to make up for the inconvenience that the secondary screening will cause.)
And ... oh, notice that I said "we" will carry them? Obviously, you'll need more than one TSO to carry most passenger bags. But this has the added benefit of having an additional witness present, in case there's a problem between the passenger and the original TSO.
George said...
"I'm still waiting for Bob or someone from the blog team to answer my questions about what actually requires (or doesn't require) TSOs to help passengers maintain continuous visual contact with their belongings. But I have a pretty good idea why they're not answering."
No you don't, George.
Even more interesting is John Mica's amendment, which also passed. It requires the TSA to follow the Administrative Procedure Act that applies to every other agency. The APA requires the publication of all proposed regulations in the Federal Register, with a 90-day period for public comment. The TSA has apparently enjoyed a special exemption that allowed it to make all its rules behind closed doors and keep most of them classified.
Under the Mica amendment, the TSA can still make emergency "Security Directives" behind closed doors, but after 180 days of secrecy the rules have to go through the APA process. This is intended to make the TSA accountable to the public just like every other government agency, while still allowing them to respond to emerging security threats.
I'm sure the TSA's leaders won't easily give up their unlimited authority to issue whatever secret decrees they feel like. So they'll surely apply enough fear and deception to water down any restrictions or limitations into uselessness. But it's very encouraging that a majority of Congress has found enough courage to try to make the TSA act like an agency of the American government instead of a private Politburo. That should give everyone hope, at least for a while.
I don't like many things TSA does, but I do believe the millimeter wave machines are a good thing. Metal detectors might have been state-of-the-art in the 1970s, but the truth is that they provide a false sense of security since they only detect a small fraction of dangerous items. WIth that said, the new machines should be mandatory for everyone and be limited to detecting items that are dangerous onboard airplanes. To address privacy, maybe we could program a computer rather than an officer to analyze the images. The computer would only display an image to an officer if something dangerous is detected (and only those portions of the image where a potential threat is concealed on the person). Technology is our friend if we're going to work toward eliminating the human error factor. Welcome to the 21st century.
We can't have it both ways. We love to complain that TSA misses too many dangerous items every day, yet we also complain when TSA wants to deploy the technology to significantly improve those results. The screening process really doesn't have to be as painful as we love to make it out to be on this blog. In fact, I rarely ever spend more than 5-10 minutes in a TSA line, and hopefully these machines can even speed that up with reduced need for secondary searches, etc.
Posted by RB:
No Bob, it is a good idea to keep my wallet in my pocket where it belongs.
That way there is no way for it to be seperated from me or stolen at the checkpoint.
Agreed, except at MHT, which now seemingly has 100% wallet pawing if you dare to pass through the WTMD with a wallet in your pocket.
Seriously, last time I went through MHT they WTMD tso was requiring pax to hand over their wallets to her so she could paw through the pages and cash compartments of every wallet that passed through the WTMD. Since a non-alarming wallet cannot contain any credible threats to aviation, I can only assume she was looking for "too much cash" or membership cards for supporting "undesirable" organizations, such as Republicans or Ron Paul, as happened at STL.
So they can detect your wallet or anything else in your pocket, the WTMD TSO at MHT also makes pax pull their shirts tight against their body, turn around, and do the same thing. She freaked out about a "bulge" in my shirt pocket (I think she thought she had "caught" me sneaking something through) that turned out to be a folded boarding pass which I was required to carry on my body because of TSA's moronic check-the-BP-twice policy!
Maybe TSA expects me to hold my BP in my teeth while I twirl and pull my shirt tight and hand over my wallet for inspection?
Of course, this 100% wallet pawing is not SOP, because I've never seen it at other airports. But since there's no accountability at TSA, it continues.
Folks, with each step of "evolution," the airport experience more and more resembles what goes on in prisons. Wanting to travel does not make us suspects deserving of strip searches, separation from property, restrictions on what documents we can carry, absurd restrictions on an entire phase of matter, etc. We have to rise up and put a stop to it, before it is too late.
"we also complain when TSA wants to deploy the technology to significantly improve those results."
This technology will not do that. Even though TSA is always eager to overstate the "success" of any of its pointless policies, the only thing they claim these strip-search machines has protected us from is 0.6 ounces of utterly harmless lotion.
@Anonymous, June 7, 2009 3:47 PM: "I'm still waiting for Bob or someone from the blog team to answer my questions about what actually requires (or doesn't require) TSOs to help passengers maintain continuous visual contact with their belongings. But I have a pretty good idea why they're not answering." No you don't, George.
I think it's because there's no such requirement. Or at least there's no such requirement that's enforceable. Like everything else at checkpoints, it's entirely at the whim of the TSO who happens to be screening you at the moment you arrive at the checkpoint. A TSO may choose to help a passenger maintain visual contact with valuables if the passenger is appropriately deferential and humble about requesting it, the checkpoint isn't too crowded, and the TSO feels like it. But the TSO at the checkpoint for the return flight may respond to the very same passenger's very same polite, humble request with "Do you want to fly today?" followed by a loudly barked command "IN THE SCANNER-- HANDS AND FEET ON THE MARKS-- FACE FORWARD-- NOW!!!"
Both officers are following the same SOP. Both officers are doing their job correctly and providing excellent, highly effective protection of aviation. Some people may consider the second officer to be "unprofessional," but since he's been acting that way for years and getting good performance reviews he has no reason to change anything. And if the passenger commits the inexcusable transgression of publicly complaining about the second TSO, the TSA's PR department will issue a press release blaming the passenger for causing an "incident" and commending the TSO for an excellent job of protecting aviation.
In short, while Bob and others in the TSA generally agree that a passenger should be able to request assistance in maintaining a continuous view of their belongings, there's no assurance that that the request actually will be granted and no recourse when the TSO (for any reason or for no reason at all) decides not to grant it.
If I'm wrong about this, please explain why.
Anonymous George said...
@Anonymous, June 5, 2009 1:48 PM: TSO's are always supposed to make sure that the passenger can see their property or if requested they must retrieve it for the passenger.
Apparently, this requirement doesn't exist in Boston, where the TSOs go nuts every time I tell them that they are taking my belongings out of my sight to re-run them.
Frankly, If I were a TSO, I'd want to make sure that the bags were always in the passengers' sight for my own protection. That way, if something were missing, there would be no questions about my having taken it.
Mike
Carp,
Your comments are enjoyable to read but please take a look at our comment policy. I've had to reject a few of your posts for one or two silly words. I want you to stick around and I'd like others to see your interesting viewpoints, so please take note. As I've said before to others, even though I have quite a colorful vocabulary outside of the blog, I have to reject comments with even the slightest little word that could be offensive.
Thanks,
Bob
TSA Blog Team
I'm not sure after 150 comments if you will get a chance to read this but I really like the idea of the Wave Whole Body Imager. I travel with my family a lot. We are expats and this will make us all safer. Thank you!
the images seen here are the same resolution the image operator sees. it amazes me .. the job these IOs do since I can't make head nor tails out of the images...no pun intended.
You can hold your money, wallet, boarding pass, ID, passport in you hand when in the WBI.
Regarding "separation of property" issues, and all the TSO fanboys that claim it isn't an issue, I disagree. I had my carry-on bag removed from the x-ray machine for a hand search. I was not informed of this, and did not witness it's removal. After standing stupidly at the xray exit for several seconds, looking around for my bag (which contained my wallet among other things), I asked in a *VERY* loud voice "Has someone stolen my bag?" *THAT* got the TSOs attention (along with many passengers), and the perpetrator fessed up. I suspect that he intended to relieve me of some item in the bag he'd seen on the xray machine, but since I was vocal in my objection, he aborted his crime. I did not receive an acceptable apology from him either.
The issue with this technology is primarily one of choice and awareness. People must be given an option to not use it and they must BE TOLD that they have that option. Anything less is nothing more than a strip search and I don't understand why anyone doesn't have a problem with that. For example, at a recent conference, I asked Peter Pietra, the TSA's head of privacy, if he would have a problem if his daughter were forced to be scanned in this way and he evaded the question (no slight intended, he's a good guy, but that's what he did).
If this is really going to be a forced issue, are we going to be able to wear tinfoil underwear at least?
Post a Comment