Backscatter (Click Photo)
Many have asked to see a bigger picture than what we had on our TSA.gov web page. So, we're not only showing you the bigger pictures here on the blog, we also updated them on the web page as well. They are male/female – front/back – Millimeter Wave/Backscatter.
To read more about Imaging Technology, check out these blog posts from our archives:
-The First Significant Deployment of Aviation Security Technology
TSA Blog Team
219 comments:
1 – 200 of 219 Newer› Newest»The backscatter images look like aliens.
To whoever is going to post about privacy issues: leave it alone. There's no way you're going to be identifiable from these images.
I think those are totally indecent and no one has the right to ask me to go through this in order to fly.
Anonymous said...
The backscatter images look like aliens.
To whoever is going to post about privacy issues: leave it alone. There's no way you're going to be identifiable from these images.
That is like telling a woman that has someone take an upskirt picture of them, "hey don't worry nobody will know that it is you".
By you logic that upskirt should be no big deal.
Nice.
Why does the TSA insist on using technology that generates images?
To those that would submit to a strip search, virtual or otherwise, just to board a plane, grow a backbone or stay home.
It's not about being identifiable. It's about TSA encouraging (or eventually requiring) passengers to submit to what is effectively a strip search with no individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
There's no way these images would be considered decent. You can see the underclothing, and you can see underneath it. If a kid came to school with these images, they'd be suspended/disciplined. I doubt any administrator or manager at TSA would want mmw/backscatter images of their spouse or kids posted online.
I'd have no problem with TSA allowing people who would otherwise always alarm the WTMD (medical implants, etc.) to choose backscatter/mmw as an alternative to a groping. Anything else is treating innocent people like criminals because they dared to want to exercise their right to free movement.
Since I want to keep an eye on my carry ons while going through a checkpoint, how can that be accomplished going through these machines?
With the WTMD you could easily keep an eye on them. With these machines, not so much.
Is there a procedure in place to accomplish this?
Bob,
Nice try. I haven't done an extensive search on this blog (which isn't very searchable), but, I don't recall anyone asserting that the images were not big enough.
To refresh your memory, most of the posts centered around:
1. Inaccurate depictions at checkpoints between your published images and what the screener sees/what the machine is capable of producing;
2. Inadequate display of sign at checkpoints;
3. Violations of your own PIA in the encounter with the Cleveland reporter when it served your interests; and,
4. etc, etc.
"Bigger" inaccurate images don't cut it.
To anonymous: We aren't going to "leave it alone." We're going to be in your face and in your agency's face until we become your worst nightmare.
Anonymous said: "The backscatter images look like aliens.
To whoever is going to post about privacy issues: leave it alone. There's no way you're going to be identifiable from these images."
So what? That doesn't make what they're doing any less wrong.
If you don't think it's an issue, please have TSA post a scan of you.
Al
Except the problem with your logic, anonymous, is that the image of a person's body will be visible to TSA screeners standing just feet away. It's none of TSA's business whether I have a nipple ring or a colostomy bag, or what the outline of my private parts looks like. That has nothing to do with the security of air transportation. And competent screeners should be able to ensure I don't have a gun or a weapon using more traditional screening methods.
Unless TSA posts a full color 10 megapixel picture of Bob in a thong with a caption that says "millimeter wave" or "backscatter", the tinfoil hat crowd is going to swear that anything with less detail is an obvious fake and the "real thing" is much more revealing. So my advice - just stop trying, people have made up their minds already.
Thanks Bob. I still don't want to subject myself, my wife, nor my daughter to this intrusive technology. Figure out a better way.
The images are *not* visible to the TSA agent standing right next to you.
It's my understanding that the images are displayed on a screen in a closed room by a TSA agent that cannot see the person being scanned.
I still haven't decided if this makes it OK to me.
Just setting the record straight,
Randy
Bob Hanssen said...
To refresh your memory, most of the posts centered around:
1. Inaccurate depictions at checkpoints between your published images and what the screener sees/what the machine is capable of producing;
2. Inadequate display of sign at checkpoints;
3. Violations of your own PIA in the encounter with the Cleveland reporter when it served your interests; and,
4. etc, etc.
"Bigger" inaccurate images don't cut it.
To anonymous: We aren't going to "leave it alone." We're going to be in your face and in your agency's face until we become your worst nightmare.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Anonymous said...
Unless TSA posts a full color 10 megapixel picture of Bob in a thong with a caption that says "millimeter wave" or "backscatter",
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Those pictures are accurate. And to anonymous, the real picture isn't in "Color 10 megapixel"... so why would they show it as color...?
I do agree the signage should be visible!
To whoever is going to post about privacy issues: leave it alone. There's no way you're going to be identifiable from these images.
Since when is a violation of privacy based on a person being identifiable?
Care to back up your contention by citing statutes or court cases?
It is clear that TSA would not have made this post if the noise level about TSA STRIP SEARCH MACHINES indicated that this screening method was being well received.
These STRIP SEARCHES are indecent.
Using STRIP SEARCH MACHINES on children should subject the TSA Strip Search Machine Operators and Managers to criminal charges. I hope I have the chance to sit on a jury considering such a question.
Why is TSA insisting on continued deployment of STRIP SEARCH MACHINES while the United States Congress has pending legislation under consideration?
Anonymous said...
Unless TSA posts a full color 10 megapixel picture of Bob in a thong with a caption that says "millimeter wave" or "backscatter", the tinfoil hat crowd is going to swear that anything with less detail is an obvious fake and the "real thing" is much more revealing. So my advice - just stop trying, people have made up their minds already.
Ummmm NO to Blogger Bob in a thong.
The detail the machines are capable of in the real world are a lot finer than the ones shown with the machines setting at factory default. This image shows the difference. On the left is the image released by the TSA, on the right is the image obtained by CNN. Please notice on the right hand image you can tell the man is circumcised.
Sorry but that is way too invasive especially if the passenger is tricked into the device by the false TSA image or by no signage at all.
If you can't identify people why are the faces on the millimeter wave images blurred out? Take a closer look.
A METAL DETECTOR does just that-- Detect Metal. There are hundreds of threats, inclusive of explosives, that are not metal, that a METAL detector will not be able to detect.
Thus, if you want less security theatre at the checkpoint, and more security the TSA needs to get rid of the WTMD and utilize technologies that can detect non-metallic threats such as explosives, ceramic knives, plastic. Just check out the FBI's Guide to Concealable Weapons if you want to know what I'm talking about:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/weapons.pdf
TSA: There's been a lot of ambiguous talk that confuses these two technologies.
Please state specifically what the deployment details are for each (number of locations, future deployment plans).
Bob said:
They are male/female – front/back – Millimeter Wave/Backscatter.
I'm not sure if that was intended to explain the order of the images, but it's obvious that the first two are female (front then back) and the second two are male. Really REALLY obvious.
It seems to me, that the T.S.A. is above the law.
They make their own rules and subject everyone to follow them.
The America of freedom and privacy that we once knew is over.
I still want to know what sort of 3rd party cost benefit analysis went into the increased deployment of these expensive devices.
If they are not more effective than the current magnetometers why are we even wasting our resources on purchasing them. And if you haven't done any studies why not?
Anonymous said...
The backscatter images look like aliens.
To whoever is going to post about privacy issues: leave it alone. There's no way you're going to be identifiable from these images.
---------------------
And yet they still fuzzed/shadowed the faces of the individuals. Why do that if no ID is possible?
Try again, Bob. You're not convincing anyone.
There's an article in today's NY Times questioning the time and effort the FBI is putting into tracking down "terrorists". A quote from that article:
"But the manpower costs of this focus are steep, and the benefits not always clear. Of the 5,500 leads that the squad has pursued since it was formed five years ago, only 5 percent have been found credible enough to be sent to permanent F.B.I. squads for longer-term investigations, said Supervisory Special Agent Kristen von KleinSmid, head of the squad. Only a handful of those cases have resulted in criminal prosecutions or other law enforcement action, and none have foiled a specific terrorist plot, the authorities acknowledge."
The above sounds to me a lot like the BDO program and the virtual strip searches: lots of money invested for no return.
So how are TSO's trained and tested on these machines?
Do other TSA employees go through them with "concealed" weapons to see if they are found?
"Bubbaloop said… Why does the TSA insist on using technology that generates images?"
*Because, TSA insists on using technology that increases the ability of its officers to stop bombs from getting on planes.
"Dan Kozisek said… To those that would submit to a strip search, virtual or otherwise, just to board a plane, grow a backbone or stay home."
*I submit to screening so that the plane I board has a reduced probability of being attacked by an insane person, are you saying I should grow a backbone allow the attack?
*Trollkiller I looked at your image and don’t know what you are referring to. The two images look the same.
I am feeling just so whatever about this. Yet one more reason I don't feel safe flying anymore.
More and more rules, more and more "screenings" more and more ways that you could, at any moment, just decide to get up in my business and start rifling through my posessions.
Worst, by people hired by the government. The only thing garaunteed by a government is corruption as far as I can tell. I see no reason at all to trust an organization thats going to ask me to follow secret rules, and bullies people with secret lists.
These images don't make me feel better, they make me sick to my stomach.
Maybe next you guys will start taking some tips from Tenaha (), I bet you could raise millions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Police_seizures_scandal
-Steve
TSO Jacob said...
Trollkiller I looked at your image and don’t know what you are referring to. The two images look the same.
Time for some new specks Jacob. Lucky for you there are a lot of back to school specials right now.
The TSA image is benign showing nothing more than underwear while the CNN image clearly shows a penis and testicles.
Bob, are these images at the same size and resolution that the operator of the strip-search machine sees?
Why is it so hard for you to address this issue honestly?
I find it so strange talk of penis and testicles. I mean, half of us have them, and everyone has seen them.
It bothers me far more that we, as a society, so easily decide that this sort of wholesale searching of what was private for so long. Never before could you so casually peer into my pockets, and I don't like it one bit.
My entire person that I walk into public covering is private. Mine. I, for one, have yet to be convinced that this is so needed as I should be asked to give up the privacy of even my pockets. Never mind testicles.
Are the people really so frightened that we need to stoop to this level?
Trollkiller said...
TSO Jacob said...
Trollkiller I looked at your image and don’t know what you are referring to. The two images look the same.
Time for some new specks Jacob. Lucky for you there are a lot of back to school specials right now.
The TSA image is benign showing nothing more than underwear while the CNN image clearly shows a penis and testicles.
August 19, 2009 11:20 AM
--------------
Maybe you should get your glasses checked troll. Your image and the one at the top of this post that Bob already stated has become the TSA image are exactly the same. How can I tell? Because the black spec you say is the circumscision is in the same place and shape on both images. You can also see the same outline of the same underwear on both images it just looks like one image has had brightness/contrast cranked up by photo shop or monitor settings on the machine being used.
Just a quick comment about the pornographic nature of these images. If the US government (Not just TSA) considered these images pornographic then this blog would require an are you 18 or older verification page. The government is very good at covering its butt legally and wouldn't make a slip up like that.
TSO Jacob,
Technology that does not generate images but detects explosives is available. I favor the use of this kind of technology.
The available technologies that generate images do not detect explosives. Believe it or not, real terrorists know and would not be above using body cavities.
Plus, what if a person has a colostomy bag, or uses adult diapers, or has a post-mastectomy bra? First, the screener gets to see something that is none of his/her business. Second, what do they do? Believe that these are what they appear to be or proceed to have them "checked out" by your highly trained staff? Again, you are seeing images, not detecting explosives!
Bob Hanssen said...
Bob,
Nice try. I haven't done an extensive search on this blog (which isn't very searchable), but, I don't recall anyone asserting that the images were not big enough.
To refresh your memory, most of the posts centered around:
1. Inaccurate depictions at checkpoints between your published images and what the screener sees/what the machine is capable of producing;
2. Inadequate display of sign at checkpoints;
3. Violations of your own PIA in the encounter with the Cleveland reporter when it served your interests; and,
4. etc, etc.
"Bigger" inaccurate images don't cut it.
To anonymous: We aren't going to "leave it alone." We're going to be in your face and in your agency's face until we become your worst nightmare.
August 18, 2009 7:21 PM
----------------
1. I have only ever seen the images above for this machine. Find me different images that this TSA machine produces that are different then the ones above and I will believe you that TSA has released different quality images for sneaky purposes.
2. We practically paint the walls with signage at every checkpoint I have ever seen so not having proper signage is very unlikely. We have even upgraded most checkpoints to televisions that inform you of everything you need to know about checkpoints.
3. I don't know anything about that. Its above my pay grade lol
4. These images are about as pornographic as science text books in the 6th grade. I know because i've been there. maybe not in your school districts but I believe in ours sex education starts in 5th or 6th grade. HOWEVER I guarantee because it will be the way to get these machines at checkpoints that TSA will allow any passengers that wan't to the opportunity to opt out of the scanner screening for a patdown / handwand although probably just the patdown because the reasoning behind this machine is screening for things that aren't only metal.
Trollkiller said: The TSA image is benign showing nothing more than underwear while the CNN image clearly shows a penis and testicles.
August 19, 2009 11:20 AM
Trollkiller
These are different machines with differert technology thus the difference in the images. It has nothing to do with TSA and CNN. This is how the images actually appear. The backscatter images are different from the millimeter wave images because they are taken by two different machines.
TSOwilliamreed
I really beg to differ on that the signage you refer to is not at all checkpoints (DFW being a prime example) which is a violation of the PIA. Then Jacob considering I do image verification and post production work for a living I would say you really need to get your eyes checked. When i downloaded all the images and brought them into look at (500-2000% zoom) them there is about 20 LPI more lines of resolution per inch in the CNN photo then the TSA one, and no its not a contrast bump either. the males genitalia are outlined quite clearly then the TSA image. it almost looks like a gaussian blur was done to the TSA image.
It tells me alot when a TSA PR official doenst have have a problem with posting images of other people on the internet but has a problem having the same done to his own family. whats wrong nico and such.....got something to hide?
Sorry bob you wont ever have me go through one of those, then if forced i might just have a panic attack and decommission one of these 4th amendment violations due to being in a tight closed in space.
Hey bob you care to comment on the news coming out of TPA where a handgun and ammunition was stolen from checked luggage and TSA doesn't have any comment other then double speak. Im sorry considering the the rifles and handguns i travel with iff anyone of them went missing TSA gonna be the first people on the suit when it hits the courts right after it hits the national news. Lets see Rude Barking nosy staff, failed red team test, and stuff like this happens and you expect us to trust you.
A couple of weeks ago on one of the national news channels was a bit about screening Iraqis as they entered secure work areas.
The U.S. showed the people being screened on a moving walkway, arms extended to their sides. The machine appeared to never stop and the view of the monitor that they gave showed nothing more than an outline of the persons body that being screened.
So if technology like that is good enough for a war zone where real danger exist why not at TSA screening points where the real danger is near nil?
What technology is the military using that allows continuous screening and does not show body parts like the MMW Strip Search Machine?
Bob?
I'm a bit suprised. Having never seen one of these images before, but having read what everyone is saying on the blog about them, I was expecting something more invasive. Nothing bad here at all. I wouldn't mind using this machine.
Dan Kozisek said..
"To those that would submit to a strip search, virtual or otherwise, just to board a plane, grow a backbone or stay home."
You seem to assume that there are only 2 responses to the use of these machines. 1. Not to like them and refuse to use them, or 2. no like them, but submit becuase of lack of courage.
Why couldn't there be a 3rd response? Why do you not even give me the option to actually like this machine and want to use it over a patdown or handwand? Why do you get to chose for me?
ImageWizard said...
"I really beg to differ on that the signage you refer to is not at all checkpoints (DFW being a prime example) which is a violation of the PIA."
This is not true. Just traveled out of DFW on several occasions. Went through different checkpoints. Where the machine was, sings were up. One checkpoint I went through had a puffer, and it was sort of funny to see a few people mistake it for this machine. Maybe thats what you did? Mistake one machine for another?
Trollkiller said...
Sorry but that is way too invasive especially if the passenger is tricked into the device by the false TSA image or by no signage at all.
___________________________________
I looked at the pictures of the link that you provided. The pictures on the left look to me like the ones that were released to show people what the pictures of a MMW machine looked. The ones on the right look like the ones that were released to show what a backscatter image looks like.
In fact the pictures on the right look just like the ones posted at my local airport in front of the backscatter machine.
Keep crying people. Keep cryin!
Anonymous
No i travel enough to know the difference between the two. DFW TSA must have gotten the signs up lickty split after ripped every TSO at that checkpoint including the 2 & 3 striper that was overseeing the whole thing about 2 and 4 weeks ago.
TSA you have a image problem do everyone a favor and just leave , cause you havent done a thing to make air travel safer, you have just turned it into a charade of stupidity were the constitution of the united states is being violated (you know the same document you swore to protect when you took your job). Im being nice and if i let the other shoe drop it would make a politician blush.
"You seem to assume that there are only 2 responses to the use of these machines. 1. Not to like them and refuse to use them, or 2. no like them, but submit becuase of lack of courage.
Why couldn't there be a 3rd response? Why do you not even give me the option to actually like this machine and want to use it over a patdown or handwand? Why do you get to chose for me?"
911 changed one thing. It exposed the American people as cowards who were willing to give up everything that made us different in order to feel safe against a largely non-existent threat.
I assume that you work for the TSA as such, you are denying me the choice. Not the other way around.
Besides, if your not willing to sign your name, you probably shouldn't be talking about courage.
Dan Koziske said...
You seem to assume that there are only 2 responses to the use of these machines. 1. Not to like them and refuse to use them, or 2. no like them, but submit becuase of lack of courage.
Why couldn't there be a 3rd response? Why do you not even give me the option to actually like this machine and want to use it over a patdown or handwand? Why do you get to chose for me?"
911 changed one thing. It exposed the American people as cowards who were willing to give up everything that made us different in order to feel safe against a largely non-existent threat.
I assume that you work for the TSA as such, you are denying me the choice. Not the other way around.
Besides, if your not willing to sign your name, you probably shouldn't be talking about courage.
-------------------------------
Acutally I wasn't talking about courage, you were. You inferred that those who submitted to this machine lacked it, because as far you you were concerned the only other alternative was to reject being submitted to this process. In fact, you suggested such people grow a back-bone. Please don't put words in my mouth. Stand up for what you say, be proud of it.
But on another note, it has been well discussed in this blog that its useless to attach a name to this blogs, as any name can be made up and used, and as far as the general readers are concerned they have no way of verifying who someone says they are, except in the rarest of circumstances.
But its very nice of you to accuse people of denying you your choice, as you said, then you turn around and do the same to others. But if your fine being a hypocrite, more power to you.
And I noticed how you didn't really respond to what I wrote, the fact that some people actually might perfer this kind of screening.
ImageWizard said...
"No i travel enough to know the difference between the two. DFW TSA must have gotten the signs up lickty split after ripped every TSO at that checkpoint including the 2 & 3 striper that was overseeing the whole thing about 2 and 4 weeks ago."
------------
I actually flew out of DFW on July 29th, and the signs were up. Pay attention next time you fly.
The TSA's failure to address the "tampon paradox" amounts to tacit admission that it does exist and therefore, nullifies the usefulness of WBI.
Ceramic knives are not going to bring down an airplane.
> So if technology like that is good
> enough for a war zone where real danger
> exist why not at TSA screening points
> where the real danger is near nil?
And I would ask, why we need as much screening as we have now where the real danger is nearly nil.
In a war zone, you do what you need to do. Sometimes that means everyone going in gets a strip search. Even a real one if need be.
This is not a war zone, no matter what the fearmongering military/security/prison industrial complex tells you.
-Steve
Anonymous said...
I looked at the pictures of the link that you provided. The pictures on the left look to me like the ones that were released to show people what the pictures of a MMW machine looked. The ones on the right look like the ones that were released to show what a backscatter image looks like.
In fact the pictures on the right look just like the ones posted at my local airport in front of the backscatter machine.
Keep crying people. Keep cryin!
Both images are from MMWs, if the image on the right is being used for the signage in front of the backscatter machine then the TSA is willfully lying about the capabilities of the backscatter.
The source for the right hand image comes from this story on CNN.
There is a picture box on the left hand side showing the back image, if you click the button to go to the next image you will see that the image I used and you will see it comes from the MMW. The only alteration I did to the image was to enlarge it so it matched the TSA's image in size and crop out the controls.
The image is a true representation of the resolution the MMW can achieve.
Do me a favor and take a picture of the backscatter signage and send it to backscatter@rebelmodel.com
Thanks.
I'll ask the question again, since no TSO seems to want to. What is to prevent you from bringing a camera into the room with you to take pictures of these sicko images on the screens? Are you frisked prior to entry and again when you exit?
ImageWizard said...
"I really beg to differ on that the signage you refer to is not at all checkpoints (DFW being a prime example) which is a violation of the PIA."
---------
DFW had the signs up on stachions. They are out before BP check and right in front of the machines.
Thanks for the new look Bob. And you as well TK, I had not seen the CNN story before. Interesting technology, and both will improve the ability of TSA to prevent the introduction of prohibited items to the sterile area and aircraft.
I wonder what the images look like when the person is hiding
a gun
a knife
sticks of dynamite
wires
a portable FM radio
a bottle of water
a thick wallet
a knee brace
metal plates in his skull
Still undecided,
Randy
Seriously people? You find these pictures "pornographic" or too revealing? That is absolutely ridiculous. They are as detailed as a barbie doll, big whoop. Even the image that trollkiller postage, claiming to "show the difference" does nothing of the sort. It is still a blobby, indistinct picture that no one in their right mind could possibly derive any sort of satisfaction from.
Joe said...
I'll ask the question again, since no TSO seems to want to. What is to prevent you from bringing a camera into the room with you to take pictures of these sicko images on the screens? Are you frisked prior to entry and again when you exit?
August 19, 2009 7:26 PM
----------------
Well they might screen the TSO before he/she goes into the room but I don't really know. They havn't released the procedural stuff to TSO's that don't work with the machine. However, do you have any idea what kind of laws you would be breaking if you did something like that? I guarantee you any TSO that was caught doing that would be fired purely on the basis that a felony is probably going to be involved in the legal rammifications of performing such an act. I am sure they will have a security camera positioned to film the TSO in the secure room that will be imobile and unable to view the monitors. But this is all speculation, I believe that is what should be done to make sure that room is secure.
Just wanted to point out that liquid latex is considered clothing and non pornographic. Its also more revealing than these images.
"Just wanted to point out that liquid latex is considered clothing and non pornographic. Its also more revealing than these images."
Until and unless TSA is forcing citizens to choose between wearing liquid latex or being felt up by its employees, you have no point at all.
This actually would be one of the few effective security measures TSA has implemented. But, until you mandate its use 100% of the time for 100% of people going into the sterile area, it can still be defeated.
TSOWilliamReed said...
Joe said...
I'll ask the question again, since no TSO seems to want to. What is to prevent you from bringing a camera into the room with you to take pictures of these sicko images on the screens? Are you frisked prior to entry and again when you exit?
August 19, 2009 7:26 PM
----------------
Well they might screen the TSO before he/she goes into the room but I don't really know. They havn't released the procedural stuff to TSO's that don't work with the machine. However, do you have any idea what kind of laws you would be breaking if you did something like that? I guarantee you any TSO that was caught doing that would be fired purely on the basis that a felony is probably going to be involved in the legal rammifications of performing such an act. I am sure they will have a security camera positioned to film the TSO in the secure room that will be imobile and unable to view the monitors. But this is all speculation, I believe that is what should be done to make sure that room is secure.
August 20, 2009 12:13 PM
......................
I agree that stern steps should be taken to ensure STRIP SEARCHES are conducted by the rule.
However, if the images are so tame as TSA claims then just why are these extreme precautions needed in the first place?
The only answer? Because the images are extremely revealing.
TSA knows this and continues to mislead the public.
Anonymous said...
Just wanted to point out that liquid latex is considered clothing and non pornographic. Its also more revealing than these images.
August 20, 2009 12:15 PM
............................
If you decided to go out in public in my part of the country with nothing on but liquid latex I can almost promise that you would be arrested for indecent exposeure.
If you want to give it a try I will standby and film the event.
You will be responsible for all expenses if you have any.
There is a bit of fascinating philosophy on display here.
Bob first introduces it as an idea. People react negatively. So Bob posts another post in which he announces the pilot program. People react negatively. So Bob posts another post in which he announces an expansion of the pilot program. People react negatively.
I think people telling Bob they don't like this program is what spurred them to expand it.
Now about the Lamé question...
Ok so back to this machine. Someone mentioned technology that doesn't produce images. We are currently using this type of technology with our CT scanners in our baggage operation. We only receive images when the machine alarms. The problem with this is you can only set the machine to alarm on one thing (explosives), common items can look like explosives to the machine (Cheddar cheese), so if they programmed the scanner to do that you would have to go through a WTMD also and that would defeat the overall purpose of using this machine. DO YOU HAVE TO USE THIS MACHINE? The answer is NO since you can currently opt out for metal detector screening as it stands right now. They aren't going to change that rule, it’s your option how you want to be screened it’s just the alternatives are more difficult. Full body pat downs are way more invasive than this machine, at least I think so since I have to be patted down by my co-workers on a daily basis for training purposes. Also think of the TSA point of view on this. The TSO's working on this machine are going to need to practice and be trained on it on a regular basis. Currently we do things like pat downs while hiding things on ourselves. Think about this, TSO's are going to have to scan their co-workers under this machine?! I don't want to see my co-workers under that machine ever. You guys are right, forget these machines and throw ‘em in the junk pile. lol
The "Tampon Paradox" is made up nonesense. To argue that any procedure that can't do everything is worthless is absurd. It is no different than claiming "No point in locking your doors, they could just break a window."
Also the attack that "competent screeners should be able to ensure I don't have a weapon using more traditional screening methods" is equally absurd. Yes, there are more traditional methods that might work, they would include EVERYONE getting a pat down, because right now traditional technology soloutions (ie WMD) can't find explosives hidden on a person. So is it better to be "strip searched" or "felt up"?
These images are in no way pornographic. The notion that school kids would be suspended for having these images is nothing but hype. My high school biology book had more graphic images of the human body than these. The argument "would you want pictures of your family put on the Internet" is also absurd. Take a deep breath and remember, these images aren't being taken at the checkpoint to be posted on the internet. They are being reviewed then deleted, its kind of a big difference.
RB SAID...
I agree that stern steps should be taken to ensure STRIP SEARCHES are conducted by the rule.
However, if the images are so tame as TSA claims then just why are these extreme precautions needed in the first place?
The only answer? Because the images are extremely revealing.
TSA knows this and continues to mislead the public.
------------------
Come on are you serious? The reason TSA has to take such strict measure to make sure no one sees the image is because people are whining about it so much. If it was a big deal because the images were so revealing then they wouldn't be posting them all over blogs and news reports that are available for minors to view.
Ayn R. Key said...
There is a bit of fascinating philosophy on display here.
Bob first introduces it as an idea. People react negatively. So Bob posts another post in which he announces the pilot program. People react negatively. So Bob posts another post in which he announces an expansion of the pilot program. People react negatively.
I think people telling Bob they don't like this program is what spurred them to expand it.
Now about the Lamé question...
August 20, 2009 2:00 PM
----------------
People are only acting negativley here and in politics. Seriously 90% of the passengers actually using the machine think its great therefore they keep expanding the program
Anonymous said...
This actually would be one of the few effective security measures TSA has implemented. But, until you mandate its use 100% of the time for 100% of people going into the sterile area, it can still be defeated.
August 20, 2009 1:42 PM
................
Are you suggesting that TSA employees, airport employees and airline employees should suffer the loss of dignity that being screened causes?
Your going to end up on the Never Ever Fly List talking like that!
TSOWilliamReed @ "Well they might screen the TSO before he/she goes into the room but I don't really know. They havn't released the procedural stuff to TSO's that don't work with the machine. However, do you have any idea what kind of laws you would be breaking if you did something like that? I guarantee you any TSO that was caught doing that would be fired purely on the basis that a felony is probably going to be involved in the legal rammifications of performing such an act. I am sure they will have a security camera positioned to film the TSO in the secure room that will be imobile and unable to view the monitors. But this is all speculation, I believe that is what should be done to make sure that room is secure."
If there is nothing worth seeing on the monitors, why would it be such a felony for a TSO to use a camera to capture an image from the MWW monitor? TSA is trying to walk a fine line between privacy and intrusiveness, and it is failing.
(I've submitted a list of comments twice but something in it seems to offend your sensibilities. I'll try these one at a time instead.)
Okay, Bob, you've put these images here and on your website. That informs a small percentage of the 2 million passengers per day that go through US airports. What about the rest of them? When will TSA post large format (life-size would be good) images at a place leading up to the checkpoint where (a) passengers would be able to clearly associate these images with the machine they're being sent to and (b) passengers would have the option to choose the other line or process? When will TSA provide the brochures that are still mentioned in the new PIA so that passengers can be informed about this technology and their options? If your acceptance rate is as high as you claim, why are you afraid of this publicity?
I have a metal implant that sets off the WTMD about 2/3 of the time. I would still rather be patted down than scanned by the WBI. Don't be so fast to assume that everyone with metal implants prefers this machine.
Randy said:
The images are *not* visible to the TSA agent standing right next to you.
It's my understanding that the images are displayed on a screen in a closed room by a TSA agent that cannot see the person being scanned.
And it's my understanding that the person looking at the image has a radio link to the person standing next to you at the machine. What's to keep them from making rude comments about what they see (piercings, medical supports, underwear choice)? We have seen a lot of childish and unprofessional behavior at the checkpoint; why should this be any different?
To anonymous #1 who thinks that because it's not identifiable, it's not about privacy: are you willing to walk through a public place stark naked except for a bag over your head? Would you let your wife/girlfriend/mother/children do that?
Bob - here's the simple test. Take these images to a school and show them to some eight-year-old boys. If they giggle, you've gone too far. If you get arrested, I guess that'll make my point.
It's very disturbing that the US has come to a point where innocent people have to be strip searched in an effort to preserve our "liberty."
Anonymous said...
Seriously people? You find these pictures "pornographic" or too revealing? That is absolutely ridiculous. They are as detailed as a barbie doll, big whoop. Even the image that trollkiller postage, claiming to "show the difference" does nothing of the sort. It is still a blobby, indistinct picture that no one in their right mind could possibly derive any sort of satisfaction from.
Just because you are not a freak does not mean you can discount the fact that other people are. No one in their right mind could possibly derive sexual satisfaction from a child, but there has already been a TSA employee busted for that.
Personally I do not think the images are pornographic but they are intrusive and vulgar in the manner they violate a person's privacy.
If you are unable to tell the difference in resolution between the TSA image and the CNN image, please do not drive until you get some new specks.
TSOWilliamReed said...
Well they might screen the TSO before he/she goes into the room but I don't really know. They havn't released the procedural stuff to TSO's that don't work with the machine. However, do you have any idea what kind of laws you would be breaking if you did something like that? I guarantee you any TSO that was caught doing that would be fired purely on the basis that a felony is probably going to be involved in the legal rammifications of performing such an act. I am sure they will have a security camera positioned to film the TSO in the secure room that will be imobile and unable to view the monitors. But this is all speculation, I believe that is what should be done to make sure that room is secure.
What laws would a TSO be breaking if they captured an image from the MMW?
That is a serious question as I am not sure any law covers the MMW images.
Isaac Newton said...
(I've submitted a list of comments twice but something in it seems to offend your sensibilities. I'll try these one at a time instead.)
Okay, Bob, you've put these images here and on your website. That informs a small percentage of the 2 million passengers per day that go through US airports. What about the rest of them? When will TSA post large format (life-size would be good) images at a place leading up to the checkpoint where (a) passengers would be able to clearly associate these images with the machine they're being sent to and (b) passengers would have the option to choose the other line or process? When will TSA provide the brochures that are still mentioned in the new PIA so that passengers can be informed about this technology and their options? If your acceptance rate is as high as you claim, why are you afraid of this publicity?
The latest PIA for the MMW and Backscatter eliminate the brochure requirement and replace it with a signage requirement.
I think this makes it very uncomfortable for passengers to get on a plane, these images are disgusting.
From recent articles ive read, these new machines wont be able to put your privates on the screen if you put metal plates in front of them. Not sure if this is the case with this machine.
I still believe people should not be subject to have to go through this.
TSOWilliamReed @ "People are only acting negativley here and in politics. Seriously 90% of the passengers actually using the machine think its great therefore they keep expanding the program"
Many of those 90% of passengers think the MMW actually detects explosives like a puffer, and isn't some high tech set of x-ray specs that see through clothing!!!
I am thoroughly confused by TSO William´s post. I can´t seem to find out if he is pro or con-WBI. As far as I can tell, he starts out pro and ends up con, after the thought of seeing his co-workers through the eyes of the nude-o-scope.
I find having the choice between being groped and nude-o-scoped as a primary form of screening ridiculous. I should not have to go through such procedures to be able to fly. Given the choice, I would much rather be groped by someone I can see than have my clothes virtually removed by someone I can´t see. We still don´t know how what provisions are being taken against hacking, inappropriate behavior by TSOs, etc.
And William, you suggest that cameras should monitor the TSO looking at WB images. Are there such cameras in place? When we asked about that in the past, Bob seemed to imply that that would be inappropriate.
As this post has once again taken the same course as every other post in this entire blog its time to once again bring a bit of truth to the conversation.
Bob Hanssen says:
"We're going to be in your face and in your agency's face until we become your worst nightmare."
yes.. this is brilliant Bob, become the nightmare of the agency whose strange but effective policies have prevented any terrorist attacks upon airlines in the US since 9/11. Get rid of the agency thats doing this...and wait for terrorists to blow up another plane and maybe, just maybe you or your family will be on it.... cry more then.
Anonymous says:
"Ceramic knives are not going to bring down an airplane."
Box cutters brought down 3 planes and 2 buildings. Try again
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
"People are only acting negativley here and in politics. Seriously 90% of the passengers actually using the machine think its great therefore they keep expanding the program"
How do you know that "90% of the passengers" like the machine when you don't even have one in AK? You just read and accept everything your employer tells you, don't you?
Why do you think the politicians are against MMW? It's because they are hearing from their constituents and those constituents DO NOT LIKE the idea of being virtually strip searched just to get on an airplane.
TSOWilliamReed writes:
The TSO's working on this machine are going to need to practice and be trained on it on a regular basis. Currently we do things like pat downs while hiding things on ourselves. Think about this, TSO's are going to have to scan their co-workers under this machine?! I don't want to see my co-workers under that machine ever.
So, it's unacceptable to look at your co-workers using this machine, but it is acceptable to look at passengers with this machine? Isn't this hypocritical?
Come on are you serious? The reason TSA has to take such strict measure to make sure no one sees the image is because people are whining about it so much. If it was a big deal because the images were so revealing then they wouldn't be posting them all over blogs and news reports that are available for minors to view.
August 20, 2009 4:32 PM
....................
TSA developed the privacy precuations before the first machine was deployed.
There was no, as you call it, whinning at that point.
TSA knew then as they know now that these images are not going to be accepted by the public.
TSA can lie, cheat, and steal (nothing new there)but that will not change the fact that the STRIP SEARCH MACHINE images are not as TSA would have anyone believe.
These images are explicit and use of this machine should subject the operators to criminal penalties.
Again I ask, why is TSA in such a rush to deploy STRIP SEARCH MACHINES while the United States Congress has legislation pending to restrict use of these machines to secondary searches?
TSOWilliamReed said...
People are only acting negativley here and in politics. Seriously 90% of the passengers actually using the machine think its great therefore they keep expanding the program
August 20, 2009 4:34 PM
...................
Please provide some evidence that90% of passengers approve of being STRIP SEARCHED by TSA.
Irrespective of the images themselves, passengers who are selected for the MMW are seperated from their belongings for several minutes. In RDU, the machine faces away from the xray machine. I was selected by a TSO who just pointed at the MMW. No instruction, no explanation that I could decline, no offer to get my belongings and place them in my sight. The signage at RDU is approximately 5"x3" and posted at waist level on the queue stanchions, so no one sees it ;-) I declined the MMW and got a very perfunctory pat-down by a giggling TSO. I must have been the first to decline. Whatever your opinion of the technology itself, the fact that the process around the MMW seperates you from your belongings in a high traffic, high theft area is unacceptable.
TSOWilliamReed said...
Ok so back to this machine. Someone mentioned technology that doesn't produce images. We are currently using this type of technology with our CT scanners in our baggage operation.
.........................
I may have been the one to mention a screening method that the military is using overseas that was on a news channel.
They were screening Iraqi civilians as they entered work areas.
What was shown was a moving walkway, the person being screened holding their arms away from their sides and the image shown on the monitor appeared to me as mostly
a silhouette of the persons form.
The detail was very much less than what the MMW STRIP SEARCH MACHINE produces.
The technology used was never mentioned, which is a shame because that would have been of interest.
The point being, if technology is available that allows continous screening and is not invasive like the MMW screening then why not procure this equipement, at least for investigative testing, and move the ball forward.
Instead TSA seems intent on forcing an unpopular idea while other more favorable methods may be available taking heat and attention from the public and Congress, and harming even more the already extremely poor image that TSA has created in its short life.
Is this the acts of a professional agency?
I suggest not!
TSOWilliamReed said...
People are only acting negativley here and in politics. Seriously 90% of the passengers actually using the machine think its great therefore they keep expanding the program.
90% of people have not seen the screen shots posts on this blog. Those that have tend to react negatively to this machine.
Public discontent seems to be the TSA's measure of effectiveness. If the informed public dislikes a program it must be a good program.
Now about the Lamé question...
And it's my understanding that the person looking at the image has a radio link to the person standing next to you at the machine. What's to keep them from making rude comments about what they see (piercings, medical supports, underwear choice)? We have seen a lot of childish and unprofessional behavior at the checkpoint; why should this be any different?
___________________________________
So you go through the MMW or backscatter. The person in the other room radios to the person right next to you, "Fatties clear". You didn't hear it, but the officer next to you laughs and says your clear sir/mam. Is that what your talking about?!
Ha! Don't be so insecure!
Trollkiller, your argument regarding "freaks" who may or may not find the image pornographic is absurd. If we use that logic open toed shoes are potentially pornographic, there are people who find women's exposed feet erotic. Should we ban the use of security cameras at the checkpoint (and elsewhere) because the potential exists for a "freak" to use the images for erotic purposes? We should ban shcool and nurse uniforms too, we know some people find those erotic.
Isaac Newton, so the new standard of what is acceptable is what makes an 8 year old giggle? Please tell me you aren't seriously proposing that as a standard. Further, as has been mentioned repeatedly the images are no more graphic than those found in high school biology book. I suspect you wouldn't get arrested for taking a high school biology book into a school.
Finally, the continued analogy of "would you do this in public" isn't valid. No one is asking these images to be displayed in public. That is one of the reasons the images are monitored elsewhere. I wouldn't want my wife/mother/daughter in public in the same manner she is in her gynecologists officer either, but that doesn't mean its wrong, pornographic or an invasion of privacy when it happens at the gynecologist's. And both with this system and a visit to the Doctor, you are doing it by choice. If you don't want the WBI, in the words of Nancy Reagan "Just Say No."
TK wrote:
"The latest PIA for the MMW and Backscatter eliminate the brochure requirement and replace it with a signage requirement."
Actually, TK, Isaac Newton is correct in that the most recent PI still states that brochures will be available at checkpoints. However, it is the signage that allegedly leads to "informed" consent.
TSA, can travelers with vision impairments CLEARLY see and read your signs in order to give "informed consent" to being strip searched or groped? The answer to that is: NO
RB said...
"Anonymous said...
This actually would be one of the few effective security measures TSA has implemented. But, until you mandate its use 100% of the time for 100% of people going into the sterile area, it can still be defeated.
August 20, 2009 1:42 PM
................
Are you suggesting that TSA employees, airport employees and airline employees should suffer the loss of dignity that being screened causes?
Your going to end up on the Never Ever Fly List talking like that!"
---------------------
RB I do not understand you. You have made it very clear that you do not trust TSA. Yet you want TSA to screen itself as they come and go through the checkpoint.
Why would you, of all people, trust a TSA employee to do this? In your opinion, wouldn't we just let another TSA employee with a prohibited item just go on through? Or do you want it done just for show? Or do you think we would be trustworthy in this situation?
I mean, if you don't trust us to screen other passengers and catch all threats, why would you trust us to screen ourselves, the people we work with, hang out with, know personally? And wouldn't a TSA employee know best how to get something through the checkpoint undetected?
If this is the case, then you have to realize you asking for this over and over again is pointless, right? If so, do you still plan to ask for something you no longer believe would be effective?
Trollkiller: I looked at your images again and still don’t see what you are referring to. In the TSA image I can see the belly button, the shape of the leg muscle and the individual digits on the hands. In the CNN image I cannot make out the belly button, I can see the definition to the muscle of the legs, but the wrinkles or crevices that separate the digits on the fingers are not as well defined as the TSA image.
The real difference you are trying to point out on the images is the genitals. I can see your point about the CNN picture but quite honestly it looks to me like the TSA image’s model is simply “adjusted” to a different orientation. My airport does not have this equipment so have no idea if my hypothesis is correct or not but in my view the comparison of the images do not prove your point.
Bubbaloop, you mentioned technology that detects explosives but does not show images. What are they? Everyday when I go to work I “see images” or collect other data from machines. I and my highly trained coworkers must decipher all that data to determine if there are explosives or not. The only kinds of technology that is available in our airports are the ones that require highly trained people to determine if explosives are present. If you know about something else please inform us so that TSA can put these technologies into U.S. airports.
"When will TSA post large format (life-size would be good) images "
Kinda dumb as the images the TSO looks at would only be as big as the screen.
"the image of a person's body will be visible to TSA screeners standing just feet away. "
they are in another room. the only person who wiould ever see the image and the individual would be an officer with the airport's police department.
these images are indecent? i see worse at the beach or on vh1.
These machines have been already bought for german government buildings... And they finally get forbidden just before they had been installed...
Sandra said...
Try again, Bob. You're not convincing anyone.
There's an article in today's NY Times questioning the time and effort the FBI is putting into tracking down "terrorists". A quote from that article:
"But the manpower costs of this focus are steep, and the benefits not always clear. Of the 5,500 leads that the squad has pursued since it was formed five years ago, only 5 percent have been found credible enough to be sent to permanent F.B.I. squads for longer-term investigations, said Supervisory Special Agent Kristen von KleinSmid, head of the squad. Only a handful of those cases have resulted in criminal prosecutions or other law enforcement action, and none have foiled a specific terrorist plot, the authorities acknowledge."
The above sounds to me a lot like the BDO program and the virtual strip searches: lots of money invested for no return.
--------------------------------
Yep, no return at all, except for the safety of the millions of Americans that travel daily, but people don't care about that until another plane goes down.
Seriously; we, the American public are not going to notice a difference if all the security in the world is doing it's job. Only when they fail will we know when they haven't done enough. Leave security to the experts, people.
Anonymous said...
A couple of weeks ago on one of the national news channels was a bit about screening Iraqis as they entered secure work areas.
The U.S. showed the people being screened on a moving walkway, arms extended to their sides. The machine appeared to never stop and the view of the monitor that they gave showed nothing more than an outline of the persons body that being screened.
So if technology like that is good enough for a war zone where real danger exist why not at TSA screening points where the real danger is near nil?
What technology is the military using that allows continuous screening and does not show body parts like the MMW Strip Search Machine?
Bob?
--------------------------
How much impact do you think a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians will have on the American public? There is no room for error with stateside terrorism.
By the way (for the rest of us), the "right to travel" is not written in the constitution, and neither is there a provision against mandatory searches for people excersizing the privilage of boarding an aircraft. Now, if the government was >forcing< people onto planes, that would be another story. Did I mention that America has some very scenic roadways?
In the discussion on security flight Q&A, you state "Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack."
I believe you meant to say that each one of these layers alone is *IN*capable of stopping a terrorist attack.
Joe said...
I'll ask the question again, since no TSO seems to want to. What is to prevent you from bringing a camera into the room with you to take pictures of these sicko images on the screens? Are you frisked prior to entry and again when you exit?
-----------------------------
It seems that most of us have an overinflated self image here. do you think anyone who's looking at these images cares? If you're so worried about someone you don't know looking at you, I suggest you never leave the house. And certainly don't go to the gym, for that matter.
Pornographic? I don't know what you people are looking at. But the Barbie doll reference seems most accurate.
Just a quick question for you-Do you have a hissy fit when you look at classical art? Or do you just avoid museums? I can't help but wonder when you all will start trying to have the Smithsonian closed down due to 'pornographic' images and sculptures diplayed in the art museums.
Ronnie
TSO DEN
Anonymous wrote:
"By the way (for the rest of us), the "right to travel" is not written in the constitution, and neither is there a provision against mandatory searches for people excersizing the privilage of boarding an aircraft. Now, if the government was >forcing< people onto planes, that would be another story. Did I mention that America has some very scenic roadways?"
Try this on for size, Anonymous:
The Right To Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Anonymous wrote:
"Box cutters brought down 3 planes and 2 buildings. Try again"
No, box cutters did cause it; the act of opening the cockpit doors was the trigger. Get your facts straight.
Sure, art is Art. But nude pictures of my kid ain't art.
Ronnie said...
Pornographic? I don't know what you people are looking at. But the Barbie doll reference seems most accurate.
Just a quick question for you-Do you have a hissy fit when you look at classical art? Or do you just avoid museums? I can't help but wonder when you all will start trying to have the Smithsonian closed down due to 'pornographic' images and sculptures diplayed in the art museums.
Ronnie
TSO DEN
August 24, 2009 8:27 AM
..........................
If your trying to tie MMW STRIP SEARCHES to classical art then your going to be disappointed.
Of course when you cannot justify something try deflection first.
Look it's simple.
MMW STRIP SEARCHES are demeaning and abusive. They are graphic!
The degree of threat to commercial air is so low that use of this method is just not indicated.
If the threat is so high tell me just how many terrorist TSA has captured since inception.
How many weeks is the Delete-O-Meter going to be stuck on 1349?
TSO Jacob,
I obviously mean images of persons must not be generated. I don´t mean any kind of image, such as a graph, is unacceptable. If your people are not well trained enough to use available techniques that generate graphs or other scary forms of depicting data, they should be trained to use them. Don´t use lack of training as an excuse - that is ridiculous.
Examples of OK methods: mechanical noses, natural noses (animals such as dogs or bees), various spectrometric and chromatographic techniques, metal detectors.
Anonymous said...
Actually, TK, Isaac Newton is correct in that the most recent PI still states that brochures will be available at checkpoints. However, it is the signage that allegedly leads to "informed" consent.
Thanks for the correction, I re-read the latest PIA and you are absolutely correct.
Under the heading 1. Principle of Transparency , it says "Informational brochures regarding the program will be made available at each WBI site that will show a WBI image that the technology will create."
Hey Blogger Bob, what's up with the lack of brochures? If you need a good printer, we could use the business. We will make them nice and attractive. Email me.
By the way (for the rest of us), the "right to travel" is not written in the constitution, and neither is there a provision against mandatory searches for people excersizing the privilage of boarding an aircraft. Now, if the government was >forcing< people onto planes, that would be another story. Did I mention that America has some very scenic roadways?
You need to read the constitution again. The government only has powers explicitly granted to it, and no more. ALL other powers are reserved to the states and the people. Moreover the government has courts established to, among other things, guard the sanctity of the contract.
A plane ticket is a contract between myself and the airline. The TSA is not part of that. I find an airline willing to sell at a price I am willing to purchase, and between the two of us we come ot a private arrangement. Nobody has the right to interfere with that private arrangement. Now if the airline wanted to institute these virtural pedi-porn machines I'd fly a different airline since I have no right to force them to do business with me.
Given the right to contract, while I don't have an independent right to fly I do have a derived right to fly via the contract of a plane ticket.
And the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Being given the choice of being felt up by one pervert or leered at by another pervert by a third party interfering with a private contract is not only no choice at all, but a choice that means ever member of the TSA should be charged with Treason and also branded as sex offenders.
Anonymous @ 8/23 1:00 pm said..
By the way (for the rest of us), the "right to travel" is not written in the constitution
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And Anonymous also said...
and neither is there a provision against mandatory searches for people excersizing the privilage of boarding an aircraft.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I always carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with me wherever I go. You should too. You might learn something.
Anonatard said...
How much impact do you think a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians will have on the American public? There is no room for error with stateside terrorism.
By the way (for the rest of us), the "right to travel" is not written in the constitution, and neither is there a provision against mandatory searches for people excersizing the privilage of boarding an aircraft. Now, if the government was >forcing< people onto planes, that would be another story. Did I mention that America has some very scenic roadways?
WOW I believe that is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog. You know that takes some doing, congratulations.
First, the Iraqis you are talking about are entering SECURE areas, you know the place where OUR soldiers, diplomats, and assorted paper pushers are. How much impact do you think a bunch of dead AMERICANS would have?
Second, the right to travel predates the Constitution and was in such firm hold that the framers did not even bother with it. Did you catch that? They felt the right was so fundamental it did not need to be mentioned, just like they did not need to mention the right to breathe.
EVERY court thus far had upheld the right to travel. Did you catch that? EVERY COURT thus far has upheld the fundamental right to travel.
The right to travel without undue burden or restriction from the Government is a RIGHT. The question before us is this, are the searches, forced ID verification, and other procedures an undue burden or restriction.
BTW the provision dealing with searches is the 4th Amendment. Mandatory administrative searches must be narrow in scope and reasonable.
I am having a hard time figuring out if you are truly that stupid or are just a Troll.
Please attempt to use real arguments next time.
I asked:
"When will TSA post large format (life-size would be good) images "
to which anonymous replied:
Kinda dumb as the images the TSO looks at would only be as big as the screen.
___
The passengers need to be informed of the nature of the image before they get to the machine, so that they can decide whether or not to step into the WBI. (That's the point of the sign, right? So that passengers are giving "informed consent" to being strip searched?)
If the image on the sign is the same size as that on the computer monitor watched by the screener, the passenger has to be as close to that sign as the screener is to the monitor (maybe 2 feet) to be able to see it as well. If the signs are right before the WBI, by the time they can see it, they're already distracted with removing things from pockets, taking off shoes, etc. Having small signs makes it more likely for the passenger to miss it. Maybe that's TSA's actual intent.
For Trollkiller: the current (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_wbiupdate.pdf) PIA still says on page 6:
Informational brochures regarding the program will be made available at each WBI site that will show a WBI image that the technology will create.
So Bob, how about it?
There's no way these images would be considered decent. You can see the underclothing, and you can see underneath it. If a kid came to school with these images, they'd be suspended/disciplined. I doubt any administrator or manager at TSA would want mmw/backscatter images of their spouse or kids posted online.
> The "Tampon Paradox" is made up
> nonesense. To argue that any procedure
> that can't do everything is worthless
> is absurd. It is no different than
> claiming "No point in locking your
> doors, they could just break a window."
Except... your assuming that the doors are not already locked.
How about... "locking your doors is fine, you don't need to install a second security door and setup a man trap when they can break in the windows anyway"
I am NOT against airport security. I just don't see any functional difference between these expensive, invasive monstrosities and... well... airport security in 1985.
Im dead serious. You have dead bolts. Someone came in an open window... and now you want to install heavier doors and finger print access scanners on the door.
The window has been closed since 9/11 itself. It was closed the very moment that passengers realized that they were intended to be used as a weapon and rose up.
People being willing to get out of their seats and fight for their lives and the lives of others was the SINGLE AND ONLY change in "security" that made one lick of difference.
So you will excuse me if I see these machines as a bit invasive when I fully expect them to save exactly 0 lives. Ever.
-Steve
Ronnie Said:
> Pornographic? I don't know what you
> people are looking at. But the Barbie
> doll reference seems most accurate.
Actually, I throw a hissy fit when they cover up pornographic art. In fact, I was one of the people AGAST when a number of people left the administration of a con I was involved with because the artist guest of honor was gay and many of his paintings showed full male nudity and sexual situations.... when for years the nude female form was uncontroversial. So much for open minds.
However, slice it however you want, the subjects of classical nudes were (unless you have evidence to the contrary) willingly subjects of art.
I hate that this has become about whether its porno or barbie. Simply, whats under my clothes is mine, to choose to show you, or choose not to.
Show me a valid need, and I may consider it. This has never been justified to my satisfaction. You simply, do not need these powers.
The very fact that you are getting them with so little resistance is, in my mind, proof positive that the American Revolution was actually defeated a long time ago.
-Steve
> In the discussion on security flight
> Q&A, you state "Each one of these
> layers alone is capable of stopping a
> terrorist attack."
>
> I believe you meant to say that each
> one of these layers alone is
> *IN*capable of stopping a terrorist
> attack.
Or maybe its just about stopping an incapable terrorist.
I think what we really have is a failure of imagination.
We have seen them attack airplanes, attack buildings with airplanes. We hav seen bombs, and hijacking etc.
Each of these security measures is capable of stopping a specific terrorist attack vector.
The problem is that attack vectors are infinite. Their goal isn't to blow up planes, its to cause terror.
Terror is just as good in a shopping mall as an air port. Its not about the number dead, its not about real tactical advantage. Its about making us flinch, its about media victories, its about making us change our policies to react to them.
Thats why this is all so ridiculous. These TSA programs are to defend against specific types of attacks. All a terrorist needs to do is change tactics, and they are suddenly worthless.
Make it too hard to get through security, they will blow up the checkpoint. Make it too hard to get to the checkpoint, they will blow up the shuttle bus to the terminal. Protect that, they will blow up the train.
In between, they will put a sniper in the trunk of a car... and when none of that is ready to go. They will just make vague pronouncements to raise our "threat level" and get most of the effects of blowing something up without any explosives.
In the end, reactionary policies like this just put the terrorists in control. Defending so hard against them IS exactly what they want us to do.
-Steve
Anonymous wrote:
By the way (for the rest of us), the "right to travel" is not written in the constitution, and neither is there a provision against mandatory searches for people excersizing the privilage of boarding an aircraft.
Ugh, these sorts of posts scare me about the poor level of civics education in the USA. IANAL, but it's more common sense than laywering required here.
The right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government are explicitly protected in the First Amendment. Kind of hard to do either of these without travel. It's impractical to petition the government in DC without flying if you live in HI or AK, or even West of the Mississippi river.
The right to travel is included in most other human-rights declarations and is also implicitly protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The "privilege" of flying is granted by the airline in exchange for paying the price of a ticket, not by the government.
If the government denies a citizen the ability to travel by air, they are denying them liberty, and thus should be required to abide by the due-process requirements of the Fifth Amendment. That means no secret blacklists, etc.
No court has ever ruled that DHS/TSA can deny a US citizen the ability to travel by commercial aircraft without due process. They have not even ruled that ID is required (Gilmore vs. Gonzalez explicitly pointed out that Gilmore could have flown with out ID in exchange for SSSS treatment). For any court to make such a ruling would be a major shift. TSA knows that, which is why they have danced so carefully around making it look like ID is required when it's actually not, and making their search seem administrative when it's actually become a generalized fishing expedition for criminal activity. In all likelihood, courts will eventually strike these operations down.
Finally, subjecting individuals to a strip search without individualized suspicion of a crime hardly seems reasonable. The Fourth Amendment, which is TSA's least favorite, comes to the rescue here. It doesn't just protect your house, it says the "right to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches." Given that courts and USA-culture have not tolerated random searches on roadways, strip searches in schools (for drugs) without individualized cause, etc., it hardly seems reasonable that the desire to travel by air is grounds for a strip search. We (the USA) typically reserve strip searches for criminals; applying them to the general public is a huge leap.
@Anonymous: "It seems that most of us have an overinflated self image here. do you think anyone who's looking at these images cares? If you're so worried about someone you don't know looking at you, I suggest you never leave the house. And certainly don't go to the gym, for that matter."
Everyone else isn't asking to see me naked like TSA is.
Funny thing I noticed about TSA claiming how accepted these are: they didn't give anyone in DEN yesterday the chance to refuse. Just ushered in. Signs were small - there was one at the checkpoint, but it was half size and didn't take up the full size of a normal sign - it was an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper. Then there was one AFTER the fact. Like "congratulations! You were just strip searched!" But even then, that was hidden.
They sure as heck weren't giving anyone the option to decline, nor did they seem interested in taking questions. Just shoving them thru like cattle. Seemed like every 3 or so people. Fortunately, I wasn't selected so I avoided turning it down and asking for a grope.
If this is "accepted," it's only because TSA isn't giving people the opportunity or education to turn it down.
Earl
@Another Anonymous: "Yep, no return at all, except for the safety of the millions of Americans that travel daily, but people don't care about that until another plane goes down."
Problem is that you can't prove that it's TSA's actions that are the reason that we haven't had a plane go down. It could very well be the terrorists haven't tried and/or are targeting something else.
Other places in the world have less invasive and restrictive security measures and they haven't had planes go down either. Are we to assume that they're just lucky?
I think the fact that planes aren't falling out of the sky in other countries that don't implement TSA's carnivals shows that a lot of what TSA's doing is overkill. And before you say that "we're the target", keep in mind that the last several terrorist strikes were in places like Madrid, London, Scotland, etc. They're targets just as much as we are.
"Seriously; we, the American public are not going to notice a difference if all the security in the world is doing it's job. Only when they fail will we know when they haven't done enough. Leave security to the experts, people."
How do you know that everyone who posts here ISN'T a security expert? That's a pretty arrogant statement there, Anon.
I'd also love to leave it to the experts the government's hired. The problem is that they haven't hired experts but political hacks and "yes men" instead.
How do you know that the reason won't be, if something happens, because TSA ignored a long running threat, say insider access by not screening workers with sterile area access, in the favor of theater? Common knowledge in the security field is that the greatest threat is from insider access. And what do we see in the news when an incident happens? It's usually caused by TSA or a sterile area worker.
You can argue that TSA security is effective all you want. The GAO tends to think otherwise with its testing. Quite honestly, with the gaping holes that TSA allows to go thru unmitigated while focusing on theater, I'm surprised another plane hasn't fallen from the sky.
Earl
I'd have no problem with TSA allowing people who would otherwise always alarm the WTMD (medical implants, etc.) to choose backscatter/mmw as an alternative to a groping
I'm sure it won't be accepted by lot of communities, Myself I can't accept. it's not decent.
It's not decent even if they won't recognize your face. It's about awarness not about what people should think.
To the people that have a problem with the image machine, come on! All this chatter about privacy, not feeling safe, and other conventional methods of screening, first 911, from all the footage of the terrorists coming through the screening process were patted down and due to human error, they had box cutters in their back pockets. Secondly, the only person that "sees" the image is a person in a different place, that doesn't know you or even know what you look like! You don't trust your government, I get that, well the government is trying to save your butt..I mean they can always take away security and see how safe you feel then or just wait until another incident happens and wonder why the government isn't using better things to check people.
RB said...
TSOWilliamReed said...
Ok so back to this machine. Someone mentioned technology that doesn't produce images. We are currently using this type of technology with our CT scanners in our baggage operation.
.........................
I may have been the one to mention a screening method that the military is using overseas that was on a news channel.
They were screening Iraqi civilians as they entered work areas.
What was shown was a moving walkway, the person being screened holding their arms away from their sides and the image shown on the monitor appeared to me as mostly
a silhouette of the persons form.
The detail was very much less than what the MMW STRIP SEARCH MACHINE produces.
The technology used was never mentioned, which is a shame because that would have been of interest.
The point being, if technology is available that allows continous screening and is not invasive like the MMW screening then why not procure this equipement, at least for investigative testing, and move the ball forward.
Instead TSA seems intent on forcing an unpopular idea while other more favorable methods may be available taking heat and attention from the public and Congress, and harming even more the already extremely poor image that TSA has created in its short life.
Is this the acts of a professional agency?
I suggest not!
August 21, 2009 9:54 AM
--------------
If that technology exists and is only being used at an airport in a warzone I can give you some very good reasons why TSA is not implementing it. 1. Its a warzone, probably only need about 5 of those machines (whatever they are), for practical use in airports in the US you would need hundreds maybe thousands. 2. They are probably alot more expensive. 3. Its the military, they don't like sharing technology.
Anonymous said "To the people that have a problem with the image machine, come on! All this chatter about privacy, not feeling safe, and other conventional methods of screening, first 911, from all the footage of the terrorists coming through the screening process were patted down and due to human error, they had box cutters in their back pockets."
A couple things here.
First, box cutters weren't prohibited items on 9/11. That's why they were permitted on board.
Secondly, I find it ironic that you're blasting people about caring about privacy when you're posting under anonymous. If privacy isn't an issue, then please post under your name, or at the very least, a handle so we know who you are. After all, you have nothing to hide, right?
"Secondly, the only person that "sees" the image is a person in a different place, that doesn't know you or even know what you look like!"
That doesn't make it any less right. Would you be fine with show me a naked picture of you if your face is blocked out? After all, I have no idea who you are or what you look like. Would that be an invasion of your privacy?
"You don't trust your government, I get that, well the government is trying to save your butt..I mean they can always take away security and see how safe you feel then or just wait until another incident happens and wonder why the government isn't using better things to check people."
Ah, the false dichotomy - have security or not. No one's saying take security away, although TSA apologists often ascribe that attitude to their critics.
What the critics are saying is that security should be reasonable, limited in scope, and as noninvasive as possible. You know - what an administrative search should be as defined by court precedent? We have unreasonable searches that cast a wide net (fake passports, IDs, drugs) and are getting more and more invasive as time goes on.
Effective security doesn't have to be a hassle or invasive, though that seems to be TSA's thinking. More invasive = better security. Funny thing is, one of the pillars of security is usability. If it's not usable, it's not secure even if screening were 100% effective and ensured that only authorized people could get in.
Just as it's possible to be lax, it's possible to be too tight. Security needs to be balanced between those two extremes based on risk and resources. TSA's forgone all that and just gone as far as it can towards tight. Unfortunately, the system becomes more and more unusable in the process. If that ultimately succeeds, well, there's a resource no one will use and they'll be out of a job.
Al
Looking at those images, I don't think they cross any privacy problems. They are not detailed enough to worry anyone.
If that technology exists and is only being used at an airport in a warzone I can give you some very good reasons why TSA is not implementing it. 1. Its a warzone, probably only need about 5 of those machines (whatever they are), for practical use in airports in the US you would need hundreds maybe thousands. 2. They are probably alot more expensive. 3. Its the military, they don't like sharing technology.
August 26, 2009 2:12 PM
..................
I did not say it was being used at an airport.
Iraqi civilians were being screened entering work areas.
The screening was less invasive than MMW (as best as I could tell), was continous and seemed quick and effecient.
MMW STRIP SEARCH MACHINES cost somewhere around $170,000 each, I don't see how this other machine could cost much more. Being continous perhaps fewer would be needed than of the MMW STRIP SEARCH MACHINES.
On August 22, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous Webdesign Berlin said...
These machines have been already bought for german government buildings... And they finally get forbidden just before they had been installed...
I'm honored that the German government did the right thing - something my government is incapable of doing.
Now, just get rid of the friskings that the TSA has extorted you into doing for flights leaving Frankfurt to the U.S.
So you will excuse me if I see these machines as a bit invasive when I fully expect them to save exactly 0 lives. Ever.
-Steve
You are excused.
Expect TSA to actual cause some deaths with these machines -- If they make a small fraction of the 2,000,000 passengers per day choose less safe alternate transport, like driving, this policy would kill more people than it saves.
TSOs are a highly trained group of individuals who use a variety of different types of screening equipment in order to ensure your flight is safe. We endure four large-scale phases of testing every year plus daily small-scale drills to ensure we are maintaining minimum standards. We are the most tested agency within the federal government.
Bubbaloop, The only problem we face is that the equipment we use is not perfect. The metal detectors don’t alarm on bombs and the “mechanical noses” don’t alarm on guns. In order to fill these holes we combine different search techniques, but then we get complaints about taking to long, picking on passengers, or not having a valid reason to make sure you are not carrying anything dangerous. As far as the other suggestions you made, TSA already uses these types of technologies (except for the bees, which would be ridiculous to try to use in a crowded airport). If you know about any technique or technology that TSA doesn’t already utilize please let us know.
TSA does its job and does it well. I have only recently started working for TSA and the things I have learned being granted SSI access makes me greatly respect everything the Department of Homeland Security has done since 9/11. If only there was a way to give you people a glimpse into the things we at DHS run into on all our fronts daily. Not just TSA but all the DHS organizations. The sort of reports we get from Iraq about terrorist movements and technology. TSA is not just sitting on its hands putting on a show. We are very well aware that their are places in security where people could get through. But what you are unaware of are the other layers of security that are protecting you that is not TSA. We work with local law enforcment, airport authority, and local government systems to protect the areas of the airport that TSA is not in charge of. TSA is also trying to move away from the airport. However, its politicians and paranoid people thinking we want to take over all their freedoms and lock them up that forces the government to stay at the current level it is at right now. We are only granted as much power as the government sees fit to give us, and the government is ran by you the people. You say we don't screen enough yet you don't let us screen any more? We wan't to help people be safe that is all nothing more nothing less.
RB said...
How many weeks is the Delete-O-Meter going to be stuck on 1349?
August 24, 2009 2:29 PM
...............................
Now August 27, 2009 and Delete-O-Meter is 1439.
Is this an accurate number?
Exactly 100 deletes?
Anonymous said...
To the people that have a problem with the image machine, come on! All this chatter about privacy, not feeling safe, and other conventional methods of screening, first 911, from all the footage of the terrorists coming through the screening process were patted down and due to human error, they had box cutters in their back pockets. Secondly, the only person that "sees" the image is a person in a different place, that doesn't know you or even know what you look like! You don't trust your government, I get that, well the government is trying to save your butt..I mean they can always take away security and see how safe you feel then or just wait until another incident happens and wonder why the government isn't using better things to check people.
__________________________________
#1) "the terrorists coming through the screening process were patted down and due to human error, they had box cutters in their back pockets" --- WRONG. Boxcutters were allowable objects to carry on an airplane pre-9/11. No screening mistakes were made.
.
.
#2) Secondly, the only person that "sees" the image is a person in a different place
.
"No security" is quite different from "a goverment agent needs to see me naked before I get on a plane". Reasonable security is what is needed.
.
If it's so important for the goverment to do this to keep me safe here, then why not strip search everyone before they enter their shopping mall, movie theater, grocery store, or church?
.
Where do you want it to end???
"Second, the right to travel predates the Constitution and was in such firm hold that the framers did not even bother with it. Did you catch that? They felt the right was so fundamental it did not need to be mentioned, just like they did not need to mention the right to breathe."
Interesting idea. Any books or links to this? I've read a lot about the framers thinking when writing the Constitution and Bill or Rights, but have not run across this concept.
So on one side, we have people saying that upskirt shots are 1) you can't see anything on the images, 2) the government peepers can't see your face, so they are constitutional, and 2) they keep planes from falling out of the air. On the other side, we hae people saying 1) its unconstitutional, 2) its wrong, and 3) it isn't effective.
Count me with the others.
Hey folks, stand by, It was my little girl's 5th b-day today and I haven't moderated over the weekend or today. I'll be back in the office tomorrow.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob said...
Hey folks, stand by, It was my little girl's 5th b-day today and I haven't moderated over the weekend or today. I'll be back in the office tomorrow.
Thanks,
Tell her everyone on the blog wishes her a happy birthday.
When my son turned five he blew out the candles and proudly proclaimed "I am almost SIX"
Why do they grow up so fast?
Jacob,
It seems to me we have arrived at the logical conclusion of this argumen. We both agree metal detectors and "mechanical noses" work, and should be used (in combination, or randomly).
MMW does not work, and should not be used.
Are these images going to be posted with the sinage to show what the TSO's view will be?
TSOWilliamReed, do you remember the run up to the Iraq war when we were all told that there were, without doubt, WMA in Iraq? What did we find when we got there? Nada.
Did you ever think that DHS/TSA is telling you just what they want you to believe and not telling you the entire truth?
I love this machine! I flew with my mother who has a titanium knee. She usually stresses about the handwanding after beeping the first metal detector but this time a quick scan like everyone else and off we went. My kids went through it too and there was no problem.
Seeing the pic's of it on this blog make me laugh. It reminds me of the tire commercials in the 80s with that white blob-guy.
As for my kids, they have to go through a much more invasive process to pass their sports physical every year or else they cant play on the teams. To say that this is kiddie-porn is crazy. If you believe that you should probably stop taking your kids to the doctors too because they acutally TOUCH your kids there and take x-rays that show outlines of private body parts!
Anonymous said...
"Second, the right to travel predates the Constitution and was in such firm hold that the framers did not even bother with it. Did you catch that? They felt the right was so fundamental it did not need to be mentioned, just like they did not need to mention the right to breathe."
Interesting idea. Any books or links to this? I've read a lot about the framers thinking when writing the Constitution and Bill or Rights, but have not run across this concept.
To understand their mindset on the right to travel we have to back up a bit in history.
Article 42 of the Magna Carta (1215) It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.
Because the Framers came from England, where the right to travel was a inalienable right, the concept of free travel was not novel.
The Articles of Confederation did include the explicit right to travel for freemen, except for paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.
Seven years later when the same writers, or their contemporaries, replaced the Articles of the Confederation with the Constitution they eliminated the explicit right to travel for some.
Under Article 4 section 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
This removed the right to travel exclusions while retaining a State's right of extradition.
The best links I can give you go to mentions by judges in case law.
SHAPIRO v. THOMPSON Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court again had occasion to consider the right of [394 U.S. 618, 671] interstate travel. Without specifying the source of that right, the Court said:
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized. . . . [The] right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." Id., at 757-758.
I hope that gives you some direction to look.
Hey Bob!
Is there any chance we could get approval to do a blog about x-ray images and what things look like on the x-ray? I am not sure if the images are considered SSI anymore since I have seen some X-ray images up on the DHS tv show and most passengers can usually see the x-ray screens from the next lane over. I think showing people images and talking about them would make a really cool blog. Maybe have some images of cluttered bags and non-cluttered bags and techy bags, probably can't have any bad items in the images but some basic shots of bags would be way cool and make some interesting conversations I bet.
Anonymous said...
""Second, the right to travel predates the Constitution and was in such firm hold that the framers did not even bother with it. Did you catch that? They felt the right was so fundamental it did not need to be mentioned, just like they did not need to mention the right to breathe."
Interesting idea. Any books or links to this? I've read a lot about the framers thinking when writing the Constitution and Bill or Rights, but have not run across this concept."
---------------------
I agree with the person who commented on the original post. I don't seem to remember this at all from college, can you please provide cite your claim?
However, I don't think anyone here has said no one has the right to travel. You can walk or drive yourself many places, take a train or bus to others, or even boat or fly.
I think what some are saying is that the constitution allows the federal government the right to regulate both the airline industry and travel by flight, which so far our system of courts has mostly upheld. Some people might not like this idea, but there it is...
Of course security should be “limited and reasonable”. Of course, every known terrorist attack has been able to beat “limited and reasonable” security. Do you know many people warned of the 9-11 attacks before they occurred? So why weren’t the attacks stopped? Americans didn’t want to be searched at the airport. Should we dissolve TSA and return to pre-9-11 security, or should our government be expected to protect its people?
Trollkiller said...
(As a note, if my post is deleted, I will attempt again to post it. I will even attempt to post it on Trollkillers web-site.)
(first, I apogize for the lateness of this post, I haven't visited the blog in some time...)
"'Anonatard'...
...WOW I believe that is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this blog. You know that takes some doing, congratulations...
...I am having a hard time figuring out if you are truly that stupid or are just a Troll..."
--------------------
Ok, now I am confused. I will not post it, just don't feel like looking through the blogs right now, but at several points Trollkiller has said he is not rude to TSOs from the start (assuming he means other too).
I could not find where this particular poster was rude to you or anyone one else. So why did you respond to him this way?
You called him an "anonatard"? Is that a variation of the word r-word? So you not only attempt to attack this particular person, you basically insult millions of people around the world born with disabilities.
http://www.r-word.org/
You should apologize for using the word "anonatard" on your own blog and on this blog.
Blogger Bob, you too should apologize. You should never have allowed Trollkillers post because of that one cruel word. Sure, its not a curse word, but its based off of hatered and ignorance and stupidity. Why did you allow it to be post on a government run web-site? You really should post an apology, to us in general and to the person Trollkiller directed it to.
But even if Trollkiller does apologize, that still does not explain why he personally attacked this anonymous poster. So you disagree with what he said - so what? So you really disagree with what he said - again, so what? You have said before you treat TSO's nicely untill they are rude to you. Where was this person rude to you that you had to call him stupid and a troll? I am pretty sure we can assume this person is a TSO, though I may be wrong.
Note, I AM NOT saying you shouldn't disagree with him. I can care less about that. I am asking you, Trollkiller, why you were rude to this person when you claim you are never rude to a TSA employee until they are rude to you. Can you please explain that?
Actually, Bubbaloop, I said nothing about MMW. The MMW works well. You’re previous comments discussed alternatives to the MMW, but, then you didn’t mention anything that TSA does not already use. MMW is good because it provides the ability to identify BOTH guns and bombs. No other technology, that I know of, can do both. If you know of another technology that can do both, thus preventing delays in the screening process, please let us know.
Someone anonymously quoted Trollkiller's comment:
"Second, the right to travel predates the Constitution and was in such firm hold that the framers did not even bother with it. Did you catch that? They felt the right was so fundamental it did not need to be mentioned, just like they did not need to mention the right to breathe."
then wrote:
"Any books or links to this? I've read a lot about the framers thinking when writing the Constitution and Bill or Rights, but have not run across this concept."
TK, may I?
Sir or madam, please see this.
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
Anon,
In all honesty, I didn't even notice the variation on the word "anonymous" as I'm sure most others didn't. My brain is used to processing the word "anonymous" over and over and TK's variation was similar enough that it didn't catch my attention.
I apologize if it offended you or anybody else.
Respectfully,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Jannis writes:
Do you know many people warned of the 9-11 attacks before they occurred? So why weren’t the attacks stopped? Americans didn’t want to be searched at the airport. Should we dissolve TSA and return to pre-9-11 security, or should our government be expected to protect its people?
Sorry ... but the failures on 9/11 had nothing to do with not wanting to be searched at the airport. The hijackers all presented valid ID, and had their belongings searched. The box cutters they used as weapons were detected, but were permitted items at that time. Plus, the protocol on dealing with hijackings at that time required pilots to co-operate with hijackers rather than fight them.
The changes instituted since then (banning box cutters and changing in-flight protocols) have nothing to do with how passengers are screened. If you want to make an argument that such screening is a better defense against new threats, go ahead. But I haven't heard anyone here arguing for no screening at all; instead, we're having a legitimate discussion as to what type of screening is necessary and appropriate.
Jacob,
MMW does not detect guns OR bombs. If you really want to take them on board (the one in a billion terrorist), you can hide both from MMW images. That does not work when using metal and trace detectors.
MMW is also not fast. It is slow and ineffective.
RB Asked:
"However, if the images are so tame as TSA claims then just why are these extreme precautions needed in the first place?"
Simple RB, because of folks who just refuse to understand either the technology or what they are being told about it.
Sound like anyone you know?
Ayn R. Key said:
“A plane ticket is a contract between myself and the airline. The TSA is not part of that... Nobody has the right to interfere with that private arrangement…”
Ayn, a part of that arrangement is that you must meet the requirements of the policies of the airline and the laws of the nation, state, county, city, and airport authority, which include satisfactorily completing security screening, which means that the TSA is certainly “a part of that”.
TSORon said...
RB Asked:
"However, if the images are so tame as TSA claims then just why are these extreme precautions needed in the first place?"
Simple RB, because of folks who just refuse to understand either the technology or what they are being told about it.
Sound like anyone you know?
September 3, 2009 2:31 PM
............................
It sounds to me like TSA is taking precautions for something they say does not exist.
If the precautions are not needed then why go to all the trouble?
Ayn R. Key said:
A plane ticket is a contract between myself and the airline. The TSA is not part of that... Nobody has the right to interfere with that private arrangement…
TSORon said:
Ayn, a part of that arrangement is that you must meet the requirements of the policies of the airline and the laws of the nation, state, county, city, and airport authority, which include satisfactorily completing security screening, which means that the TSA is certainly “a part of that”.
Of course the government has the power to interfere in that private contract because the government says the government has the power to interfere in that private contract. What I wrote is that the government does not have the right to interfere in that private conract.
But since you think that by declaration one can have power, I hereby delcare that I have the power to interfere in the private contract you have with your bank and I hereby exercise that power by demanding you give me half of all the money you deposited in your bank. By your logic there is nothing wrong with what I wrote, and therefore you must comply.
Ayn R. Key said: “Of course the government has the power to interfere in that private contract because the government says the government has the power to interfere in that private contract. What I wrote is that the government does not have the right to interfere in that private conract.”
Ayn, pardon me for thinking that this was within your ability to comprehend. I’ll make it simple. The contract you have between yourself and the airline says that you must be able to satisfactorily complete screening. It’s a part of your contract, and like any contract you can agree with that provision or not. If you choose the latter, then there is no contract and you cannot take advantage of the services offered. Other modes of travel are certainly available to you, and if you can meet [b]those[/b] contractual obligations then you can certainly travel to your destination. Or are you of the opinion that other modes of transportation contain no contractual obligations? What a silly notion!
RB Said
It sounds to me like TSA is taking precautions for something they say does not exist.
If the precautions are not needed then why go to all the trouble?
-------------
Obviously to make people that won't believe the government feel better about it =D
There is no convincing some people and some people have different beliefs. So precautions are made so no one can complain even though there isn't anything to complain about in most other peoples eyes.
One certainly has the right to free travel about the country. However, that doesn't mean you have the right to travel by air. To argue that its "difficult" to travel from the west coast to DC without air travel is meaningless in the context of the right. It is certainly far less dificult to travel from California to DC by car, train or bus than it was to travel from one side of the Colonies to the other in 1776. There is no right to travel that meets some imaginary standard of convience.
Al Ames - you refer to the usability standard. The problem here is, who gets to decide whats "usable"? Personally I think current airport procedures are simple and easy. Lets see, no liquids - easy. Take off my shoes - easy. All the metal out of my pockets - easy. Laptop out of the bag and in a bin by itself - easy. And I am once again right through security with no problems. I consider that highly usable. I travelled through SLC a few weeks ago, stepped into the WBI, stepped out, grabbed my stuff and got on a plane. Seemed very easy and usable to me.
Bubbaloop -
You have offered no actual proof that WBI don't work. Now, there is a reasonable argument about the image etc, I happen to think its acceptable, other people disagree. There is certainly room there for a healthy discourse. However, that discourse doesn't change the fact that they do in fact work. They have a capapbility that exceeds that of the Walk Through Metal Detector. While trace detection is a usable tool, to utilize it on every passenger coming through the checkpoint would probably violate Mr Ames's usability criteria.
To again address the "tampon paradox" your argument concerning man traps etc is flawed. You are implying that the WBI imager is a redundant system. It isn't its adding a new capability and closing an existing gap - people hiding non-metallic items on their person as they pass through the checkpoint. All the examples you gave implied that the whole purpose was to add defense in depth, it isn't. This is closing one of those open windows.
Ayn R. Key said...
"Of course the government has the power to interfere in that private contract because the government says the government has the power to interfere in that private contract. What I wrote is that the government does not have the right to interfere in that private conract.
But since you think that by declaration one can have power, I hereby delcare that I have the power to interfere in the private contract you have with your bank and I hereby exercise that power by demanding you give me half of all the money you deposited in your bank. By your logic there is nothing wrong with what I wrote, and therefore you must comply."
-----------------------------
It is a well established fact that the government - our courts - can interfere in private contracts. They do it from time to time. Our legal system has the authority to void contracts between 2 willing parties, and it is entirely constitutional. There are strict reasons a court can and will do so, but the fact remains that it can and does happen. Both state and federal courts have this authority.
TSORon wrote...
Ayn, pardon me for thinking that this was within your ability to comprehend. I’ll make it simple. The contract you have between yourself and the airline says that you must be able to satisfactorily complete screening. It’s a part of your contract, and like any contract you can agree with that provision or not.
Ron, pardon me for mistaking you for a sentient being. It is a provision that the government inserted without any right to do so. But since it's in the contract then that makes it all ok for you.
Did the airline insert that all on their own, or did the government say to insert it? I know its hard, but try to think that one through. The government required it. When the airlines did the screening the airlines required it on their own, but not anymore. More and more the terms of the contract were put into the contract by neither the buyer nor the seller but by a third party that has the power to insert terms but not the right to insert terms.
Well, I hereby decree that I have the authority to insert into your employment contract that half of your pay belongs to me. I therefore decree that your employment contract be modified so that half of your pay belongs to me. By your logic, since it is now in your conctract, it is good.
Ryan62 writes:
Personally I think current airport procedures are simple and easy.
I'm glad you live such a fortunate life.
Lets see, no liquids - easy.
So, you're blessed with plenty of disposable income, so that you don't mind paying exorbitant rates for drinks inside the checkpoint. Also, you don't have a medical condition which requires certain liquid medications --- which are technically permitted by TSA, but require at best special testing by screeners, and at worst an intrusive interview from a TSO as to the nature of your medical condition.
Take off my shoes - easy.
I'm glad that you are in good physical health and can easily remove your shoes ... unlike many others who have difficulty with that act because of their medical conditions (especially since most people have to take off their shoes while standing up).
All the metal out of my pockets - easy. Laptop out of the bag and in a bin by itself - easy.
Ok, I don't have a counter for this. :)
And I am once again right through security with no problems. I consider that highly usable.
I'm glad that you are so healthy that these procedures present you with no problems. There are other passengers who are not so fortunate.
Is this technology inplace so your staff could learn simple human physiology. Here in Miami its laughable that the same staff that ses me every day, sees me pass through security twice a day, would insist on x raying every sandwich in a sandwich delivery I had to pick up on the other side of the checkpoint. Wouldnt visual been enough? Nope becuase it all depends on the supervisor. If you have one with brains (there are three system wide) your business is allowed to proceed unhindered by silliness, but if you are served by one of the myriad of undereducated and severely emotionally disturbed this agency hires, everything grinds to a halt while they show you that despite the fact that they have little as far as brainpower, they are in control.
"Personally I think current airport procedures are simple and easy. Lets see, no liquids - easy. Take off my shoes - easy. All the metal out of my pockets - easy. Laptop out of the bag and in a bin by itself - easy."
Yes, and you feel like you should be doing the "goose step" into the airports now.
There is less and less respect for passengers, and these new images take the cake. The are not the "outlines" that we were told they were. These pictures are pretty explicit.
This is no longer about terrorism and safety. If it was, other measures would be taken. This is about control.
How about TSA employees all go through the machine and have their images posted here and the local papers...without faces blurred out as in these photos (which means that the person IS identifiable. Otherwise the faces would not be blurred out).
When is enough enough?
Ryan62: "Al Ames - you refer to the usability standard. The problem here is, who gets to decide whats "usable"? Personally I think current airport procedures are simple and easy. Lets see, no liquids - easy. Take off my shoes - easy. All the metal out of my pockets - easy. Laptop out of the bag and in a bin by itself - easy. And I am once again right through security with no problems. I consider that highly usable. I travelled through SLC a few weeks ago, stepped into the WBI, stepped out, grabbed my stuff and got on a plane. Seemed very easy and usable to me."
Ah, but what seems "usable" to you doesn't mean it's usable. Many people think that system is unworkable and have stopped flying if at all possible because of how "usable" the system is.
Something can still be "usable" - meaning you can get access, but still be a hassle to do so.
No liquids unless you pay extortion prices at Hudson News (ironically, which often passes thru a TSA checkpoint without screening)? Not usable.
Mandatory shoe removal? Not usable.
Strip searches to get on a plane? Not usable.
Just because you can get to someting doesn't make the system usable.
The system is far from simple due to TSA's consistent inconsistency. What may pass at one airport may not pass at another. We've all had those experiences. That's not a usable system.
I'd right the system at barely accessible, but far from usable. Especially given TSA's track record at having high failure rates in red team tests despite all the show. Do you call that a usable system? I don't.
Al
Why is this such a big deal? No one said you are REQUIRED to go through it. It's simply an OPTION. If you don't like it, don't use it! And, just a pet peeve: I personally do not enjoy putting my hands ( double gloved, by the way)on a sweaty passenger who did not feel the need to practice personal hygeine that day and is telling me to hurry up because they are going to miss their plane. Well, you know what? Get here early! It is not my fault you're late! So, to whoever thinks that we're "pervs" trying to feel you up, think again... We don't have hand sanitizer there for nothing!
Phil:
Awesome links, but the question remains: What was the framers thinking when writing the Constitution and Bill or Rights that they left out the right to travel?
In your links, I've seen "You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state."
I've also seen :" The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis."
I've also seen the line which prompted my original response:
"It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."
If you can find a link or with the framers thinking, please post it without the editioral comments...
Where WBI equipement is installed are all TSA/airport workers required to be screened using this technology before entering the secure areas of the airport?
Anonymous said...
"Phil:
Awesome links, but the question remains: What was the framers thinking when writing the Constitution and Bill or Rights that they left out the right to travel?
In your links, I've seen "You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state."
I've also seen :" The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis."
I've also seen the line which prompted my original response:
"It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."
If you can find a link or with the framers thinking, please post it without the editioral comments..."
------------------------------
All this is sort of pointless. What ever you believe, I think it would be hard to argue that the government does not have the right to regulate the right to travel. I am not talking about the absolute right to travel, but the right to travel.
For example, how many of you would argue that a person does not need a drivers license to drive a car from state to state, or city to city, and so on? Our government has determined what age someone should be to allow them a license to drive?
Not only that, government can tell me what side of the road to travel on, even if there is no one else on the road.
You pay fees to register your car. How many of you pay fees to register your lawn mower, or computer?
Who wants to argue that if I walk by foot I have every right to walk through your property to get where I want to go even without your permission, simply because I have the right to travel?
I could go on and on with example of how government (the people of this nation) regulate how we transport ourselves. Note, I am no where making the argument that you can not travel.
For example, if you lose your license for whatever reason, ok, you can't drive, but you can take a bus to where you want to go. You can ride a bike there (but you can't ride your bike in the middle of the road - that is regulated by our government).
I don't think the government has ever tried to tell peoeple they can not travel, and I am not talking about the few people under court order not to leave a certain city/town/state - but what about that? How can a person be ordered by the court to stay where they are? Who would argue with that?
I see too many examples of goverenment (the public) regulation of the right to travel to attempt to make the argument that the right to travel is unfettered. There certainly are restrictions on the right to travel, both you and I deal with them every day, when we goto work, goto the store, goto the post office....
TSO Cheyanne said...
Why is this such a big deal? No one said you are REQUIRED to go through it. It's simply an OPTION. If you don't like it, don't use it! And, just a pet peeve: I personally do not enjoy putting my hands ( double gloved, by the way)on a sweaty passenger who did not feel the need to practice personal hygeine that day and is telling me to hurry up because they are going to miss their plane. Well, you know what? Get here early! It is not my fault you're late! So, to whoever thinks that we're "pervs" trying to feel you up, think again... We don't have hand sanitizer there for nothing!
September 9, 2009 1:58 AM
..............................
Typical TSO response, blame the traveler for TSA's messed up system.
All this is sort of pointless. What ever you believe, I think it would be hard to argue that the government does not have the right to regulate the right to travel. I am not talking about the absolute right to travel, but the right to travel.
.................
Why can TSA prevent a person from flying without having a court order so stating that fact?
The "No Fly List" does exactly that and violates every tenet of the United States Constitution.
Quote from TSA Cheyanne: "Why is this such a big deal? No one said you are REQUIRED to go through it. It's simply an OPTION. If you don't like it, don't use it!"
Problem is, Cheyanne, that TSA doesn't do much to make it an option. I've seen passengers being shunted thru the strip search at BWI and DEN with no indication it's an option - just step inside. So people do. They don't know that they can refuse. What little information there is about the search and that it's optional is small and obscured.
If it's really optional, it should be opt IN and not opt OUT.
"And, just a pet peeve: I personally do not enjoy putting my hands ( double gloved, by the way)on a sweaty passenger who did not feel the need to practice personal hygeine that day and is telling me to hurry up because they are going to miss their plane. Well, you know what? Get here early! It is not my fault you're late! So, to whoever thinks that we're "pervs" trying to feel you up, think again... We don't have hand sanitizer there for nothing!
Good for you that you practice good hygiene. However, many people on both sides don't. Male TSO's have gone into the bathroom with their gloves on, took a leak, and went right back to work with those same gloves on. I don't know what germs you personally have, and I don't know what your gloves just touched. Your hygiene is as much my protection as it is for mine.
As for "get to the airport early" - I shouldn't have to keep getting to the airport earlier and earlier due to TSA's incompetence. It's not my fault TSA doesn't staff it's checkpoints adequately and has such inane procedures that bog down the process. But then again, maybe the term "government efficiency" is appropriate here.
Riobert
Let's see... price of a 20oz bottle of Coke at the convience store down the road from my airport $1.39 plus tax, price after passing through security... $2.50 plus tax. Is it over priced? Sure, but to make the claim that someone who can afford a few hundred dollars for a plane ticket is massively put out by the extra $1.11 is ludicrous at best. If I am feeling particularly thrifty I finish my drink while I am waiting in line at the ticket counter (which lately has been much longer than the line at the checkpoint) and wait until I am on the plane to get my (free) drink.
Medical liquids? What rather small percentage of the flying public is that? 1%? If that... and the "oh noes I have to take off my shoes and its really hard" Well, wear shoes that are easy to get on and off. My last flight out of Ontario the young lady in front of me was rather nicely dressed but wearing flip flops. I thought it was pretty strange until we got to the other side and she took the easy to remove flip flops and tucked them in her bag and pulled out a pair of much nicer (and more complicated to put on and take off) pair of shoes.
Basically, all it requires is a little planning on your part.
Al, you make these big claims about "not usable" with no real proof or reason to back them up beyond you don't want to do it.
You rate it poorly, I think its just fine. Why is your opinion so much more valid than mine?
Sure, some people don't like it and have chosen other forms of transportation, but they are very much in the minority.
Prior to the recession there was no huge fall off in flying with people blaming the evils of the security process. Yes, places like here and flyer talk people who are angry or upset with the system congregate to complain, but don't take the echo chamber they create as proof that "everyone" is unhappy. Would I like the process to be easier, more streamlined? Of course, I wish there was a magic pixie dust that a TSO could sprinkle over me and it would reveal that I had no weapons or ill intent and then I could get on the plane never having had to break stride with my bags still in my hands. However I suspect the day that happens someone will be on here complaining how Pixie Dust residue got on their clothes and it didn't match their hair and the TSOs in Denver used too much...
Adolfo,
Ahh so they see you every day so they just have to automatically assume you are a "Good Guy"? You really think "visually inspecting" the outside of something is OK, because they have seen you before? I bet they see some of the same passengers all the time, so I guess they can skip screening them?
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB Said
It sounds to me like TSA is taking precautions for something they say does not exist.
If the precautions are not needed then why go to all the trouble?
-------------
Obviously to make people that won't believe the government feel better about it =D
There is no convincing some people and some people have different beliefs. So precautions are made so no one can complain even though there isn't anything to complain about in most other peoples eyes.
September 4, 2009 2:31 PM
......................
TSA has been less than truthful on several fronts.
Why would anyone trust an agency that can't even answer simple questions with direct answers?
TSA has not earned the trust of the public and should be questioned at every turn.
Anonymous said...
"All this is sort of pointless. What ever you believe, I think it would be hard to argue that the government does not have the right to regulate the right to travel. I am not talking about the absolute right to travel, but the right to travel.
.................
Why can TSA prevent a person from flying without having a court order so stating that fact?
The "No Fly List" does exactly that and violates every tenet of the United States Constitution."
--------------------------------
Oddly enough, you can lose your drivers license without a court order too. Fail your driving test. You won't go before a judge or jury. A lawyer can't help you.
Somehow the government said you have to meet certain standards to be able to exercise your right to drive, and the burden is on your without the benefit of redress.
Is this also a violation of the Constitution? If its not, then you agree that there is a precendent that the government can restrict modes of transportation without the support of a court order.
Anonymous said:
Oddly enough, you can lose your drivers license without a court order too. Fail your driving test. You won't go before a judge or jury. A lawyer can't help you.
Somehow the government said you have to meet certain standards to be able to exercise your right to drive, and the burden is on your without the benefit of redress.
Is this also a violation of the Constitution? If its not, then you agree that there is a precendent that the government can restrict modes of transportation without the support of a court order.
Comparing driving a car to riding on a plane is a faulty analogy. Driving a car is analogous to the pilot flying the plane. Driving a car requires knowledge of road rules and demonstration of sufficient physical coordination. I have no problem with that. Flying a plane requires a lot more knowledge and skill and I have no problem with the government ensuring that pilots are qualified.
Being a passenger on a plane is analogous to being a passenger in a car driven by someone else. Do you have to ask the government for permission to ride in someone's else car? Except in cases where someone is under arrest or otherwise legally restricted from fleeing a jurisdiction, there should be no government interference in who can fly as a passenger on a plane or who can ride in a car.
Oddly enough, you can lose your drivers license without a court order too. Fail your driving test. You won't go before a judge or jury. A lawyer can't help you.
Somehow the government said you have to meet certain standards to be able to exercise your right to drive, and the burden is on your without the benefit of redress.
Is this also a violation of the Constitution? If its not, then you agree that there is a precendent that the government can restrict modes of transportation without the support of a court order.
September 10, 2009 9:04 PM
................................
A license to operate a motor vehicle is issued by the individual states. And there is a means of redress, the courts.
Not having an operators permit does not prevent a person from being a passenger in an automobile.
Are you trying to say we need an operators permit to be a passenger in a commercial aircraft? That is the line your drawing.
Something about that pesky old Tenth Admendment.
Ryan62 said: "Al, you make these big claims about "not usable" with no real proof or reason to back them up beyond you don't want to do it."
Take a look at the decrease in air travel. Sure, some of that can be blamed on the recession and how the airlines treat people.. A lot of people are driving longer distances because they don't want to deal with TSA or the airlines. Why? Bad treatment and too much hassle.
Take a look at newspapers, forums, etc where TSA posts. If you think it's just a few haters here at FlyerTalk or on the blog here, you'd be mistaken. Read some of the comments from average Joe citizen and see what they say about TSA. Does that indicate a usable system to you? It indicates a badly broken system to me. The fact that people continue to fly doesn't mean it's usable - just that people have a compelling need to go where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time.
"You rate it poorly, I think its just fine. Why is your opinion so much more valid than mine?"
Do you have a background in security? Have you written security plans for the government? Have you read intel? Have you conducted risk analysis and risk assessments in a security context?
I don't know what your background is, maybe you have. I've done/do the above. I'm just stating that I have an informed opinion - you're free to agree or disagree as you see fit.
"Sure, some people don't like it and have chosen other forms of transportation, but they are very much in the minority."
Like you've asked me, do you have proof that it's a small minority?
"Prior to the recession there was no huge fall off in flying with people blaming the evils of the security process."
Were they asked?
Security doesn't have to be evil or invasive to be effective. Sadly, many within the government have that mentality.
To be continued since the OP was too long ...
Continued:
"Yes, places like here and flyer talk people who are angry or upset with the system congregate to complain, but don't take the echo chamber they create as proof that "everyone" is unhappy."
Again, read other sites. Even the puff piece letter to the editor that TSA linked on its main webpage, there's plenty of people deriding TSA. Read the papers. Please show me how happy people aer with TSA.
If "everyone" is so happy with TSA, why does it tie with the IRS and just above FEMA (the ultimate bottom of the barrel) for most hated agency? Do happy people give it those marks?
Even if people are silent, I wouldn't take that silence as satisfaction and say people are happy with the process. TSA does, though.
"Would I like the process to be easier, more streamlined? Of course, I wish there was a magic pixie dust that a TSO could sprinkle over me and it would reveal that I had no weapons or ill intent and then I could get on the plane never having had to break stride with my bags still in my hands. However I suspect the day that happens someone will be on here complaining how Pixie Dust residue got on their clothes and it didn't match their hair and the TSOs in Denver used too much..."
Ah, the common "haters will always be haters" argument.
First off, TSA cannot predict if anyone has ill intent toward the plane. They can't even predict if their own hirees are going to be good people (which ironically, their Spotters never seem to detect), with their background checks and so forth. If they can't predict that with people they've vetted, how can they predict that from complete strangers?
Secondly, we do need screening. The process doesn't have to be onerous, though. Lax security wasn't what failed on 9/11. TSA is largely using the same tech they were using on 9/11 and hired a lot of the same people who were doing it before. Planes didn't fall out of the skies then, and hijackings were very rare. Even in GAO tests, TSA still doesn't do any better than those screeners did. If you asked people what their gripe was about security back then, it was mostly about the people not being able to speak English. Even then, that was largely stereotypical. No one complained about wait times or stupid restrictions. We had common sense back then.
TSA focuses too much on passengers and not enough below the wing. Why? Passengers are ostensible - under the wing isn't. Cargo that's loaded on the planes is largely unscreened. Items are routinely stolen out of bags - funny thing that TSA STILL doesn't get if someone (either ramp or TSA) can take something out - they can EASILY put something IN the bag. And considering that those workers aren't screened because it would be "too hard," we're really lucky nothing's happened. Just a couple examples.
The largest holes that need plugging are behind the scenes. Why doesn't TSA fix those holes? Passengers don't see them.
If TSA actually cared about security and actually implemented real security, I wouldn't have need to complain. But since they don't, I do.
I haven't even addressed the greatest threat - trusted insiders - as being the biggest threat. That's well documented in security circles. The FBI, CIA, DIA, and others have learned the hard way the damage a trusted insider can do. TSA has had many warnings from the public and bad apples that have been arrested for running drugs and weapons, stealing, etc. It's only a matter of time until a TSA trusted insider attacks. Sadly, TSA's hubris will probably cost some people their lives. Only then will it be forced to address holes behind the scenes that have been mentioned ad nauseum here.
Al
I haven't even addressed the greatest threat - trusted insiders - as being the biggest threat. That's well documented in security circles. The FBI, CIA, DIA, and others have learned the hard way the damage a trusted insider can do. TSA has had many warnings from the public and bad apples that have been arrested for running drugs and weapons, stealing, etc. It's only a matter of time until a TSA trusted insider attacks. Sadly, TSA's hubris will probably cost some people their lives. Only then will it be forced to address holes behind the scenes that have been mentioned ad nauseum here.
Al
September 11, 2009 12:25 PM
................................
Does Pam Am come to mind?
Al,
Yes, I too have a background in security and have some access to intel. And I don't think the TSA process is nearly as difficult as you seem to. Is "below the wing important" of course, but the analogy that theft proves a vulnerability is absurd. Let us assume for just a moment that EVERYONE with access to baggage was strip searched, body cavity searched, held upside down by their ankles and shaken. Then allowed to get dressed and go to work. Would that stop things from being stolen? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Screening would only stop things from being stolen if it took place on the way OUT, and doing that would be a violation of TSA's mandate as Joe Bob stealing your camera is clearly not a threat to the plane. I find it amusing that when TSA points out they caught someone smuggling drugs (attempting to take an item covertly into a sterile area much like someone with explosives would) all we hear is screaming about how "thats not TSA's mission blah blah blah" yet the same people are fixated on TSA stopping someone from taking something OUT of the sterile area, which isn't TSA's mission.
As for "were they asked" no, Al, they weren't asked because there was NO fall off.
I inivte you to consider the following statistics:
http://www.airlines.org/economics/traffic/Annual+US+Traffic.htm
Please notice that until the current economic down turn passengers emplaned has increased EVERY single year TSA has been in existence. If TSA was "driving the airlines out of business" and "chasing all the passengers away" that really wouldn't be the case. Your ancedotal "look at all the people on the internet that complain" argument just doesn't match the reality.
If people hate it so much how come Bearing Points Survey found :
Between 80 and 95 percent of passengers gave positive responses when asked about seven aspects of the federal security screening process, which included thoroughness and courtesy of screeners as well as confidence in TSA keeping air travel secure.
http://www.travel-snap-news.net/archives/21-1.html
Wow, 85-90 percent are happy, doesn't exactly match the percentage of whining around here does it? Lets face reality, people who have a postive and pleasant experience generally don't feel the need make a big deal about it.
Yes Al, the complainer are going to complain no matter what.
TSOWilliamReed said...
TSA is also trying to move away from the airport. However, its politicians and paranoid people thinking we want to take over all their freedoms and lock them up that forces the government to stay at the current level it is at right now.
==
Wow, does that frighten anyone else? I had a chill run down my spine...
-
But on a serious note, I honestly have no problem with this tech. I subscribe to the 'security theater' idea of the TSA, and I think the 3-1-1 rules are mind-numbingly ridiculous, but this machine doesn't faze me. If some less than proper TSA agent wants to oogle my jubblies? Let them. They will get all of 60 seconds of viewing, right? I'm an open person, don't have anything to hide, and am less than worried about my body being viewed.
However -- and this is a huge however -- I am very well aware that this sentiment is not shared by others. Some are more modest than I am, some have religious or personal beliefs that make something this revealing unacceptable. And it is for that reason that I entirely disagree with these machines, and am vehemently opposed to the currently insufficient information being given to those forced to choose.
On another note, though I would have no problem stepping into this machine, I would have a problem with my child going in, I must say. There are disturbed people in the world, both upright, seemingly-adjusted individuals and the more commonly portrayed rat-like creeps. How many times do we hear of them stalking playgrounds and watching children play? That is clothed, and that 'thrills' them. How would these MMW images, on the off chance that the screener has some kind of fetish, be, then?
It may seem irrational, but I wouldn't be able to abide by it.
The point of my rambling post is this: education should be paramount. Other mothers and fathers should know what these machines do, the average flier should be made well aware of what they are stepping into. There are a plethora of reasons someone would disagree with these machines, and it is equitable to taking away the choice when the TSA is not responsible enough to ensure the education of these people.
Just a few cents put in. ;)
-Katie
Ryan62 said...
Al,
Between 80 and 95 percent of passengers gave positive responses when asked about seven aspects of the federal security screening process, which included thoroughness and courtesy of screeners as well as confidence in TSA keeping air travel secure.
http://www.travel-snap-news.net/archives/21-1.html
______________
The above link refers to:
March 3, 2005
"Air Travelers Continue to Express High Confidence and Satisfaction In TSA Security and Customer Service"
__
It would be nice to see what the favorable response rate is now. If if was anywhere near 80%, there would be an updated news release.
Ryan62 writes:
Let's see... price of a 20oz bottle of Coke at the convenience store down the road from my airport $1.39 plus tax, price after passing through security... $2.50 plus tax. Is it over priced? Sure, but to make the claim that someone who can afford a few hundred dollars for a plane ticket is massively put out by the extra $1.11 is ludicrous at best.
First of all, you're not even making the best comparison. I can buy that same bottle of soda for $0.52 at my local membership club (as long as I buy in bulk). Do you think that a 200% markup for soda is reasonable?
Second ... when I fly, usually it's because my employer bought the plane ticket, not me. But it's still *my* money I have to spend on snacks like that (stupid expense account rules ...). So having a plane ticket in my pocket doesn't make me automatically rich.
Medical liquids? What rather small percentage of the flying public is that? 1%? If that... and the "oh noes I have to take off my shoes and its really hard" Well, wear shoes that are easy to get on and off.
Fair treatment under the law is supposed to be applicable to everyone, or it's not fair. And to say "it's only 1%" is misleading. With over a million passengers flying on US flights every day, "only 1%" is over 10,000 people per day. Are you really saying that those 10,000 people aren't worth considering?c
Apparently other choices are available that do not STRIP SEARCH people like the TSA MMW WBI machines they have purchased do.
Why has TSA picked the most invasive MMW.
Why has TSA chosen a MMW technololgy that does produce radiation?
Folks, see the video for yourself and then ask why TSA insists on Strip Searching adults and children when it is clearly not needed.
...........................
http://travelsecurity.blogspot.com/
.........................
www.elmatadorfilms.com/Millivision0606.wmv
...........................
Whole Body Imaging Technology That Protects Privacy
The use of whole body imaging at airport security checkpoints has been somewhat controversial. Some feel the images of your body without clothes is an invasion of privacy. Sean Martin sent in the following, which looks at an alternative:
Whole Body Imaging Technology That Protects Privacy
The use of whole body imaging at airport security checkpoints has been somewhat controversial. Some feel the images of your body without clothes is an invasion of privacy. Sean Martin sent in the following, which looks at an alternative:
September 12, 2009 12:54 PM
The film:
www.elmatadorfilms.com/Millivision0606.wmv
or Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/mx4uol
Jim,
I didn't claim that it made you "rich" to be able to fly, simply that I don't think the supposed financial hardship they were claiming is a valid reason to get rid of 3-1-1. I think the convience store to airport store is a very valid comparison. You aren't getting an ice cold ready to go Coke for 50 cents at Costco, but you are at both the airport and the 7-11.
As for the 1%, we aren't discussing "fair treatment under the law" we are discussing what is or isn't a usable system. If 99% of the population can use a system effectively, then it is very usable. Further, the screening process for medicaly exempt isn't that difficult either. It does take a few more minutes but it certainly isn't as diffcult as people would make you believe.
As for the Anon that "if it was still this good we would have an update" that is utter nonsense, if you have evidence of a more recent survey that contradicts this one lets see it. TSA simply hasn't spent the money for another survey.
Ryan62 writes:
I didn't claim that it made you "rich" to be able to fly, simply that I don't think the supposed financial hardship they were claiming is a valid reason to get rid of 3-1-1. I think the convience store to airport store is a very valid comparison. You aren't getting an ice cold ready to go Coke for 50 cents at Costco, but you are at both the airport and the 7-11.
And before I'm at the airport or the 7-11, I'm at home ... where I can take my nice cold soda out of the fridge. (Well, except for TSA.) So I think it is a valid comparison.
Convenience shouldn't be a determining factor, either way, in deciding on security policies.
Just because you personally don't find certain TSA policies inconvenient doesn't mean that those policies are justified. Just because I find some of those policies inconvenient doesn't mean that we should ban those policies, either. The issue shouldn't be convenience, but effectiveness versus cost (of enforcement).
RB said...
"Oddly enough, you can lose your drivers license without a court order too. Fail your driving test. You won't go before a judge or jury. A lawyer can't help you.
Somehow the government said you have to meet certain standards to be able to exercise your right to drive, and the burden is on your without the benefit of redress.
Is this also a violation of the Constitution? If its not, then you agree that there is a precendent that the government can restrict modes of transportation without the support of a court order.
September 10, 2009 9:04 PM
................................
A license to operate a motor vehicle is issued by the individual states. And there is a means of redress, the courts.
Not having an operators permit does not prevent a person from being a passenger in an automobile.
Are you trying to say we need an operators permit to be a passenger in a commercial aircraft? That is the line your drawing.
Something about that pesky old Tenth Admendment."
-----------------------
Hey, you can read into what I said all you want, but no, I was not suggesting an "operators permit" as you state.
Who cares if its the state or federal government? Either way, our government has decided you and I have to meet certain standards to be able to exercise our "right" to drive.
I never mentioned the right to be a passenger in a motor-vehicle, you did, if thats what you want to talk about, please let me know.
However, you seem to miss the point entirely, as you didn't address one thing I wrote.
The government not allowing you or I the right to drive if we do not meet those standards is done without a court order, without a judge or jury.
Sure you can get a lawyer to "redress" the issue, but good luck fighting that. Or do you really think a judge/jury will say, "hey, you failed your test, but we think you should have a license." Yeah, right.
Now, maybe the judge/jury can declare the test invalid, and order another test, but I seriously doubt they would issue a license themselves, because I do not think they would have the authority. However, if you can find a case where this has happened, please post it.
The point you seemed to miss is that this is a clear precedent of the government imiting/regulating in some way a persons right to travel by a particular means before a court is involved.
And on that note, there is nothing stopping someone from getting a lawyer and going to court if they find themselves on the no-fly list. Will they win? I do not know; maybe, maybe not.
But you seem to ignore the fact that a passenger has the right to redress the issue if they find themselves on the no-fly list.
Issac Newton said...
"Anonymous said:
Oddly enough, you can lose your drivers license without a court order too. Fail your driving test. You won't go before a judge or jury. A lawyer can't help you.
Somehow the government said you have to meet certain standards to be able to exercise your right to drive, and the burden is on your without the benefit of redress.
Is this also a violation of the Constitution? If its not, then you agree that there is a precendent that the government can restrict modes of transportation without the support of a court order.
Comparing driving a car to riding on a plane is a faulty analogy. Driving a car is analogous to the pilot flying the plane. Driving a car requires knowledge of road rules and demonstration of sufficient physical coordination. I have no problem with that. Flying a plane requires a lot more knowledge and skill and I have no problem with the government ensuring that pilots are qualified.
Being a passenger on a plane is analogous to being a passenger in a car driven by someone else. Do you have to ask the government for permission to ride in someone's else car? Except in cases where someone is under arrest or otherwise legally restricted from fleeing a jurisdiction, there should be no government interference in who can fly as a passenger on a plane or who can ride in a car."
------------------------
I am not comparing driving a car to flying a plane.
I am writing about the governments ability to regulate modes of transportation, and thats it. If you missed that point, read again.
If the government has the authority to regulate transportation, then its simply a matter of how much or how little regulation will be imposed on different modes of transportation.
I have no problem with someone arguing that the regulation of passengers of aircraft is not the authority of the government. I'm fine with that, even if I do not agree.
But to make the argument that government does not have the authority to regulate travel in general is not correct. Government does have that authority. And passengers have the right to attempt to bring their concerns to both Congress and the courts.
Its democracy in action.
Quote from Anonymous: "The point you seemed to miss is that this is a clear precedent of the government imiting/regulating in some way a persons right to travel by a particular means before a court is involved."
And again, you miss the difference of driving and riding in the car, even though you talk about it.
The government can regulate specifications a car must meet, that people must wear seatbelts, kids must be in car seats, and so forth. However, there is nothing without due process to prevent me from getting in a car and riding as a passenger.
Big difference.
"And on that note, there is nothing stopping someone from getting a lawyer and going to court if they find themselves on the no-fly list. Will they win? I do not know; maybe, maybe not.
And it's not just passengers, but pilots TSA can ground and disrupt lives based on secret evidence.
Like with Robert Gray?
TSA stacks the deck with secret evidence, can pull people's flight certs or deny people passage based on evidence that may or may not be right, and generally disrupt people's lives.
Where is the due process in GETTING on the list?
"But you seem to ignore the fact that a passenger has the right to redress the issue if they find themselves on the no-fly list."
Gee, thanks. TSA can hassle and put people on the no fly list and all they get is maybe a letter saying they're not the same person on the list? Try being a Robert Johnson and being told you'll never get off the list. Every Robert Johnson will be inconvenienced every time fly.
Supposedly, SecureFlight was supposed to fix that, but that was a solution to a problem TSA created to begin with.
And if TSA denies the request? Well, you're screwed. Even if you're not the same person as on the list.
The list is largely a sham anyway. TSA admitted to 60 minutes that most terrorists aren't on the list anyway because they don't want to tip them off that they're on to them. So just who is on the list, how did they get there, and what do they get for all the hassle and inconvenience?
Robert Gray was lucky his company stood beside him and didn't fire him, and that the ACLU took his case. How many average folks, who can't afford a lawyer, would be so lucky?
TSA would just chalk that up to collateral damage.
Redress only works if it's effective.
Robert
Jim,
I agree with you that convience shouldn't be the issue with regards to security. However the point I was addressing were the criticism that the "usability" factor were off. Further, while not on this thread there are frequent references to the supposed "high pain point" that some claim the liquid ban causes.
My point with regards to that is that its utter nonsense. The liquid ban is not terribly inconvient to anyone that takes a few minutes and plans in advance, and is only painful if you fail to do so.
RB said...
Whole Body Imaging Technology That Protects Privacy
The use of whole body imaging at airport security checkpoints has been somewhat controversial. Some feel the images of your body without clothes is an invasion of privacy. Sean Martin sent in the following, which looks at an alternative:
September 12, 2009 12:54 PM
The film:
www.elmatadorfilms.com/Millivision0606.wmv
or Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/mx4uol
September 12, 2009 1:51 PM
---------------
Oh thats easy to understand why TSA doesn't use that machine. The answer is, because you can't tell what the blobs of red are. If he hadn't shown you the items at first, then how would you have known what they were? How will the operator be able to tell the difference between guns, knives, drugs, or a chunk of explosives primed and set with a detonator. That is probably why TSA went with the other machine.
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Whole Body Imaging Technology That Protects Privacy
The use of whole body imaging at airport security checkpoints has been somewhat controversial. Some feel the images of your body without clothes is an invasion of privacy. Sean Martin sent in the following, which looks at an alternative:
September 12, 2009 12:54 PM
The film:
www.elmatadorfilms.com/Millivision0606.wmv
or Tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/mx4uol
September 12, 2009 1:51 PM
---------------
Oh thats easy to understand why TSA doesn't use that machine. The answer is, because you can't tell what the blobs of red are. If he hadn't shown you the items at first, then how would you have known what they were? How will the operator be able to tell the difference between guns, knives, drugs, or a chunk of explosives primed and set with a detonator. That is probably why TSA went with the other machine.
September 17, 2009 12:30 PM
.................
Now that is an answer I can understand.
But isn't the issue one of knowing a possible threat is present, taking steps to identify the threat which the less invasive machine would allow, all while maintaining a person privacy to the greatess extent possible?
I would prefer the more private method and understand if a threat item was possible that it would be cleard before I could proceed.
Robert Johnson said...
"Quote from Anonymous: "The point you seemed to miss is that this is a clear precedent of the government imiting/regulating in some way a persons right to travel by a particular means before a court is involved."
And again, you miss the difference of driving and riding in the car, even though you talk about it.
The government can regulate specifications a car must meet, that people must wear seatbelts, kids must be in car seats, and so forth. However, there is nothing without due process to prevent me from getting in a car and riding as a passenger.
Big difference."
Actually, even if you do not understand, you made my point.
I am not talking about passengers and drivers.
I am talking about a concept. A concept that apparently you and I both accept.
Government has the right to regulate our freedoms. I mean really, why can government tell us where and how we can drive our own property? Who is government to say we have to wear seatbelts? HOw do they get away with this?
Yet most of us accept this CONCEPT, and actually support it. Regulation of vehicles and drivers make us more safe.
Now, this is where I seem to lose you, and it may be my fault for not explaining it more fully.
If you have one case where government has the right to regulate our freedom, why can they not regulate another, different freedom? I am not making the argument our government should have free reign to do whatever it wish. I believe that has to be some compelling reason for the regulation of our freedoms/rights.
But, in fact, government (the public) does this often, on a wide variety of our "freedoms".
Often our rights are regulated to make us more safe, as you noted about the right to drive a vehicle.
This is the crux of what I am saying. If goverenment can regulate our rights in other places, please explain to me why they can not do so regarding air travel? Because I believe they can.
Now you may argue that TSA so far has not made us more safe, that specific polices are pointless (many here don't like the ID check), but that is a different argument.
As you noted, a passenger can get into any car and be driven anywhere. But the government still regulates that person. In many places that passenger can not have an "open container" even if they are not driving. In most places that passenger mush wear a seatbelt, and there are even more, but I'm sure you get the point.
So please tell my how our government (the public) can have the authority to regulate some of our rights but not others?
TSOWilliamReed said...
Oh thats easy to understand why TSA doesn't use that machine. The answer is, because you can't tell what the blobs of red are. If he hadn't shown you the items at first, then how would you have known what they were? How will the operator be able to tell the difference between guns, knives, drugs, or a chunk of explosives primed and set with a detonator. That is probably why TSA went with the other machine.
---------------------
Couple more things about that machine. Not only can you not tell what the item under the clothing is but there is no way to differentiate from explosives to say a colostomy bag, a gun from an insulin pump. Therefore if the machine does see something under the clothing then the passenger has to be searched to find out what the machine saw. TSA has passive millimeter wave technology and is in the process of testing, however because of the reasons above TSA probably didn't wanna go for that. But that is my point of view and I am just a TSO. Also from my experience with our technology, that machine would have waaaay too many false alarms.
I was seperated from my child for several minutes and told I could go to another room to be patted down or go through backscatter. I felt forced or leave my 10 year old alone at TIA BUSY airport. This was a violation of my civil rights and dangerous for my child. I was for this until now.
To everyone telling the TSA to disband and go away and the like, remember that there are people out there in these airports, like my father, and all the thanks they get for making sure you get to see your family or vice versa is a slap to the face and crying about the outline of a penis. Shut up, grow up, and leave.
Bob, thank you for posting the higher res versions of the scanner images. I for one appreciate everything you and your team do to keep our country safe.
WAKE UP!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BAD GUYS WANT AMERICA DEAD!?!? THEY WANT US DEAD. THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT. THEY WANT US DEAD. WE NEED THE PATRIOT ACT. WE NEED AIRPORT X-RAYS AND ANY OTHER SECURITY POSSIBLE. THEY WANT US DEAD. SEPTEMBER 11: REFRESH YOUR MEMORY BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU FORGOT WHAT HAPPENED TO US ON SEPTEMBER 11!!!
(SD IN CALIFORNIA)
There's nothing indecent about these images, especially since, in actual practice, the images are not stored and are only seen at a glance during the few seconds that someone is in the scanner. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
If you think the backscatter is totally indecent than you need to drop some weight!
(The guys) Take that little blue pill! Grow up wussie's! Do something with your life beside blog about this!
I won't fly. I won't be groped. I won't be digitally stripped. Why not let us through a personality / background check to be authorized to fly instead?
I'll start off by saying that I did not read all of the previous comments here so if this viewpoint has been posted, forgive me but most definitely add me to the sponsor list!
As a very frequent traveler, 4-6 flights/week, 3-6 airports/week, I don't agree that anyone should have the "right" to 'Opt out' of certain security screening processes. Everyone gaining entrance into the sterile area should be required to pass through the metal detector. Imaging technology MUST be installed and required for everyone as well. We live in a time where the only "Right" is to ensure the security of air travel! If you don't 'Like' nor 'Agree' with the security measures implemented to keep you safe and alive, don't buy an airline ticket! Travel by car, boat or train! I for one wish the government would finally wake up and say to He$$ with Political Correctness and enforce the security measures that are needed to keep air travelers safe.
Post a Comment