Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

4.17.2008

Catch a Wave and Avoid a Pat Down

Since we posted information about Checkpoint Evolution and the expanded use of millimeter wave technology, we’ve noticed a number of comments from many of you questioning the use of this technology and the images it captures during the screening process.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there so we thought it might be worth a few words to see if we can address some of your concerns.

The expanded use of the millimeter wave in our nation’s airports actually goes back to the 9-11 Commission report, which recommended increased use of explosives detection technology for passengers at the security checkpoint. Of course, with the timing of the commission’s report and the bombing of two Russian airliners shortly thereafter, TSA deployed the highly invasive physical pat-down and deployed explosive trace portals to many airports nationwide. Otherwise known as the puffer machines, we continue to help fine-tune this technology while working with private technology companies to develop additional screening equipment that will scan passengers for any and all concealed weapons and explosives, thereby eliminating the need for the invasive pat-down. We more than recognize that passengers don’t like being patted down by our officers and, though some of you may think differently, our officers don’t like patting down passengers either. It’s uncomfortable for everyone involved.

So over the last year, TSA has piloted the millimeter wave whole body imaging machines. We have been so pleased with the millimeter wave that we are moving to deploy additional machines to LAX and JFK airports. Assistant Secretary Hawley recently announced the purchase of 30 additional machines. The millimeter wave allows our officers to see a rotating image of the passenger so they can see any threat items that might be hidden on a person’s front or back without them having to turn around. Many of you have commented on a CNN story we rolled the dice on last month. We allowed CNN to film as we ran one of the many covert tests conducted at security checkpoints everyday. Using a physical pat-down, our officer was unable to locate the threat item that one of the covert testers concealed in a back brace and, while we demonstrated for the public that our officers are tested regularly and the tests are meant to be challenging, unfortunately we failed that test on a nationally televised stage. We are confident that millimeter wave whole body imaging technology would have found that threat item.

Now I do remember a post someone wrote a few days ago, asking about cell phone cameras, suggesting officers could use them to take photos of passengers’ whole body images. First of all, as we’ve shown you, the image looks like a fuzzy negative…there’s nothing to see. And second, every airport using whole body imaging technology installs a separate, closed and remote viewing room for our officers to view the image projected from the machine, and in each case so far, those viewing rooms have been at least 50 feet from the machine. This distance ensures the officer viewing the image for concealed items has no way of interacting with or identifying the passenger. The officer staffing the equipment communicates with the officer in the viewing room with wireless microphones. No one is allowed in the room while the officer is screening those images and the officers are not permitted to carry cell phones, back packs or any other devices while they work in the viewing room.

Additionally, these monitors have no ability to save, print or transmit the image. Once it’s deleted, or once the next passenger steps into the machine, the previous image is gone forever.

I believe it is worth noting that whole body imaging machines are already in use in state and federal facilities around this country, including public courthouses.

As a married father of five small children, I wouldn’t think twice about sending my wife, my four boys or little girl into this machine. I’ve seen the image it produces and I am not only confident as a TSA employee - but as a citizen - that TSA has done everything possible to address passengers’ privacy concerns regarding whole body imaging.

For those of you who remain skeptical, you’ll be happy to know that, as we expand the use of whole body imaging to JFK and LAX, it remains an optional screening method for passengers. It’s voluntary so if you’re selected for additional screening and you prefer the physical pat-down, just let our officers know.

Millimeter wave, a form of whole body imaging technology, is currently in use at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Since its introduction there, more than 90 percent of passengers have elected to undergo screening with this technology instead of being subjected to a pat-down.

Nico Melendez

TSA EoS Blog Team

Labels:

213 Comments:

Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Millimeter wave, a form of whole body imaging technology, is currently in use at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Since its introduction there, more than 90 percent of passengers have elected to undergo screening with this technology instead of being subjected to a pat-down.

The question is not so much whether 90% of the people have acquiesced to go through the millimeter wave screening machine, but rather whether they have been coerced into doing so. Did the TSA inform each individual that they had the choice between a pat down or a virtual strip search? Did a helpful TSO ask a recalcitrant screenee whether (s)he wanted to fly that day when (s)he balked at being strip searched? Did the millimeter wave scans actually find anything on any of these people? How many items did the TSOs miss in these people's bags while they were going down the conveyor?

I, for one, do not buy your assertion that anyone would voluntarily submit to a virtual strip search under any circumstances absent being coerced to do so or absent being kept ignorant of what they were about to undergo. If you are going to claim 90% acceptance of this technology, please provide links and documentary evidence to prove it.

In 2002 the TSA tried to implement similar imaging technology in Florida. The ACLU raised a protest against it and the technology was not adopted. Today I wrote my local ACLU chapter and asked what they were doing about this latest affront to our civil liberties. I can only hope they take up the fight again and are equally as successful.

April 17, 2008 7:59 PM

 
Blogger Andy said...

I'm assured with the privacy issues, good job addressing them - however, I see you have not addressed the potential safety aspect. Many people are concerned of the levels of radiation with those whole body imaging machines. Can you please elaborate on this?

April 17, 2008 9:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, I have heard discussions amongst professionals in the transportation security industry that TSA may begin to consider mandatory rectal / vaginal probes as part of the pat-down process at select high-risk air terminals, based on itelligence that it receives. Can you verify this? If you begin this practice, how will you be able to ensure that blood-borne pathogens are not transmitted among passengers?

April 17, 2008 10:51 PM

 
Blogger Bob said...

It's natural to be concerned when it comes to submitting yourself to new contraptions.

The MMW has been proven to be quite safe and the energy projected is 10,000 times less than a cell phone transmission.

MMW's have been in use for a while now at various government locations across the United States, as well as international aviation and mass transit environments – such as:

Federal Court House (VA)
Colorado Springs Court House (CO)
Department of Corrections facility(PA)
Los Angeles County Court House (CA)
Cook County Court House (IL)

International Airports:

U.K.
Spain
Japan
Australia
Mexico
Thailand
Netherlands

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

April 17, 2008 11:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question: will this speed transit through the check point for those of us with metal implants or will we still be subjected to wanding and pat downs? If so I'll skip the new technology which may or may not be safe for a good old low tech pat down.

April 17, 2008 11:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one is allowed in the room while the officer is screening those images and the officers are not permitted to carry cell phones, back packs or any other devices while they work in the viewing room.

How long will those requirements last? What happens to the officer who violates those regulations? Will the security at any cost override the day to day policies?

April 17, 2008 11:19 PM

 
Blogger Brian said...

You demonstrated with the CNN-back-brace incidint that pat-downs are not as effectove or secure as MMW, yet you leave them as an option? Doesn't this create an easy way to bypass the increased security of the MMW? If I as a terrorist have to do nothing more than request a pat-down to hide my weapon, is security really increased? Are there plans to phase out pat-downs?

April 18, 2008 12:41 AM

 
Blogger Brandon said...

None of this makes me feel any SAFER boarding an airplane, as this millimeter wave technology is only a second screening option, and as you plainly admitted, it's not a requirement. People can still opt for a pat-down, and as CNN has shown us, pat-downs don't work.

Further, the TSA has continued to ignore the fact that people who work closely with the aircraft and passenger luggage are not screened, aside from occasional random searches.

Further still, there's no proof the wave tech would have caught the backbrace bomb As Shown On TV, that's only you're guess. Was the backbrace bomb not put though the giant spinning tube?

Frankly, I'd like to see more of the millimeter wave technology, more of the scans, more of all of it, but I get the feeling that won't happen. One grainy JPEG isn't enough to convince me that this isn't an overpriced peepshow. It's be nice if the TSA offered more than a few blog posts on the subject.

While I can appreciate that the TSA and it's employees are working for our safety, I don't think anything they've done (or plan to do) would stop someone with something better than tang and hydrogen peroxide to blow up a plane. (Personally, I think the TSA is scarier than a terrorist, and they've done more harm than good to Americans, but that's getting off-topic.) The bottom line of this millimeter wave tech is this: The government is spending money to give the illusion of security, but the reality is the security is no better than it was on 9/10/2001.

April 18, 2008 1:45 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used this type of MMW at a NASCAR Race in California. After standing in the machine, it told me the size of blue jeans I should buy. Way to go, TSA. Please keep making it safe to fly.

April 18, 2008 2:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

see Fitna and you will know the truth

April 18, 2008 5:02 AM

 
Blogger Games said...

I am all for developing new screening equipment that will scan passengers for any and all concealed weapons and explosives. Thank you for recognizing that passengers don’t like being patted down by officers. It really is uncomfortable to the one being patted down because it makes you feel less human. I'd say a way to reduce the complaints you get from being patted down is to make sure a friendly officer does this job.

April 18, 2008 5:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what TSA does, there will always be someone who is unhappy. I have to say, I have seen more crap from passengers than I have seen from TSOs.
7 year TSO

April 18, 2008 6:16 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall's SO said...

"First of all, as we’ve shown you, the image looks like a fuzzy negative…there’s nothing to see."

I DARE you to turn that image around and then have the nerve to tell us there is nothing to see.

If you're restricting what a screener can take into the viewing room with him/her, that is an admission that this is a virtual strip search.

Niko, you HAVE to say that you would allow your wife and children through the machine so your words are meaningless.

"the bombing of two Russian airliners shortly thereafter, TSA deployed the highly invasive physical pat-down"

That "highly invasive physical pat-down" was discontinued after TSA was hit with a barrage of complaints (even though up until the bitter end, TSA claimed they'd had only a very few complaints).

Which brings me to the subject of the 90% of people in Phoenix choosing the machine. I agree with others: show us the statistics.

If I were of an age where I could either father a child or become pregnant and I were a frequent traveler, I would refuse to subject myself to this machine. As others have said, you don't have years of scientific study to know that the waves are safe. I would also never allow a developing child to go through such a procedure.

A poster asked if the machine could see her tampon. If it can't, then the machine is useless. If it can, what are you going to do - send her to a ladies room accompanied by a screener to remove the tampon?

Are you going to ask people with colostomy bags to remove them so that you can be certain there's nothing hidden underneath.

The amount of money wasted at the TSA could be put to better use by providing decent health care to the millions of people without health insurance and would save many more lives than the TSA ever will.

April 18, 2008 8:05 AM

 
Anonymous Nico said...

"will this speed transit through the check point for those of us with metal implants or will we still be subjected to wanding and pat downs?"

MMW allows us to see under the clothes but not through the skin. Implants could still set off the metal detector, so unfortunately, you could still be subjected to wandings and pat downs.


"Are there plans to phase out pat-downs?"

Not at this point

"TSA has continued to ignore the fact that people who work closely with the aircraft and passenger luggage are not screened, aside from occasional random searches."

Next month we launch another pilot program in seven airports to screen 100% of airport workers.

"was the backbrace bomb not put though the giant spinning tube?"

Not in the CNN piece it wasn't.


"How long will those requirements last?"

There is no plan to do away with these requirements.

"I DARE you to turn that image around and then have the nerve to tell us there is nothing to see."

You don't have to dare us. I showed the backside image to about 25 media outlets yesterday at a press event in LA. Additonally, we gave photos to media when we rolled this out in Phoenix. I'll stand by the contention that there really is nothing to see.

"if you're restricting what a screener can take into the viewing room with him/her, that is an admission that this is a virtual strip search."

No, it's not. It's about us taking into consideration the input of privacy groups and passengers.

"Niko, you HAVE to say that you would allow your wife and children through the machine so your words are meaningless."

Actually, it's Nico, with a C. I wrote this blog post at home last Thursday night. No one had a gun to my head and I didn't have to say it. I said it because it is how I truly feel.

"That "highly invasive physical pat-down" was discontinued after TSA was hit with a barrage of complaints (even though up until the bitter end, TSA claimed they'd had only a very few complaints)."

No, the pat down as altered, but has never been discontinued.

"Which brings me to the subject of the 90% of people in Phoenix choosing the machine. I agree with others: show us the statistics."

Visit the Arizona East Valley Tribune web site and do a search on millimeter wave. They too did a survey with similar results.

Nico

April 18, 2008 8:44 AM

 
Blogger Jeda21 said...

What are the long term exposure dangers to the health of the continuous (business) traveler, and the staff member stationed next to one of these all day long, and several days a week? I remember hearing about a shoe fit fluoroscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope) which at the turn of the last century, some shoe salesmen used to X ray the customers' feet to acquire a perfect shoewear fit--with no lead vests. Th word cancer and thyroid disorder is thrown about liberally these days with any mentions with cell phones, polluted tap water, junk food, salt, and general air pollution... what will this security do-hicky do long-term?

April 18, 2008 9:12 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

Can this new millimeter wave technology really wipe the lipstick off the pig? Will it make us safer and more secure?

How many people have gone through TSA security since it began screening? (No, don't raise your hand...) 3-4 billion, is that about right? How many REAL terrorists have actually been stopped by TSO's and the screening process? Hundreds? no, A couple? well, if you want to put a PR spin on it, maybe We'll SPOT you one or two...

"Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300."
(reasononline)

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Franklin Roosevelt (our current president couldn't begin to put that sentence together)

April 18, 2008 9:24 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"TSA has continued to ignore the fact that people who work closely with the aircraft and passenger luggage are not screened, aside from occasional random searches."
Nico said:
"Next month we launch another pilot program in seven airports to screen 100% of airport workers."

So you finally realize access to cargo and checked luggage is a real security problem? Until cargo and passengers stuff is secure, and can't be tampered with, TSA's mission is an empty promise. The threat of someone putting something into the luggage is just as real as someone stealing from it.

At least have TSO's seal the bags once they have inspected them.

April 18, 2008 9:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New technology is great, my main concern is your organization becoming a bunch of gadget nerds and never phasing out the old stuff when you get new toys. I can see lines backed up at the airport because we have to go through all these machines or tax dollars have been wasted on. I still think well trained dogs would do a much better. X-ray my carry-on & let the dog sniff me for explosives as I pass by. Quick and easy..

April 18, 2008 9:46 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"I still think well trained dogs would do a much better. X-ray my carry-on & let the dog sniff me for explosives as I pass by. Quick and easy.."

Dog lover that I am, I too wish for that would work well. The canine attention span limits their usefulness for passenger screening. TSA does have a package screening dog program which the blog covered starting March 14th. It has been in existence for a while, and they are even breeding their own mix for the program. They name the dogs after 9/11 victims. I wish that they would use rescue dogs...

April 18, 2008 10:22 AM

 
Blogger Shawn said...

I for one would rather cease using air travel than be electronically strip searched at each TSA checkpoint. Thus far I have been very supportive and understanding of the difficult job of the TSA. This, however, has replaced vague and uncertain threats of terrorists with the real and concrete threat to personal privacy and decency. We do not live in a world in which we regularly expose ourselves to strangers at a whim.

Millimeter wave is only one of several technologies being introduced by the TSA. Backscatter, a similar whole body imaging machine is equally invasive.

Also, it appears that all public images of the output of such machines show the least shocking view -- likely a male from the rear. What about from the front? Or an image if a female being scanned? I am confident if such images were made availabe the resulting uproar would quickly send us back to the world of pat downs.

Again, I appreciate the difficult job of the TSA. Whole body imaging, however, is an unacceptable alternative to current measures.

Sincerely,

Shawn

April 18, 2008 10:22 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please don't touch me and keep this going.

April 18, 2008 10:25 AM

 
Anonymous marshall's so said...

"I showed the backside image to about 25 media outlets yesterday at a press event in LA."

You've got the backside image posted on this site. We want to see a FRONTAL image - I guess we have to spell it out F-R-O-N-T-A-L.

I said the "highly invasive" procedure was dropped after complaints, but I guess you didn't understand that.

"Visit the Arizona East Valley Tribune web site and do a search on millimeter wave. They too did a survey with similar results."

We want to see the TSA's results, not a newspaper's results - the media can be trusted about as much as the TSA.

April 18, 2008 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous txrus said...

Nico said:
Millimeter wave, a form of whole body imaging technology, is currently in use at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Since its introduction there, more than 90 percent of passengers have elected to undergo screening with this technology instead of being subjected to a pat-down.
*******************************

Of those 90%, how many knew what their images would look like BEFORE they agreed to this? My guess is none. And why haven't you posted Susan's picture, which was circulated widely prior to the implementation of the machines @ PHX? For those who might have missed it, this is what is in place @ PHX currently; quite a bit of a difference from Nico's 'fuzzy negative', I'd say!

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/default.html

April 18, 2008 10:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "How about a 10 year term in prison for TSA types who abuse this technology?"

How about 10 years in prison for the guy at Walmart that doesnt Greet you .

or 10 years in prison for the guy at McDonalds that does make the fries right.

you people just always want to blame the TSOs for everything. Its not them its their Management.

Why do all the TSOs always seem mad or unhappy?

Its because of very low moral.
First off everyone says the TSA is the most tested goverment agency, thats not true the truth is the TSOs are the most test government employees. They are the only ones tested in TSA.
The ASI, FSD, BDO, BAO FAM, AFSD, Training Department never see a test except for maybe a random drug testing but seriously how hard is it to pee in a cup
Second the TSOs are tested all the time
-once a year Recertification
-Red Team covert tests
-ASI covert Tests
-Supervisor covert tests

I was tested 6 times in a week and I only worked 4 Days that week. So its not that the TSOs think everyone is a terrorist its that they think you may be a test.

Third I also think the liquid rule doesnt make sense and I asked My Management about it and they said "if you dont like the rules quit because there are many other people that would love to have your job"

So we're up set because our management wants us to look like idiots. and for anyone who wants to debate me on that one just ask yourselves why would TSA invite the media to watch us fail a test that our then show the TSO if he would of just lifted the testers shirt he would of foud the IED which for those of you that dont know is a clear violation of the SOP.

So please give the TSOs a little bit of a break. Yes i know alot of the TSOs go way over the line. But while your on here complain about the Management not the not the one ignorant TSO you came in contact with

April 18, 2008 10:55 AM

 
Blogger Bob said...

Txrus,

I'll go ahead and hyperlink the photos you were trying to post since your link doesn't work.

The photos you posted are what the Backscatter (not millimeter wave)is capable of producing. It's not the images they see at PHX.

If you look at this image the one on the left is the adjusted image they see in PHX.

Also, please note that PHX will be receiving MMWs.

Thanks,

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

April 18, 2008 11:16 AM

 
Blogger Glyn said...

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/default.html

Is the correct URL for those that can't figure it out. The image on that page is somewhat mannequin-like but it's still not a view of my body I'd want to be seen by just anybody. Especially not just to get on an airplane. I'd sooner take a bus.

I'm guessing the TSA's MMW machines could be fine tuned to produce an image like this. As in my note on the previous entry, I request that TSA share some of the technical documentation on the machine. More images too. Multiple views of various people and objects. I want proof that your officers aren't going to ogle my girlfriend. So far, you've offered me your assurances, and excuse me for saying so but those are worth exactly zilch to me. When you guys make a claim, it ought to be your policy to back it up with evidence. Otherwise why should we believe you?

April 18, 2008 11:22 AM

 
Anonymous txrus said...

Blogger Bob-thank you for fixing the link; I've never claimed to be a techno-whiz when it comes to things like that.

However, your post @ 11:16 is in direct contradiction to what your pal Nico said originally w/re: to the technology currently in use @ PHX. You said PHX 'WILL BE RECEIVING MMWs', however, Nico claimed it's already in place & 90%of passengers using it don't complain about its use. Which is it? If PHX 'WILL BE' receiving this machine, then how could 90% of passengers be screened by something that isn't there? Perhaps you & Nico need to have a meeting of the minds & decide which story you want to use today?

PHX has the backscatter (it's my home airport, so I've watched this implementation pretty closely for obvious reasons). Now, MMW may be the next generation of backscatter's, but until you post a FRONTAL picture (I'd nominate you &/or Nico as Susan already had her turn. We'll recognize you from your tie, Bob, never fear!), both here AND, I would recommend, in the checkpoints for full disclosure (no pun intended) purposes prior to the passenger deciding whether to undergo this 'elective' screening, I, & many others, will reserve judgement.

April 18, 2008 11:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Millimetre waves should pose no threat to fetuses, since they don't penetrate the mother's skin when she undergoes a virtual strip search.

At least fetuses still retain some right to privacy at TSA checkpoints!

April 18, 2008 12:31 PM

 
Anonymous TSA Loves You said...

txrus:

Nonsense! You aren't allowed to see your own pictures, or even what a picture might look like, because of the terrorists. If they could see these pictures, well, that'd be awful.

That's why a properly trained TSA agent will be sitting alone in a dark room, staring at the sumptuous curves of every young, nubile could-be-Osama that wants to fly today.

It's a sacrifice, but they're willing do it for YOUR safety. So unless you want the terrorists to win, content yourself with the extremely low-res rear male view, because anything else is highly classified but still totally protecting your privacy.

April 18, 2008 12:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regards to the MWW what method degrades the image? Is it controllable by the operator or is it a fixed setting that cannot be tampered with?

Are you claiming the image posted here is the very best image this machine can output?

We need more information before accepting your sales pitch. So far, No Sale!

April 18, 2008 12:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's really irrelevant what you would "send" your wife and kids to do (can they not think for themselves?). It is what each individual citizen prefers that matters. This is an invasive practice and a total violation of privacy, as are the pointless and unprovoked "pat downs". Citizens should not be treated like criminals just for buying a plane ticket.

April 18, 2008 2:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please post front and back images of both men AND women and let us judge for ourselves how "unoffensive" they are.

April 18, 2008 2:33 PM

 
Blogger DoogieSD said...

The good folks at the TSA can tell us that they are stopping ALL searches at the airport instead passing out ice cream and candies to the passer by's...

And the hacks around here would still bitch..."waaaa the ice cream is too cold...waaaa"

Id just wish some of these idiots would have the sack to set up their own blogs so we can all critique their day to day work...

April 18, 2008 2:39 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Nico... we asked and you answered:

"Which brings me to the subject of the 90% of people in Phoenix choosing the machine. I agree with others: show us the statistics."

Visit the Arizona East Valley Tribune web site and do a search on millimeter wave. They too did a survey with similar results.


So I did. Here is the link to the East Valley Tribune Story for those who would like to read it for themselves: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/99337

This story does not support your claim of 90% acceptance of this technology. In fact the story largely quotes you spouting the same talking points you gave in your blog post here. To save people the trouble of going to the article, I am attaching the sections of the article below that deal with the statistics:

" So the new technology can duck the health concerns generated by the backscatter but will face the same scrutiny about the virtual strip search aspect denounced by some consumer and privacy rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union.

But not so much by actual passengers, several of whom said they find screening machines less intrusive than a pat-down, a procedure the TSA has been using for the last few years as part of the post-9/11 Homeland Security measures.

In fact, a survey conducted in March, a month after the backscatter was turned on at the local airport, found that three out of four Phoenix-area residents knew of the backscatter and the firestorm that marked its arrival. And three out of the four of those who knew about the machine said they support its use to filter out potential air terrorists. Two out of three women surveyed said they would prefer it to a pat down.

The TSA collected its own statistics. Since the backscatter pilot began, 79 percent of the passengers required to submit to a body search in an airport where a backscatter was present, chose the machine screening, Melendez said."

So here are a few things to chew on from the Tribune article:

3/4 of Phoenix area residents surveyed were aware of the scanning technology. Of those who were aware 3/4 of them (meaning half of all survey respondents for those who are math challenged) support it . The article did not say who the people surveyed were, how many men, how may women, what their ages were, whether they traveled by air and how frequently, or whether they had seen precisely what the millimeter wave could do, or were aware of alternatives to millimeter wave that did not involve a virtual strip search. Had the survey been done in a statistically sound way, I have a feeling that instead of 50% acceptance, they might have run into acceptance rates in the low teens or even near zero.

The article continues to say that the TSA has gathered its own statistics showing a 79% acceptance rate. Again Nico, show us. How did you conduct the study? How many men? How many women? Over what period of time? What ages? How frequently did they travel? What ages? What cultural backgrounds? What information did the people have beforehand? Publish a link to the study and let us read it for ourselves. If you don't do this your claim is nothing more than an unsupported assertion from a representative of an agency that enjoys nearly zero credibility with the public.

Finally, I took a few minutes to look at the comments that followed the article. While many of them were off topic, those that did address the topic were 100% against the millimeter wave. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it Nico?

Care to try again?

April 18, 2008 2:44 PM

 
Anonymous Chris Boyce said...

Nico -- some questions:

1. "As a married father of five small children, I wouldn’t think twice about sending my wife, my four boys or little girl into this machine."

Then, I assume, as a TSA public affairs officer, that would be perfectly willing, and I dare say OBLIGATED, to post the machine's pictures of yourself and your family members in exactly the same format that the screener will see.

2. I assume you also believe you have the authority to discover a joint or two in someone's pocket and immediately detain and arrest the individual?

3. How do you plan to use the image for evidence if you decide to arrest and prosecute someone for something they have hidden on their body? Will the passenger be forced to undergo a pat-down groping if the screeners "thinks they see something" which, of course, they will never have to justify in court.

4. How will you react to a passenger who exercises their 1st amendment rights to write on their clothing or body in metallic ink exactly what they believe you should do with your machine?

5. How will you ensure that the passenger maintains visual contact with their carry-on possessions while this electronic strip search is going on?

6. Would you please post a link to your required Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for this device? When was it filed for public comment and who approved it?

7. Send an email to your boss, Ellen Howe, asking her to suggest that Kip Hawley should lead by example and post his image on the blog. After all, shouldn't he lead by example?

April 18, 2008 3:10 PM

 
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous said...Hello, I have heard discussions amongst professionals in the transportation security industry that TSA may begin to consider mandatory rectal / vaginal probes as part of the pat-down process at select high-risk air terminals, based on itelligence that it receives. Can you verify this? If you begin this practice, how will you be able to ensure that blood-borne pathogens are not transmitted among passengers?
April 17, 2008 10:51 PM


You have a better chance of being probed by an alien from outer space. :)

You think folks have a problem with liquids and shoes??? Imagine what would happen if this were put in to place...

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

April 18, 2008 3:22 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Bob said...

Anonymous said...Hello, I have heard discussions amongst professionals in the transportation security industry that TSA may begin to consider mandatory rectal / vaginal probes as part of the pat-down process at select high-risk air terminals, based on itelligence that it receives. Can you verify this? If you begin this practice, how will you be able to ensure that blood-borne pathogens are not transmitted among passengers?
April 17, 2008 10:51 PM

You have a better chance of being probed by an alien from outer space. :)

You think folks have a problem with liquids and shoes??? Imagine what would happen if this were put in to place...

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

April 18, 2008 3:22 PM

Where is Trollkiller when we really need him?

April 18, 2008 3:27 PM

 
Anonymous shari said...

hi, i'm not sure if this has been asked, but how does the milimeter wave machine capture/send the image? i mean is it essentially an x-ray machine? is it something that pregnant women and others should be concerned about radiation from? thank you.

April 18, 2008 3:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MMW is a non-invasive (ie does not enter the body) system that produces a topographical image of the external contours of the traveler and any items secreted upon them. It is by design an impersonal system designed to benefit passenger and screener alike. Officers no more wish to pat you down than you wish for them to do it. It is an OPTION at this point for those uncomfortable for with the hands on (pun intended) approach, but realistically would best be employed as a mandatory step like the Xray and WTMD (barring medical exemptions). I am sure public opinion regarding percieved privacy issues were a contributing factor for this being optional at this time. As touched on by the comments thus far, this seems to be a lose/lose situation critic wise. Pat downs=pulic outcry, MMW implementation=public outcry, no security at all=public outcry. As an anonymous entity, let me assure you that regardless of the rallying cry of the critics, myself and other unsung Officers will gladly undertake the challenge of ensuring your ability to travel safely and freely. We do this daily without prejudice or malice, knowing that despite the critics there are those that wish to do us harm. They will continue to press on, as will we. Safe travels...

April 18, 2008 3:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think folks have a problem with liquids and shoes??? Imagine what would happen if this were put in to place...

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team
..........................

Sadly with the current (non)leadership at TSA this is somewhat believeable.


Thats why TSA enjoys the respect of the public!

April 18, 2008 4:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob said...
Anonymous said...Hello, I have heard discussions amongst professionals in the transportation security industry that TSA may begin to consider mandatory rectal / vaginal probes as part of the pat-down process at select high-risk air terminals, based on itelligence that it receives. Can you verify this? If you begin this practice, how will you be able to ensure that blood-borne pathogens are not transmitted among passengers?
April 17, 2008 10:51 PM

You have a better chance of being probed by an alien from outer space. :)

You think folks have a problem with liquids and shoes??? Imagine what would happen if this were put in to place...

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

April 18, 2008 3:22 PM

I can tell you exactly what would happen. The only people who would be flying are the one who are into painfull kinky S&M games.

April 18, 2008 4:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nico, there is only one way to make credible your soothing assurances about how benign and respectful of privacy millimeter-wave scans are. Please add to your post pictures of actual millimeter-wave scans of yourself, your wife, and your five small children from the front, so we can judge your statements for ourselves. If the "noninvasive images" really "could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody" (per Bob's earlier post), you and your family should have no reason at all to object to this request. Putting your money where your mouth is would be a truly heroic act, and certainly best thing anyone in the TSA could do to start repairing your agency's severely battered credibility.

If perchance someone in your family isn't willing to cooperate with this "noninvasive" experiment, perhaps Kip Hawley and his family might be willing to demonstrate the technology. They surely have nothing to hide. Until we see some actual scans of TSA officials from the front, I can only regard this technology as the next level of TSA intrusiveness in the form of a virtual strip search.

April 18, 2008 4:36 PM

 
Blogger Jon said...

Nico is away from his computer but asked me, as a fellow member of the blog team, to post the following comments on his behalf.

On April 18, chris boyce said
1. "As a married father of five small children, I wouldn’t think twice about sending my wife, my four boys or little girl into this machine."
Then, I assume, as a TSA public affairs officer, that would be perfectly willing, and I dare say OBLIGATED, to post the machine's pictures of yourself and your family members in exactly the same format that the screener will see.


You know what they say about assume. I believe my family and I should be granted the same privacy you wish to have.

2. I assume you also believe you have the authority to discover a joint or two in someone's pocket and immediately detain and arrest the individual?

If someone is dumb enough to bring a joint or two to the airport, and we find it, we will refer to law enforcement. We don't have arrest authority.

3. How do you plan to use the image for evidence if you decide to arrest and prosecute someone for something they have hidden on their body? Will the passenger be forced to undergo a pat-down groping if the screeners "thinks they see something" which, of course, they will never have to justify in court.

We don't, the item is evidence enough.

4. How will you react to a passenger who exercises their 1st amendment rights to write on their clothing or body in metallic ink exactly what they believe you should do with your machine?

We can see through clothes, not read tattoos.

5. How will you ensure that the passenger maintains visual contact with their carry-on possessions while this electronic strip search is going on?

The machines have plexiglass walls which allow passengers to stay in visual contact.

6. Would you please post a link to your required Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for this device? When was it filed for public comment and who approved it?

We'll have to get back to you, but it was some time ago.

7. Send an email to your boss, Ellen Howe, asking her to suggest that Kip Hawley should lead by example and post his image on the blog. After all, shouldn't he lead by example?

Again, privacy. What would that prove anyway, that we can see what we say we can see? If so, look at the image on our page and see what we see.

Nico
TSA EoS Blog Team

April 18, 2008 4:43 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

Is it true that everything will have to come out of your pockets to go through this MM device? Who or what will provide absolute security for personal possessions such as bags, electronics and wallets during the scan?

April 18, 2008 5:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jon: I believe my family and I should be granted the same privacy you wish to have.

You and your family have the right to privacy. I and my family do not. That succinctly sums up why passengers so despise and distrust the TSA.

April 18, 2008 5:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@jon Again, privacy. What would that prove anyway, that we can see what we say we can see? If so, look at the image on our page and see what we see.

The official statements on this blog from TSA spokespersons claim that millimeter-wave scans are nonintrusive, nonoffensive, and that the resulting images are appropriate for the cover of Reader's Digest. An actual frontal millimeter-wave scan of Kip Hawley, Nico, Bob, or Jon should prove that those statements are true. Since you (understandably?) take offense at the idea of posing for the cover of Reader's Digest, the only thing we can conclude is that those statements lack real credibility, and that millimeter-wave scanning really is just a high-tech form of strip search. The image on your page shows the back of the subject, and doesn't tell us enough to evaluate the veracity of your statements.

You ask us to trust your assertions about how this technology is "nonintrusive" and respectful of privacy. Yet you apparently don't believe those statements enough to be willing to make the same sacrifice of your privacy in the name of credibility that you're asking us make in the name of (possible) security. So why should we trust you?

Note that my objection isn't about the effectiveness or value of this technology. I actually suspect that it would improve security, though obviously at the rather steep price of further intrusion and loss of privacy and dignity (not to mention many millions of dollars). It would be one thing if you were honest about what this really is, and truthfully promoted it as a high-tech strip search that will significantly enhance the TSA's ability to detect weapons and explosives. Perhaps this capability really is enough to justify the intrusion an electronic strip search involves. If it is, you ought to honestly promote it as such. But your blog posts that portray a strip search as "nonintrusive" and "nonoffensive" only insult our intelligence, and further reduce the low levels of credibility and respect your agency has with the public. This is all about public relations, and you aren't doing a very good job.

Of course you object to posting a picture of a millimeter-wave strip search of yourself or your family! So why should we be any more willing to accept what you all but admit is a major invasion of privacy? And why should we believe any of your promises about how you will respect our privacy in that remote viewing room? The millimeter-wave scanner is probably a valuable security enhancement. But I think you're going to have a hard time convincing people that it's worth the price you're asking us to pay for it. Especially since you very understandably aren't willing to pay it yourselves in the interest of convincing us that it's worth the price.

April 18, 2008 6:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, I was rather leaning towards this machine until I read that pat downs would still continue. What is the point of having a very expensive piece of machinery sitting on the floor if one of the most intrusive (to the person) protocol isn't limited/eliminated by the use of this machine?

Color me no way with this high tech gear unless you get rid of the pat downs for people with implants and others who have metal buried in their body (i.e. shrapnel).

April 18, 2008 6:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MMW allows us to see under the clothes but not through the skin. Implants could still set off the metal detector, so unfortunately, you could still be subjected to wandings and pat downs.

Unacceptable, unless this is the primary means of checking. MM-wave detects something out of the ordinary (i.e. ceramic knife) then pat downs, otherwise what do we the traveling public gain? More tax dollars going down the 'spare no expense for security' rat hole?

April 18, 2008 6:57 PM

 
Anonymous Chris Boyce said...

In response to Chris Boyc'e post, Nico's ghost writer said:


Nico, Nico, Nico, there you go again...

On April 18, chris boyce said
1. "As a married father of five small children, I wouldn’t think twice about sending my wife, my four boys or little girl into this machine."
Then, I assume, as a TSA public affairs officer, that would be perfectly willing, and I dare say OBLIGATED, to post the machine's pictures of yourself and your family members in exactly the same format that the screener will see.

You know what they say about assume. I believe my family and I should be granted the same privacy you wish to have.

Chris says in response: Let me remind you, it wasn't us who brought your family into this. You patronized us in the first place. Between numerous encounters posted on Flyertalk and a report FROM YOUR OWN IG, you and everyone else in the TSA rubs our noses in the Privacy Act. Yes -- I want the same privacy for your family that you afford us -- NONE!

2. I assume you also believe you have the authority to discover a joint or two in someone's pocket and immediately detain and arrest the individual?

If someone is dumb enough to bring a joint or two to the airport, and we find it, we will refer to law enforcement. We don't have arrest authority.

Chris: Have no fear, someday this unconstitutional dragnet you pull at every airport in the country will come crashing down.

3. How do you plan to use the image for evidence if you decide to arrest and prosecute someone for something they have hidden on their body? Will the passenger be forced to undergo a pat-down groping if the screeners "thinks they see something" which, of course, they will never have to justify in court.

We don't, the item is evidence enough.

Chris: So, that means the accused cannot have access to the evidence used against him/her. Un-American and pathetic.

4. How will you react to a passenger who exercises their 1st amendment rights to write on their clothing or body in metallic ink exactly what they believe you should do with your machine?

We can see through clothes, not read tattoos.
Chris: No, but you will see writing from magnetic-reflective ink from a pen available and any Michael's Craft store in America.

5. How will you ensure that the passenger maintains visual contact with their carry-on possessions while this electronic strip search is going on?

The machines have plexiglass walls which allow passengers to stay in visual contact.

Chris: Look at the LA Times article and tell me how that is possible. You're patronizing us at best and outright lying at worst.

6. Would you please post a link to your required Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for this device? When was it filed for public comment and who approved it?

We'll have to get back to you, but it was some time ago.

Chris: Nico, I'll help you. The last PIA was for Secure Flight. You didn't bother to publish one for this electronic strip-search machine. Why am I not surprised?

7. Send an email to your boss, Ellen Howe, asking her to suggest that Kip Hawley should lead by example and post his image on the blog. After all, shouldn't he lead by example?

Again, privacy. What would that prove anyway, that we can see what we say we can see? If so, look at the image on our page and see what we see.

Chris: See my other privacy comments. Nico, what are you trying to hide?

April 18, 2008 8:24 PM

 
Anonymous Rosie said...

This article and entire blog is just chock-full of glib, dismissive ridiculousness for every issue raised by concerned passengers. It makes me sick. Even worse are the cattle-like Americans who insist that each additional layer of invasiveness somehow makes us safer, and that we should be "grateful" for it. Utter rubbish.

Wow, the TSA has spent a vast fortune on this "new MMW technology", and now I'm left with a great choice - I either get to be publicly groped by a screaming, racist, shrill TSA employee, which will take additional time and humiliation; or I "get" to walk through an MMW machine with an unproven safety record, so that my rights can be even more quickly stripped away, and so that screeners can gawk at my body. Why not just cut out the middleman and have me strip down in front of everybody? And I'm supposed to just "trust you" that the images will be deleted. Yeah, right. Thanks a lot, TSA.

I have a huge problem with the TSA and the gross abuse of power that its employees enjoy. $31 million worth of passenger belongings have been "lost" by the TSA, yet we can't lock our luggage. The MMW is going to make the screening even worse. Currently, I get herded like a cow through a filthy screening area where I will pick up God-knows-what on my feet...and to add insult to injury, I get pulled aside for "Special Screening" EVERY SINGLE TIME I FLY. Apparently the xenophobic screeners think I'm Mexican, and even though TSA is NOT supposed to be running an INS dragnet, I have to pay the price every time. Based on my perceived race, TSA employees gleefully humiliate me every time I fly, even though I am a United States citizen, and my family came here legally in the 1800s. Once they realize that I am a law-abiding citizen with nothing illegal or dangerous in my carry-on, purse, or person, I am finally permitted to collect my scattered belongings and finally move past the security checkpoint without so much as an apology. Every time I complain or ask to speak to a supervisor, I get detained even longer as "punishment".

There is no way that this MMW technology is going to make us one iota safer. If there were any justice in the world, the stupid, ignorant Americans who claim that forfeiting our civil liberties will somehow make us safer would be struck down by lightning. And for this MMW technology, show us some images! I don't believe your "safe for a preschool" argument, not for a second. It is grossly unfair to allow the stupid yokel screeners to gawk at passengers, whether the strip search is actual or virtual. Trust me, this technology will be abused and guess who will suffer? The passengers.

The TSA does not have the right to plunder my civil liberties, basic rights, or dignity as a human being so that some idiotic ignoramus can "feel a little bit safer" when they fly. Each time I fly, the other passengers are saying stuff like, "Oh look Mabel, they're screaming at and searching that Mex'can woman. Hopefully they'll deport her back to where she came from! Ha ha, somebody call La Migra. We're winnin' the war against the terr'ists!" Yee-haw. Again...great job, TSA. I'd like my dignity back, please.

April 18, 2008 9:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm up for some Checkpoint improvement. So tell me what actions have been made to correct this screener;

"TSO NY said the following;

"that may be true, but without a prescription it doesn't go."

"It's all well to know the rules, but when you're on the checkpoint sometimes the rules get "changed" to suit the situation."

"TSA states that if those bottles are not labeled, they aren't allowed to go."



Are or improvments just additional control of lawabiding citizens?

Please Bloggers tell me and others here what corrective action has been taken to educate TSO NY and others would so poorly understand their duties. Surely you will not let something like this go without corrective action!

But you have, haven't you?

April 18, 2008 10:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the point this becomes standard practice I feel forced to stop taking part...I simply won't fly anymore...or go anywhere that uses this technology. It's invasive, it's wrong, and it's of questionable worth at the VERY best. We've become so safety obsessed we're willing to accept every invasion of privacy laid before us. We've got semi-trained monkeys acting as TSA agents who frequently don't have the intelligence to question the rules or deviate from them when the situation warrants...and now they're going to administer body scans. At what point do we all just opt out?

April 18, 2008 10:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NICO said;

"The machines have plexiglass walls which allow passengers to stay in visual contact. "


The passenger is effectively cut off from their property. The cannot protect it if they are inside your strip search machine.

You need to rethink this answer.

April 18, 2008 10:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the #1 problem is that we are used to being lied by our government, often the truth only comes out later...

I'm also concerned about officials looking at young girls/boys pictures, what if any of them have a weakness towards those areas... the whole thing is very offensive..

Either way, there is nothing us regular folks can about it sadly...

April 18, 2008 11:05 PM

 
Anonymous ibored said...

"2. I assume you also believe you have the authority to discover a joint or two in someone's pocket and immediately detain and arrest the individual?

If someone is dumb enough to bring a joint or two to the airport, and we find it, we will refer to law enforcement. We don't have arrest authority."

Theres this neat thing called the Constitution that was written in 1787. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, can you please point me to the part of the Constitution or any of the amendments that outline how none of this applies at an airport?

I am tempted to call your answer patronizing but I think in reality its just based on you being as brainwashed as you want us to become. I'm not angry at the bloggers from the TSA anymore, I just kinda feel sad for them.

April 19, 2008 12:00 AM

 
Blogger Nico said...

This post has been removed by the author.

April 19, 2008 12:05 AM

 
Blogger Nico said...

New technology is great, my main concern is your organization becoming a bunch of gadget nerds and never phasing out the old stuff when you get new toys."

We are currently in the process of replacing antiquated x-ray machines and are committed to remaining on the cutting edge. The previous post discusses this topic.

"What are the long term exposure dangers"

The exposure dangers are 10,000 times less than what a passenger is exposed to when using a cell phone.

"Of those 90%, how many knew what their images would look like BEFORE they agreed to this?"

Probably most of them since we have signs posted telling passengers about WBI in PHX, LAX and JFK.

"Your post @ 11:16 is in direct contradiction to what your pal Nico said originally w/re: to the technology currently in use @ PHX. You said PHX 'WILL BE RECEIVING MMWs', however, Nico claimed it's already in place & 90%of passengers using it don't complain about its use. Which is it?"

Backscatter went operational in PHX in January 2007 and MMW went live at Sky Harbor in October.

Nico
TSA EOS Team

April 19, 2008 12:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be nice to see some sort of actual studies on the effects of MMW on humans with a correlation (or not) to disease rates. Let's just say TSA's cred for "take our word for it"
is pretty darn low these days. (hopefully these devices can spot deadly nipple rings and dangerous tweezers!!)

You don't have a meaningful grievance process and you don't notably discipline employees who act poorly or abuse their "customers". So all the assurances in the world about privacy and rules being followed are meaningless when there are no consequences when rules are broken, or worse, TSA backs up the erring employee with a "they were following the rules" (ah-hem. nipple rings anyone?)

Be transparent and accountable, and you'll build trust. Be tyrannical, random, and capricious, and you won't. Pretty basic.

April 19, 2008 1:37 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Blogger Bob said:

Where is Trollkiller when we really need him?


I have Crohn's disease and I go to a gastroenterologist on a very frequent basis. I hear "anal probe" and go to my safe place.... it will be alright... it will be alright. La La La La.

Really, I have been at work keeping the economy moving. I have a few words on this new technology but I wanted to research it more before posting.

April 19, 2008 2:22 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Whoops it was Dunstan that said "Where is Trollkiller when we really need him?"

See I told y'all it has been a long week.

As for the anal and vaginal probe, that sounds like either an April Fool's joke story or one by the Onion. In either case the liability would outweigh the good.

Then again if sHillary gets into office the TSA can become part of the socialist health care system.

I have some thoughts on the new "see me nekkid" technology that will have to wait until I am coherent. Just a tease, but Kip may want to start hitting the Stairmaster.

April 19, 2008 5:10 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hahahaha I have spent the best hour of my life reading these responses. Any time I think I might have been just about as low as I can get, I start reading the moronic complaints against TSA on this blog and I feel one hundred percent better. Get a life guys, you're worse than the morons on Jerry Springer...actually...I don't know what's worse, listening to you complain about the security process at airports or me taking the time to read.

Complain again tomorrow, because it just makes my day.

April 19, 2008 6:37 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Referring to signs posting images at the contraption that is the subject of this thread, Nico said:

"Probably most of them since we have signs posted telling passengers about WBI in PHX, LAX and JFK."

Nico, I'm sure you know that you can plaster a wall with signs and NOBODY reads them. Just as people don't listen to the TSA barkers, they don't read the signs.

Every person going through that machine needs to be first given a copy of the PA statement that has a FRONTAL image of how they will be seen.

If the TSA has the guts to do that, then we'll see how many people choose to go through the machine.

And BTW, I agree with winstonsmith about the article in the newspaper - no where near 90% agreed to the MMW screening.

Referencing Chris' comment about metallic writings on one's body or clothes, I would suggest, Nico, that you make certain you understand the question to which you are responding before you respond. Otherwise, you end up looking very foolish - which is exactly what we have come to expect from the TSA, from the top down.

April 19, 2008 7:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nico said;
You know what they say about assume. I believe my family and I should be granted the same privacy you wish to have.

.................................

I have no choice but to believe then that you have not been truthful in your statements concerning the MMW Whole Body Imager.

What privacy are your giving up if the face is obscured, and no distinguishing features are imaged?

You have told us all we need to know about your "Strip Search Machine".

April 19, 2008 11:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: "What are the long term exposure dangers"

The exposure dangers are 10,000 times less than what a passenger is exposed to when using a cell phone.


----------------------------------

Please post the studies or links to the studies supporting your claims and the long term safety of these systems.

Thank you.

April 19, 2008 11:17 AM

 
Anonymous TSA TSO NY said...

"A poster asked if the machine could see her tampon. If it can't, then the machine is useless. If it can, what are you going to do - send her to a ladies room accompanied by a screener to remove the tampon? "

If it's metal.... Sure will!

April 19, 2008 1:21 PM

 
Anonymous Dave said...

1) These machines are not safe. Bombarding the body with microwaves or X-Rays un-necessarily is not a good idea.

2) This is an utter violation of privacy equating to a strip search.

You will never place me in there, and if you grope me inappropriately, I will summon a law enforcement officer and have you arrested.

You people have gone way to far. Thank god an administration change is coming.

April 19, 2008 1:27 PM

 
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous said... You and your family have the right to privacy. I and my family do not. That succinctly sums up why passengers so despise and distrust the TSA.
April 18, 2008 5:55 PM


The TSA has gone through many extra steps to ensure the public is comfortable with this procedure. The public had some very understandable concerens and the TSA addressed those concerns.

Now our very own critics who fear their privacy will be vilotaed have no problem with our image being posted all over the internet for the world to see?

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team

April 19, 2008 3:46 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Anonymous said...

Hahahaha I have spent the best hour of my life reading these responses. Any time I think I might have been just about as low as I can get, I start reading the moronic complaints against TSA on this blog and I feel one hundred percent better. Get a life guys, you're worse than the morons on Jerry Springer...actually...I don't know what's worse, listening to you complain about the security process at airports or me taking the time to read.

Complain again tomorrow, because it just makes my day.

April 19, 2008 6:37 AM"

Well, you are welcome to your opinion, but you may not be taken seriously.

April 19, 2008 3:53 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

" Trollkiller said...

Then again if sHillary gets into office the TSA can become part of the socialist health care system.

April 19, 2008 5:10 AM

Oh, come now, trollkiller, TSA will never be able to afford the liability insurance, let alone the salaries of the medical professionals, anyway. Those $26,000 TSO's would have a fit if they knew what TSA would have to pay doctors. But you knew that...

April 19, 2008 3:59 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

You may want to see the results of the TSA Employee Survey.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/results.shtm

It makes for interesting reading.

April 19, 2008 4:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be transparent and accountable, and you'll build trust. Be tyrannical, random, and capricious, and you won't. Pretty basic.

Yes, that's pretty basic. But I have to conclude that TSA management (and their Homeland Security bosses) believe that "tyrannical, random, and capricious" is absolutely necessary for effective airport security. It's even possible that they see our distrust and disdain for the TSA as proof of its effectiveness. They don't need to be trusted, but feared and obeyed.

April 19, 2008 4:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The TSA has gone through many extra steps to ensure the public is comfortable with this procedure. The public had some very understandable concerens and the TSA addressed those concerns.

Now our very own critics who fear their privacy will be vilotaed have no problem with our image being posted all over the internet for the world to see?

Bob

TSA EoS Blog Team


Bob, you have it all wrong. You and your organization assert that no identifying features or 'private parts" can be seen on the image. Posters are saying you are not correct and challenging you to put up or shut up. Ypu won't put up, so your credibility shrinks to nothing.

April 19, 2008 4:51 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

I've begun reading the DHS Annual Employee Survey- I posted the link on the TSA blog earlier. If you have the interest, download the 43 pg PDF file. I think it supports some valid critical insights into the day to day interactions between the TSO's and the public. The evaluations of peer review, management and other areas is noteworthy.

April 19, 2008 5:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Nico, get your wife on here and have HER tell us how she feels about being stripped searched and how SHE feels about your kids being stripped searched by the MMW.

April 19, 2008 5:31 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Nico, expanding a bit on Sandra's kind words:

Every person going through that machine needs to be first given a copy of the PA statement that has a FRONTAL image of how they will be seen.

If the TSA has the guts to do that, then we'll see how many people choose to go through the machine.

And BTW, I agree with winstonsmith about the article in the newspaper - no where near 90% agreed to the MMW screening.


If you can claim 90% acceptance of your imaging technology, don't you think you would be seeing more positive feedback on this blog?

Presenting an unsubstantiated assertion and a statistically unsound study does not exactly convince anyone of anything.

Oh, and when will you be posting your TSA-sponsored study that shows 76% (not 90% -- by the way, out of what bodily orifice did you pull that 90% figure) acceptance rate for MMW? Or will this request be going the way of the repeated requests for you to post links that show the actual independent evidence that there are actual dangers from 4 and 5 oz bottles of cosmetics and 16 oz bottles of water?

April 19, 2008 6:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So we're up set because our management wants us to look like idiots. and for anyone who wants to debate me on that one just ask yourselves why would TSA invite the media to watch us fail a test that our then show the TSO if he would of just lifted the testers shirt he would of foud the IED which for those of you that dont know is a clear violation of the SOP.

In October of 2002 I had a kidney removed before traveling home. I still had the staples in place and a translucent piece of medical tape covering both the incision and staples. I set off the hand wand and the TSA screener wanted to do a pat-down. I lifted my shirt to show him the incision and to avoid having him open up the incision by clumsily patting me down. FYI that recent incision was 12 inches long. He wanted to remove the tape and would have had my wife not intervened. He screamed at her to stand back. You wonder why the traveling public doesn't like you.

So please give the TSOs a little bit of a break. Yes i know alot of the TSOs go way over the line. But while your on here complain about the Management not the not the one ignorant TSO you came in contact with.

Improve your act and you won't hear gripes. Improve your act and the traveling public won't villify you. Do nothing and you will continue to get lambasted as being thugs. FYI I travel 49 weeks out of the year with at least two flights, if not more per week and have been many airports.

As to the botton of the barrel TSA-wise it has to be either O'hare or Orlando. Some of the managment at O'hare is first class. I can't say that of the gate screeners.

April 19, 2008 6:52 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

I am a bit torn on this new technology. On one hand I feel it has to be better than being groped by an TSO, on the other hand I have privacy and safety concerns.

PRIVACY ISSUES

People have a certain expectation of privacy when they are wearing clothes.

Expectation of privacy is a very important Constitutional concept. One that allows me to photograph someone in public without their consent because they have no expectation of privacy, but does not allow me to photograph that same person in the same public setting with a modified Sony Night Shot camera that allows me to see their private parts, because that violates their expectation of privacy. If I photograph the private parts without consent I can be prosecuted as a peeping Tom.

Depending on how the backscatter or MMW device is presented to the person being screened will determine if the TSA violates that expectation of privacy with this virtual strip search.

The only way I can see the TSA can avoid a privacy issue without a lengthy explanation at the screening station would be a simple sign showing FRONT and back images of both a male and a female, informing the person to be screened what the image will look like. Kip should have no problem being a model for the sign, lead by example I say. (Time to hit the Stairmaster, Kip.)

The sign should also state what you can do if you do not want to undergo that type of screening.

In other words the people must give informed consent. Without informed consent the TSA is no better than a peeping Tom and in my view would be guilty as charged.

The lack of a front image being shown and the seeming reluctance by the TSA to show a front image tells me that the image is pretty "racy". If it wasn't racy the simple solution would be to show it.

Blogger Bob, I am challenging you to provide us with the front images. (Please, not one of you... I would rather remember you for your tie)

I challenge you because I trust you not to give a song and dance or a Photoshopped false image.

Until we can see the images we can not trust what the TSA says. Showing the front images will not violate SSI unless showing the back images does, so that should eliminate that argument.

Change of focus.

I would like to know what privacy groups the TSA talked to. ◄(not a rhetorical question)

I don't understand why group would agree that placing TSOs in a hidden location would be best to calm privacy concerns, personally I think that is a load of bunk.

I think the TSOs are in the remote location to protect the TSA and its image.

The TSA can not guarantee that the TSOs will not act in an inappropriate manner. The TSA can not guarantee that the person viewing the image will be of the appropriate sex. The TSA can not guarantee that the person viewing the image is not a pedophile or pervert. Any attempt to say different is a lie.

Personally I want the TSO that is viewing me or my family to be in plain sight. You can block in behind them to keep the public from viewing the images.

If a TSO acts ill mannered I want to have them handy to give them a quick lesson in manners.

Privacy Summary

▪ Show the front and back images of both male and female subjects on this blog, the web site and at the screening station so we can give informed consent.

▪ Place the screeners viewing the images in plain view of the person being screened. This should eliminate most inappropriate behavior.

▪ Inappropriate behavior by any TSO should not be tolerated. Any illegal behavior should be PUBLICLY prosecuted.

Safety concerns will be addressed in the next post.

April 19, 2008 7:27 PM

 
Anonymous Dennis said...

I dont care - do whatever we need to keep the air safe to fly.

April 19, 2008 7:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dennis said...
I dont care - do whatever we need to keep the air safe to fly.


Sorry Dennis, you just drew the black pebble and as such you will be the guest of honor at the security sacrifice, you know the one where you said "whatever we need to keep the air safe to fly." Human sacrifice was recently judged effective in keeping flying safe.

April 19, 2008 8:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@bob The TSA has gone through many extra steps to ensure the public is comfortable with this procedure. The public had some very understandable concerens and the TSA addressed those concerns.

I'm sorry Bob, but I have great difficulty believing you. The reason for that is your own cheery little post on this very blog claiming that a millimeter-wave scan is "noninvasive" and "nonoffensive," and that the resulting image is "friendly enough to post in a preschool" and "could even make the cover of Reader's Digest and not offend anybody." Those are your exact words, Bob, pasted directly from your blog post.

Yet when we asked your TSA colleagues to post some "nonoffensive" images of themselves and their families so we could verify the veracity of what you're claiming, they refused on the grounds that it would violate their privacy. If the images are indeed "friendly enough to post in a preschool," why should they have any problem posting them on this blog? The only thing I can reasonably imply from the reaction of your colleagues is that your statement (to put it as respectfully as possible) spins the truth to the point of vomiting from the vertigo. So we have every to doubt your reassurances that that "the TSA has addressed those concerns." If you're trying to improve the severe credibility problems your agency has with the public, you and your colleagues are not doing a very good job. In fact, they're making it worse.

Perhaps the way to look at this is that none of the concerns matter. The TSA is going to run their checkpoints exactly as they decide to run them regardless of "public concerns." Because the fact is that if the TSO decides to give a passenger the choice of being groped by a TSO or strip-searched by a millimeter-wave scanner, they will have to accept Hobson's choice if they want to fly today. The TSA can pretend to address passenger concerns by spinning the truth, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If we want to fly, we have no choice but to bow to the whims of the TSO who makes the final determination of whether we (and our belongings) are allowed into the sterile area. And we had preferably be docile and uncomplaining about it to avoid delays or retaliatory secondary searches (which are officially against policy, but TSOs who decide to use their authority to teach a misbehaving passenger proper Respect can be confident their bosses will back them 100% if it becomes an "incident" that requires official reaction). That's the message you're sending us, intentionally or otherwise.

April 19, 2008 11:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From FT TS/S forum:

"For all the talk of using the technology at PHX, I have yet to see one in action. I've flown out of PHX frequently since October when they were installed, and each time I go through the terminal with the scanners, they are sitting idle on the side. I wonder if it will be the same case at LAX."

What does that say about their use, Nico?

April 20, 2008 6:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still had the staples in place and a translucent piece of medical tape covering both the incision and staples...I lifted my shirt to show him the incision and to avoid having him open up the incision by clumsily patting me down. FYI that recent incision was 12 inches long. He wanted to remove the tape...

I've seen a couple of blog entries about issues with recent incisions, surgical staples, surgical tape, and screeners wanting to remove the tape.

Why doesn't the TSA have some procedures in place to deal with these situations? Does the TSA not realize that they could cause physical injury in these situations?

April 20, 2008 8:52 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall said...

"But while the backscatter produced a cartoon-like drawing of the person being screened, the millimeter wave machine produces a three-dimensional image that looks a little like an anatomically correct doll and is significantly more graphic."

The above from the AZ East Valley Tribune newspaper article that Nico referred to, in which, BTW, it was stated that 79% of those offered the choice of the strip search vs. the pat down, chose the strip search, not "over 90%".

No wonder this blog refuses to post a front view of a victim.

April 20, 2008 9:01 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall said...

"Why doesn't the TSA have some procedures in place to deal with these situations? Does the TSA not realize that they could cause physical injury in these situations?"

The TSA DOES have procedures in place to deal with situations such as dressings, only they don't follow them (what else is new?).

From the TSA website:

# The Security Officer will not ask you to, nor will he or she, remove a dressing during the screening process.

April 20, 2008 9:25 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Question for any Blog Operator or any DHS/TSA Official;

In conjunction with your Whole Body Imager issue with the public I have been asking for months now a couple of very simple questions rasied by some pretty outlandish statements from a TSO. Is TSA unable to respond to valid questions that "your customer" ask?

Why would TSA allow a poorly trained TSO to continue to screen passengers when they have proven by their own statements that they are not up to minimum standards to interact with the public?

Is TSA so unfunctional that the organization is not able to carry out effective corrective actions?

So again I ask:


What corrective action has been made to correct the screener who said the following?

"TSO NY said the following;

"that may be true, but without a prescription it doesn't go."

"It's all well to know the rules, but when you're on the checkpoint sometimes the rules get "changed" to suit the situation."

"TSA states that if those bottles are not labeled, they aren't allowed to go."




Are screeners not corrected when making rash, unsupported or wrong policy statements and provided needed retraining to improve their skills? Is this just another way to control the flying lawabiding public?

Please Bloggers/TSA tell me and others here what corrective action has been taken to educate TSO NY and others would so poorly understand their duties. Surely you will not let something like this go without corrective action!

But you have, haven't you?

April 20, 2008 12:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's put this in very simple terms. Next time you're in the airport, look around and ask yourself "How many of these people would I want to see naked?" Then keep in mind that, if TSOs are operating this MMW imaging machine, they would not only have to look at you (which is probably not the treat you think), but every single other person in that line with you. And then everyone else behind them. And the people in front of you.

Look, this may be difficult for you to understand as an individual (we're all beautiful to ourselves, aren't we?) but... The pat down is the hardest part for TSOs to get down. (I'm a trainer, I teach it, and it's a serious block.) Not because the procedure is hard, but because we really don't want to touch you. We'd really rather you just divested everything and never set off the alarm, or needed a pat down. Likewise, having seen the images produced both by backscatter and MMW technology, I don't want to see you that way either. For the most part, I'd really just never see you.
But then I couldn't do my job. And I have to do my job. Because even if, as someone mentioned here, the odds are 1299 in 1300 flights that everything is going to be peachy, just that one flight, if you're on it, is going to be the one you remember.

If you want security based on the odds of something happening, we can just dismantle the checkpoint, disclaim any governmental responsibility, and let you roll the dice. But we're doing the best we can with what's available. If you have a better idea, then by all means, TELL US.

April 20, 2008 1:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But we're doing the best we can with what's available. If you have a better idea, then by all means, TELL US.

We've been telling you if you would bother to read what we've written about. Let me attempt to summerize it for you:

Inconsistancies from airport to airport.
Liquids rules. Since when does 4 oz weight = 4 oz volume? The London bombers were assembling a bomb, not making explosives.
Made up on the spot SOPs.
No consequences for bad behavior on the part of any TSA employee when dealing with the public.
Rude/incompetant employees who treat the public as felons.

As to the odds, on anything happening on a flight, you mis quoted. Please read that again.

We'd really rather you just divested everything and never set off the alarm, or needed a pat down.

Divest us of artificial joints? Divest us of pacemakers? Divest us of all medical implants? Divest veterans and others who still carry metal inside them? The MMW might be okay with me only if it replaced pat downs (unless you saw a weapon) and that strict penalties for abuse of the imaging system were imposed. I'm talking some serious jail time 10 years, no parole/early release for violating the trust of the American people. Oh, and you would also have to ban USB thumb drives or disable the PC's USB ports because you can load quite a few images onto a USB thumb drive.

April 20, 2008 3:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Marshall,

I was the one who posted the bit about TSA attempting to remove the medical tape covering my incision. From what I've witnessed whenever you refer to the TSA web site you get an eye-roll (think of a teenager) from the TSO. The web site, isn't an official document and as such serves only as a rough guideline for the passengers. It isn't what TSOs work to since that is SSI.

TSOs can (and have proven) that they are above the law in providing security 'at any cost' to the travelers passing through airports.

April 20, 2008 3:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: Let's put this in very simple terms. Next time you're in the airport, look around and ask yourself "How many of these people would I want to see naked?"


I have no desire to see other passengers naked. I also have no desire to have you or any other TSO see me naked.

It's called MODESTY. It is a quality of the human condition that is present in most people to some degree.

The MMW is nothing more than a strip search. I will not submit to a strip search.

You can take the MMW imager and put it where the sun doesn't shine as far as I am concerned.

April 20, 2008 4:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous re TSA website:

No where on the TSA website is a qualifier posted saying "this is what we are telling you but we can change the rules any time we want and you can't know those rules because they are SSI."

I, myself, have taken a printout of a particular website page with me to the airport and showed it to screeners who were doing their job improperly. Often the screener cops an attitude and I immediately ask for a lead or supervisor who will read my printout and, wonder of wonder, in most cases AGREE with me and instruct to the screener in the proper way to handle my situation: orthopedic shoes.

Has the screener in question learned his or her lesson? I doubt it but at least with one passenger he or she was forced to follow what the TSA publishes on its website.

April 20, 2008 4:34 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Mr Anonymous TSO, you gave me me both a groan at your tired rhetoric and some food for thought when you said:

But then I couldn't do my job. And I have to do my job. Because even if, as someone mentioned here, the odds are 1299 in 1300 flights that everything is going to be peachy, just that one flight, if you're on it, is going to be the one you remember.

If you want security based on the odds of something happening, we can just dismantle the checkpoint, disclaim any governmental responsibility, and let you roll the dice. But we're doing the best we can with what's available. If you have a better idea, then by all means, TELL US.


If you had been paying attention to this blog since it started you would have noticed that there have been many many suggestions for improvement at the checkpoint, starting with better trained TSOs (didn't you say you were a trainer -- were you the one who taught them to say "do you want to fly today?").

All snarkiness aside, however, you asked for ideas. I have some thoughts that are based largely on what's available to us now (or could be made available to us fairly quickly) and not on some fantastical notion of new and unproven technolgy.

If you look at airport security as a chain and go by the adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, to strengthen the whole chain you either strengthen the weakest link or shorten the chain by eliminating the weak link.

Checkpoint security is the weak link in the TSA chain. By its own admission the organization misses significant numbers of prohibited items. Checkpoint security is always at least a step behind, always (over)reacting to something that happened in the past and not looking at the larger picture. The people who staff the checkpoints are not typically the best and brightest this country has to offer (usually the best and brightest demand to be paid as if they are the best and brightest) and are not empowered to use common sense (nor apparently in some cases common courtesy) in their daily duties. To date TSA has not been able to cite a single instance where its checkpoint security procedures have caught an individual with terrorist intent. Yes, the TSA has caught some individuals with some contraband items, but the mere presence of those items does not prove terrorist intent. What the checkpoints have managed to do, on the other hand, is to make the whole airport experience at best annoying, and for some an excruciating and terrifying experience, and in all cases a violation of several of our constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th).

So you offer the suggestion, and intriguing one at that, that we might be better off without the checkpoints and to "take our chances." I submit to you Sir, that we might just be. No checkpoints you ask? What would we do about security? Well how about this... real security. Let's look to the stronger links in the chain.

1) Better cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the airlines. Instead of having a blanket no-fly list, have the law enforcement agencies provide a list of specific individuals to the airlines on a periodic basis (daily? weekly? tbd?) whom they wish to watch. Should one of these individuals book a flight, the airline notifies the appropriate law enforcement agency. This could be arranged through law and the courts (for the appropriate authorizations) without violating anyone's constitutional rights.

2) Increased uniformed and non-uniformed law enforcement presence at the airports. I'm not talking about rent-a-cops here, I'm talking about actual beat police officers who have arrest authority and training to look for actual suspicious activity. Yes they cost money, but with the cost savings from the elimination of the checkpoints we can certainly redirect funds in that direction. One would certainly expect a uniformed officer be present at the gate when planes were boarding. One would certainly expect that the undercover guys would be looking for people mixing together their 5 and 6 oz tubes of toothpaste in order to make bombs.

3) Continue and beef up the BDO program. This program works, plain and simple. The BDO spots something, reports it to a plainclothes officer with the appropriate training to interview the individual to determine whether there is really a threat and take appropriate action, or not, as the situation warrants.

4) Continue examining cargo and checked baggage for explosives. Ensure that there is a monitored and documented chain of custody for all baggage from the moment that it leaves the passenger's hand to the moment it arrives at the baggage claim to minimize the possibility of theft or of "bad stuff" being put in. If Fed Ex and UPS can do it, so can the TSA.

5) Expand and beef up the Federal Air Marshall Service. Put more FAMS on planes. Make sure the existing FAMS are compensated adequately for the work they do and that they get adequate downtime so they don't get burned out. Again, with the money wasted on checkpoint security this could easily be done.

6) Keep doing what we already have done: Keep the cockpit door closed no matter what happens back in the passenger compartment. Keep it reinforced. Once it's locked, it's locked. Don't allow passengers to congregate up by the cockpit door. This is just common sense.

So there you have it.. you asked for some ideas. I gave you some ideas. I'm sure there are other people out there who have other ideas that are even better than mine. The whole point though is that there are multiple approaches to solving a problem. When one approach is shown to be a failure, as in the case of airline checkpoints, scrap it in favor of a different method.

April 20, 2008 5:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The web site, isn't an official document and as such serves only as a rough guideline for the passengers. It isn't what TSOs work to since that is SSI.

Interesting. How many times have we seen posts from TSA people talking about how the "simple rules" are posted on the web site?

April 20, 2008 5:15 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

SAFETY ISSUES

I wanted to get some hard numbers on the MMW device before posting. I hate to be Chicken Little if there is no need.

Instead of hard numbers all I can find are comfort phrases like "For comparison, the energy projected by the system is 10,000 times less than a cell phone transmission" or "We, and all objects around us, generate millimeter wave energy - and we are exposed to it every single day of our lives"

Now both those statement may be true and they do sound good, but they really do not give us enough information to determine if this system is safe. My stereo generates more power than my microwave but it can't boil water. The amount of power this device produces is less important to determining safety than the frequency of the wave it generates.

I went to Pub Med to see if any scientific articles have been submitted showing the safety of this device, I found NONE.

I went to L3's website to see if they had any technical specs or studies showing the safety of this device available, I found NONE.

What I did find were more of those annoying comfort phrases like "As safe to use as a cell phone". A gun, in the proper hands, is as "safe to use as a cell phone" too. In the hands of a fool it is a very dangerous tool.

I did find this interesting tidbit "User programmable algorithms ensure the preservation of privacy". Begs the question of who sets the algorithms? Is the image fine tuning available to the the TSO running the machine?

I went to the FDA site to see if they had given approval for this device. As you can imagine I found nothing, zip. What I did find however scared the hell out of me.

Q19) How long does it take for CDRH to approve my product after a report receives an accession number?
A) CDRH DOES NOT approve electronic products that emit radiation. CDRH does not have the authority, nor does any other federal agency, to approve the radiation safety of an electronic product that emits radiation. If CDRH has not contacted you about your report, it means that we have not identified any significant deficiencies with the report or questions about your product.


SAFETY SUMMARY

▪ The safety of the MMW device can not be verified based on the data available to me.

▪ Comfort phrases are no substitute for hard data.

▪ The FDA does NOT approve radiation emitting devices or have the authority to evaluate the safety of the MMW device.

With this lack of information available to the public and lack of regulatory over site, we can not determine if the risks of this device out weighs the benefit.

I ask the TSA to provide the following safety data on this device.

▪ What is the power and frequency of the radiation produced?

▪ What is the upper limit of exposure to this device that is considered safe?

▪ What methods were employed to deem this device safe?

April 20, 2008 7:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" winstonsmith said...
Did the TSA inform each individual that they had the choice between a pat down or a virtual strip search?"

A virtual reality search? Did you take the red pill? How far does the rabbit hole go?

April 20, 2008 7:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said... An actual frontal millimeter-wave scan of Kip Hawley, Nico, Bob, or Jon should prove that those statements are true. Since you (understandably?) take offense at the idea of posing for the cover of Reader's Digest, the only thing we can conclude is that those statements lack real credibility, and that millimeter-wave scanning really is just a high-tech form of strip search. "

Wow! Hyperbole... circular logic... gross assumption... name calling... insinuation... even innuendo...

Your drama teacher might have given you a good grade on this bit of comic opera, but your debate teacher would have failed you flat!

April 20, 2008 7:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To date TSA has not been able to cite a single instance where its checkpoint security procedures have caught an individual with terrorist intent."

That does not prove that TSA cannot do the job. It only proves that the enemy has not yet tried.

Badly twisted and illogical.

April 20, 2008 7:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...a violation of several of our constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th)."

No, it is not. You people keep harping on this. I suspect you feel that if you repeat the lie often enough readers will begin to accept it.

April 20, 2008 7:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Instead of having a blanket no-fly list, have the law enforcement agencies provide a list of specific individuals to the airlines on a periodic basis (daily? weekly? tbd?) whom they wish to watch."

There is no "blanket no-fly list." The list, while imperfect in execution, is intended to be exactly what you describe. And why is it imperfect? Because no one wants to take the time or spend the money to make it work better. Simply too many agencies involved.

April 20, 2008 7:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Increased uniformed and non-uniformed law enforcement presence at the airports. I'm not talking about rent-a-cops here, I'm talking about actual beat police officers who have arrest authority and training to look for actual suspicious activity. Yes they cost money, but with the cost savings from the elimination of the checkpoints we can certainly redirect funds in that direction. One would certainly expect a uniformed officer be present at the gate when planes were boarding. One would certainly expect that the undercover guys would be looking for people mixing together their 5 and 6 oz tubes of toothpaste in order to make bombs."

First, every TSO I've ever talked to would like to have uniformed police working in cooperation with TSA. Every TSO I've ever talked to also said that no police or airport has been willing to provide.

Second, providing the depth of police coverage you envision would require a man power commitment as larger than the number of screeners now used at the check points. Add in the specialized training and administrative costs, and it quickly would become just as expensive as present check point. Not to mention the jurisdictional and regulatory problems. With no guarentee that it would work of course; just your assumptions.

Your remark about catching someone mixing toothpaste is irrational. Why do you always feel compelled to emotionalize the issue by adding in these snide remarks and half truths disguised as part of the discussion?

April 20, 2008 8:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Fed Ex and UPS can do it, so can the TSA."

No, they can't. Again you emotionalizing the argument instead of keeping it logical. Yes, baggage and cargo screening are important and necessary. But UPS employs every person who handles any package they ship. TSA has no control over airline employees and no authority or jurisdiction to monitor a private corporations employees. It looks as if you are deliberately avoiding the simple fact that things stolen from bags are stolen by airline empoyees, because you want to shift the blame onto TSA.

April 20, 2008 8:18 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Bob said...

The TSA has gone through many extra steps to ensure the public is comfortable with this procedure. The public had some very understandable concerens and the TSA addressed those concerns.

Now our very own critics who fear their privacy will be vilotaed have no problem with our image being posted all over the internet for the world to see?


Sorry Blogger Bob, the TSA has not addressed our concerns adequately. Sad part is the concerns could be addressed easily. Just show the front side of someone being screened. Let us see if the pictures are pre-school safe. And give us the safety data on the MMW.

As for your confusion on why the folks most worried about their privacy being violated are not worried about your privacy being violated. Be confused no longer, see we (the public) are not trying to convince you (the TSA) that the images are pre-school safe.

If the images are as "safe" as you claim, you should have no problem being the guinea pig.

This reminds me of the guy that tried to convince me to urinate on an electric fence. No matter how many times he tried to tell me it would not hurt or that he has done it a million times, I told him the same thing I am telling you. "You go first". Prove to me that there is nothing to fear.

April 20, 2008 8:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Trollkiller said...
SAFETY ISSUES

I wanted to get some hard numbers on the MMW device before posting. I hate to be Chicken Little if there is no need."

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You felt the system was bad, and you researched it to find the proof. But when you found no proof, you decided that the lack of proof was evidence enough?

TSA is bad. The system came from TSA so that proves the system is bad. And since the bad system came from TSA, that proves TSA is bad.

The sad thing is, there are people who will not see the basic fallacy in your circular logic.

April 20, 2008 8:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the power and frequency of the radiation produced?

That depends on if it is the passive or active system. The passive system uses MMW emited by everyone. Yep, we all glow across the electromagnetic spectrum. The power output is pretty small and the frequency is around 110GHz. The active system doesn't have to emit much RF since the receiver is in close proximity to the transmitter. A safe estimate would be around .001W or 1x10^-3W or 1mW or -30dBm, in other words, not a whole lot of power.

RF isn't the same as x-rays since x-rays, gamma rays, etc are all considered IONIZING radiation. MMW RF is the same as a low frequency light (think lower than the lowest IR source). When you bask in raw sunlight you get exposed to around 1mW/cm^2. Not much power unless you've just started the tanning season and decide to over do it (several hours in the sun) and get a minor sun burn.

How many of us have old microwave ovens? Do you know that they leak RF? Here's an experiment you can try on your own microwave oven. Take a fluoresecent lamp, turn off the lights, turn on your microwave oven, then wave the lamp next to the oven. It might light up (dimly) You live with a leaky microwave oven, high powered TV/radio transmitters, cell phone towers, sunlight, etc. This is several orders of magnitude higher than the power levels used in MMW imaging.

Does this worry me? Nope. What worries me is an out of control agency promising us that it will behave itself and do what is right. That worries me.

Want to double your exposure to ionizing radiation? Move from a wooden house to a brick house.

April 20, 2008 8:56 PM

 
Anonymous ibored said...

I'm curious if anyone from the TSA has any legitimate comments on why the comprehensive posts made by commenters are
a) far better researched than the bloggers
b)accurate
c)cite facts

April 20, 2008 9:47 PM

 
Blogger Dinah Moe Humm said...

I was ready to suggest a special lane at screening so I could volunteer to use the MMW, until I saw your response to the question on joint replacement implants. If I STILL must go through the pat-down due to my artificial hips, this is a costly waste.

April 20, 2008 11:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems like there has been some lying going on on this blog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMMXO_GmWw0

Better bring a metal plate with you if you intend to fly.

April 21, 2008 8:06 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

An anonymous person calls out from the shadows:

"To date TSA has not been able to cite a single instance where its checkpoint security procedures have caught an individual with terrorist intent."

That does not prove that TSA cannot do the job. It only proves that the enemy has not yet tried.

Badly twisted and illogical.


No, Anonymous, the statement stands on its own. The TSA can't show that it has stopped anyone with terrorist intent. The statement did not say whether the TSA could do it. Nor did the statement suggest that anyone had tried to. The TSA's own track record, however, speaks for itself. With the ingenuity of people who are determined to do something and with the general and documented ineptness of the people at the checkpoints, it is highly likely that a determined individual or group of individuals would be able to get through whatever it was that they were seeking to get through.

April 21, 2008 11:00 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

This anonymous person takes umbrage with the following:

"...a violation of several of our constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th)."

No, it is not. You people keep harping on this. I suspect you feel that if you repeat the lie often enough readers will begin to accept it.


Ah, my Anonymous friend, you confuse me with Fox News. No, my contention that the TSA regularly violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments is based in sound argument that I have gone into repeatedly in other places on this blog (most recently a couple of days ago on the other post about the Behavior Detection Officer program in response to someone's question about what rights we are giving up).

Now while I hold that my arguments are sound, I'll be happy to have a reasoned debate about it with anyone. I don't always support everything I throw out there with carefully researched facts; however, if pressed to do so, I'll provide cites and evidence to back up anything and everything I put out there. Questions of constitutionality are complex and rarely straightforward -- if they were we would not have a need for a Supreme Court. Calling me a liar, however, without telling me why what I'm saying is untrue, does not quite cut it.

April 21, 2008 11:12 AM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Dear Blog Team,

Whereas you never respond to comments in older entries, only in the most recent and most active entry, I am forced to post these same questions again.

1. Every chemist who has been asked has answered that there is no scientific basis for the 3-1-1 rule. Yes, we know about the London plot, with some guys who had no equipment and no knowledge and no plans beyond the "gee this would be a neat idea" stage, but the fact is that science has refuted both their plot and your rule. It's obvious that the TSA itself knows the rule lacks any scientific basis by the free mixing of liquids in an unshielded trash can at the check point. Given all of that, why do you keep the 3-1-1 rule?

2. It is TSA policy that TSOs do not have the authority to deny someone the right to fly. It is also TSA policy to not give additional screening to someone as a punishment for complaining. Note, the order of events in that statement is not extra screening leading to complaint, but complaint leading to extra screening. This question has nothing to do with avoiding extra screening by complaining about it - this question has everything to do with getting extra screening because one dared to complain about the TSA. Given that TSOs still hold complainers for extra screening, and given that holding someone for extra screening until after their plane is in the air is de facto denial of flight (although apparently not de jure), is there any plan in place to dicipline screeners to conduct retaliatory screening and de facto denial of flight?

3. Given that nipple rings are clearly not deadly weapons, clearly not disguised weapons, and that a visual inspection was actually offered as a means to solve the alarm situation, why was the traveler with the nipple rings forced to remove them?

4. In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses. What plans does the TSA have to give additional screening to 100% of the travelers from those states? Have additional personnel requirements and additional space requirements already been analyzed? Given that one of those states is California, with several major national and international hubs, do you think that the insistance on REAL ID instead of a regular drivers license is overly onerous a burden?

5. The demonstrations about imaging technology only shows an image of a man from the rear as proof that frontal images will not show any intimate details. To further support the promise that intimate details are not shown, the viewing screen used by the TSA is carefully protected from verificational view by the public. Given the track record of the TSA on "just trust us" issues, do you really feel yet another "just trust us but don't verify" is a way to increase public trust in the TSA?

6. What measures are being taken to ensure that images from your new advanced technologies are not overly invasive and do not ever leave the TSA?

7. What measures are being taken to ensure that terrorists themselves do not infiltrate the TSA with the objective of becoming TSOs and therefore bypass security to get deadly devices planted on airplanes? If you cannot answer that for security reasons, can you tell us if any measures are in place at all?

8. Given that this blog is about facilitating communication, why does nobody on the blog team ever answer comments in any but the most recent entry?

The common theme in these questions is that the TSA has an institutional impediment to admitting error. The closest you ever come is "we are reviewing policies." Even the TSA knows the 3-1-1 rule has no scientific backing, but to repeal that regulation is to admit they did something wrong. They cannot admit they did something wrong. Therefore the rule cannot be repealed. The more I question them about their obvious mistakes, the harder it is for them to avoid admitting you made a mistake.

They can, and do, make mistakes. They erred on the 3-1-1 rule, they erred on the piercings, they are going to err on REAL ID.

April 21, 2008 11:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! Hyperbole... circular logic... gross assumption... name calling... insinuation... even innuendo...

Your drama teacher might have given you a good grade on this bit of comic opera, but your debate teacher would have failed you flat!

April 20, 2008 7:38 PM

...........................
A little hysterical are we?

I think the poster your complaining about summed it up rather nicely.

We have been told that the MMW images are degraded enough to be presented to young children without concern.

Nico was asked to display his and his families images front and back.

Nico said he wants to preserve his privacy and apparently will not agree to the diplay of the requested images. If the images do not display any personally identifiable information then what privacy is being surrendered?

This fact alone seems to confirm the belief that these images are not quiet as innocent as represented by the TSA Propaganda Machine.

If TSA wants to be more open they can certainly post the requested images and prove the truth of the matter and put this to rest once and for all.

So the question remains; Why do they hesitate?

April 21, 2008 11:34 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall said...

To anonymous at 7:23, 7:38; 7:51; 7:54 and 7:57:

Why did you not put all your remarks into one post?

April 21, 2008 12:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tsa tso NY @April 19, 2008 1:21 PM: "If [her tampon]'s metal.... Sure will!"

But Nico said:"MMW allows us to see under the clothes but not through the skin."

At least one of you TSA folks is wrong. TSA TSO NY's been wrong before, so it could just be him, but in general TSA can't keep its story straight. How can we know that the purposeful blurring of MMW imagery isn't inconsistently applied, just like the rest of TSA's procedures?

April 21, 2008 12:33 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

TSA has no control over airline employees and no authority or jurisdiction to monitor a private corporations employees. It looks as if you are deliberately avoiding the simple fact that things stolen from bags are stolen by airline empoyees, because you want to shift the blame onto TSA.

No, the TSA does not control airline baggage handlers or other airport personnel. The TSA does, however, require that checked luggage be unlocked, which invites theft. If the government is requiring you to leave your property unguarded, it is reasonable to assume that the government will assume the responsibility to safeguard it. The chain of custody is simply a tool for the government to use to help track down where a problem might be should someone in or outside of the TSA be found to be stealing or introducing foreign items into luggage.

April 21, 2008 1:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will people learn that lying is a privilege and not some right granted by the constitution. This is like everything else in the world; it only takes one person to screw it up to get labels, warnings, and more strict regulations on some things. Live with it or drive….and for all of you that are about to say that you can’t go overseas with a car……I guess you better live with it and stop complaining.

April 21, 2008 1:36 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

"Trollkiller said...
SAFETY ISSUES

I wanted to get some hard numbers on the MMW device before posting. I hate to be Chicken Little if there is no need."

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You felt the system was bad, and you researched it to find the proof. But when you found no proof, you decided that the lack of proof was evidence enough?

TSA is bad. The system came from TSA so that proves the system is bad. And since the bad system came from TSA, that proves TSA is bad.

The sad thing is, there are people who will not see the basic fallacy in your circular logic.


A swing and a miss. I make no assumption that the device is dangerous nor do I make the assumption that the device is safe.

If you take the time to read what I wrote you will see I never stated the MMW device was unsafe, I said I could not verify the safety with the data available to me.

It concerns me that I am unable to find evidence either way except for the manufacturer's assurance that "using the device is as safe as a cell phone". I read the word "using" to mean the operator running it, not the person subject to it.

On the other hand with the backscatter device I was able to find from that manufacturer that the upper limit of safe screenings is 5000 in a year.

Now go look around and see if I have mentioned the safety of the backscatter device. You will see I haven't because that data is available to me. I can see by the manufacturer and the EPA's website that the amount of radiation is negligible.

Sorry no circular logic here.

April 21, 2008 1:48 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Another anonymous person observes in response to a few of my ideas:

"Instead of having a blanket no-fly list, have the law enforcement agencies provide a list of specific individuals to the airlines on a periodic basis (daily? weekly? tbd?) whom they wish to watch."

There is no "blanket no-fly list." The list, while imperfect in execution, is intended to be exactly what you describe. And why is it imperfect? Because no one wants to take the time or spend the money to make it work better. Simply too many agencies involved.


There has been of late some attempt to clean up the no-fly list to reduce the number individuals who appear on it in error. How someone ends up on the no-fly list however, even the freshly scrubbed one, is still somewhat shrouded in mystery. No one seems to know, and if they do know, they ain't telling.

I think I may not have been clear in my ideas. I was not suggesting that we even keep the no fly list. I was suggesting that whatever police agency that was interested in monitoring the movements of an individual go to the court, get an appropriate court order, and serve that order on the airlines to advise if such and such individual books a flight or checks in or sends cargo or whatever. This could certainly be done, much in the same way we have implemented FISA.

You are correct that there are certain legal hurdles to overcome with this approach (for example, it would require appropriate legislation to be passed in Congress to authorize it); however, it certainly is far more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the way things are supposed to work in this country.

April 21, 2008 2:00 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

What is the power and frequency of the radiation produced?

That depends on if it is the passive or active system. The passive system uses MMW emited by everyone. Yep, we all glow across the electromagnetic spectrum. The power output is pretty small and the frequency is around 110GHz. The active system doesn't have to emit much RF since the receiver is in close proximity to the transmitter. A safe estimate would be around .001W or 1x10^-3W or 1mW or -30dBm, in other words, not a whole lot of power.


Passive systems would not concern me. What I saw of the passive system the image of the person looks like a light colored blob and the contraband looks like a dark colored blob. I imagine they did not go the passive route because it would be ineffective.

The L3 Pro Vision is an active system.

Thank you for taking the time to give your power estimates and your explanation of MMW. I would still like the hard numbers from the TSA.

April 21, 2008 2:07 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To my anonymous friend who questions my logic, writing style, and honesty in the following:

"Increased uniformed and non-uniformed law enforcement presence at the airports. I'm not talking about rent-a-cops here, I'm talking about actual beat police officers who have arrest authority and training to look for actual suspicious activity. Yes they cost money, but with the cost savings from the elimination of the checkpoints we can certainly redirect funds in that direction. One would certainly expect a uniformed officer be present at the gate when planes were boarding. One would certainly expect that the undercover guys would be looking for people mixing together their 5 and 6 oz tubes of toothpaste in order to make bombs."

First, every TSO I've ever talked to would like to have uniformed police working in cooperation with TSA. Every TSO I've ever talked to also said that no police or airport has been willing to provide.

Second, providing the depth of police coverage you envision would require a man power commitment as larger than the number of screeners now used at the check points. Add in the specialized training and administrative costs, and it quickly would become just as expensive as present check point. Not to mention the jurisdictional and regulatory problems. With no guarentee that it would work of course; just your assumptions.

Your remark about catching someone mixing toothpaste is irrational. Why do you always feel compelled to emotionalize the issue by adding in these snide remarks and half truths disguised as part of the discussion?


Important to remember here is that the idea is to get rid of the checkpoints altogether here in this series of ideas and to rely on the stronger links in the chain. Nowhere in my suggestions did I mean to imply that there would be no dollar cost to this. As for the jurisdictional questions and unwillingness of airports and municipalities to provide police officers, who said these police officers had to be provided by the airports and municipalities? If crimes against transportation are a federal crime, then federal police ought to be out there to enforce the rules. Can I guarantee this would work? No I can't. It's an idea -- and by no means the only idea that smart minds could come up with to improve things (I note that you did not offer a competing proposal of any kind). What I can say though is that the current checkpoint system does not function effectively in its present form and needs some serious help.

As to my bringing snark about toothpaste into the discussion, I'm sure that while that comment rattled your cage in a negative way, others took it in the spirit it was intended -- a not so good natured jab at the TSA's pointless war on toiletries. If you can point to the half-truth in anything I have said and correct me with something you are able to document from a reliable and credible source I'll accept the correction gracefully.

April 21, 2008 2:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@winstonsmith The TSA does, however, require that checked luggage be unlocked, which invites theft. If the government is requiring you to leave your property unguarded, it is reasonable to assume that the government will assume the responsibility to safeguard it.

This raises an important question that I'd like the TSA blog staff to answer: Which of your 20-odd "layers of security" protects passenger's belongings? I can't tell that from the reduced PowerPoint slide you included in an earlier post.

April 21, 2008 2:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ayn r. key said "Every chemist who has been asked has answered that there is no scientific basis for the 3-1-1 rule."

Why do you keep repeating that? You obviously haven't asked the chemists who work for the Homeland Security Department. The TSA says on their website that the 3-1-1 rule is the based on of extensive research. Read it for yourself. That research is appropriately classified, since we don't want our enemies to misuse the research for mixing explosives that can evade TSA screening. If you choose not to trust what the TSA says, it's you're right. And it's your fault.

Remember that the TSA completely banned all liquids in carryons when the London plot was thank God foiled before the terrorists could do harm. The TSA is being very genrous to us by creating a very simple, easily understood rule that lets us bring on small SAFE amounts of the liquids we need on the flight. Instead of complaining about it endlessly and disregarding the careful reserach the TSA did TO MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR US, why don't we all just spend a few seconds LEARNING the rules, and a few more seconds OBEYING them? That way we can help the hard-working screeners do their job, and reduce the hassel of going through screening. Maybe if you smile appreciate and thank the screeners for what they're doing to PROTECT US instead of being angry at them, the screening experience will be a lot more pleasant for everyone.

We have to work together with the TSA to defeat the terrorist enemy. The TSA has access to classified intelligence, so their job is to make whatever rules are necessary based on what they know about our enemy. Our job is to OBEY the rules, and do everyting we can to help the TSA do their job rather than bogging them down with whining and complaining. We don't have to know WHY the rules are there, except to know that the rules PROTECT US and keep aviation SAFE. Let the people who know what's going on do the thinking. Let we passengers do the obeying. That's what is needed to make the TSA effective protection. Let's not make trouble for an agency that is doing everything possible to PROTECT US FROM HORRIBLE EVIL!!!

April 21, 2008 3:16 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Sayeth Anonymous at 3:16 PM

Why do you keep repeating that? You obviously haven't asked the chemists who work for the Homeland Security Department. The TSA says on their website that the 3-1-1 rule is the based on of extensive research. Read it for yourself. That research is appropriately classified, since we don't want our enemies to misuse the research for mixing explosives that can evade TSA screening. If you choose not to trust what the TSA says, it's you're right. And it's your fault.

Yes, the TSA says so. Chemists say otherwise. That's why the research is classified. Your blind faith is amazing, given all the example of the TSA being less than honest with us. I repeated that Chemists say otherwise, because it is true that Chemists say otherwise.

That's why the "extensive research" is classified.

We have to work together with the TSA to defeat the terrorist enemy.

Even when the TSA is wrong?

The TSA has access to classified intelligence, so their job is to make whatever rules are necessary based on what they know about our enemy.

Does classified intelligence include means to violate the laws of Chemistry?

Our job is to OBEY the rules, and do everyting we can to help the TSA do their job rather than bogging them down with whining and complaining.

Is our job to obey the rules even when the rules are wrong?

We don't have to know WHY the rules are there, except to know that the rules PROTECT US and keep aviation SAFE.

But when we know, for a fact, that the rule itself is wrong, how does it protect us?

Let the people who know what's going on do the thinking.

That's what I'm doing.

Let we passengers do the obeying.

Even when the rule is wrong?

That's what is needed to make the TSA effective protection. Let's not make trouble for an agency that is doing everything possible to PROTECT US FROM HORRIBLE EVIL!!!

The irony is that I'm trying to protect you from a horrible evil.

April 21, 2008 4:10 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

"Remember that the TSA completely banned all liquids in carryons when the London plot was thank God foiled before the terrorists could do harm. The TSA is being very genrous to us by creating a very simple, easily understood rule that lets us bring on small SAFE amounts of the liquids we need on the flight. Instead of complaining about it endlessly and disregarding the careful reserach the TSA did TO MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR US, why don't we all just spend a few seconds LEARNING the rules, and a few more seconds OBEYING them? That way we can help the hard-working screeners do their job, and reduce the hassel of going through screening. Maybe if you smile appreciate and thank the screeners for what they're doing to PROTECT US instead of being angry at them, the screening experience will be a lot more pleasant for everyone.

We have to work together with the TSA to defeat the terrorist enemy. The TSA has access to classified intelligence, so their job is to make whatever rules are necessary based on what they know about our enemy. Our job is to OBEY the rules, and do everyting we can to help the TSA do their job rather than bogging them down with whining and complaining. We don't have to know WHY the rules are there, except to know that the rules PROTECT US and keep aviation SAFE. Let the people who know what's going on do the thinking. Let we passengers do the obeying. That's what is needed to make the TSA effective protection. Let's not make trouble for an agency that is doing everything possible to PROTECT US FROM HORRIBLE EVIL!!!"

Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer people all the time who think like the poster who wrote the above does.

Truthfully, I feel truly sorry for someone who thinks like this. Are you able to sleep at night waiting for the HORRIBLE EVIL to get you?

April 21, 2008 5:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sandra: Truthfully, I feel truly sorry for someone who thinks like this. Are you able to sleep at night waiting for the HORRIBLE EVIL to get you?

Something like 30% of the American people continue to support and believe in President Bush. So it's reasonable to suppose that a similar percentage of travelers believe the TSA is doing a good job of keeping us safe. Perhaps they even welcome millimeter wave strip searches and the War on Liquids and Shoes as reassuring proof that the government is doing something about the horrible threat of terrorism.

I don't think anything will convince these people otherwise. And it might even be needlessly cruel to argue to them that the TSO who barks "reassuring" orders at them while they stand in stockinged feet is merely an actor in the security theater.

Take a deep breath and be thankful (and amazed, if you think about it) that the TSA has given us a forum where so many different opinions can be openly expressed.

April 21, 2008 6:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take a deep breath and be thankful (and amazed, if you think about it) that the TSA has given us a forum where so many different opinions can be openly expressed.

Personally, I think this is a honey trap and folks who express contrary opinions here will be identified and placed on a watch list.

April 21, 2008 8:50 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Let's not make trouble for an agency that is doing everything possible to PROTECT US FROM HORRIBLE EVIL!!!"

ROTFL, really, that is the funniest thing anyone has posted on this blog. I almost choked on my curried chicken and rice. Is this a wish, or a prayer? I am going to refrain from picking apart the rest of your post line by line, out of a giddy survival instinct.

I'd like to know if TSA can even begin to protect us from it's own blunders, excesses, and mission creep, never mind actually catching a terrorist, someday soon, going to catch one, someday soon...

April 21, 2008 9:28 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Something like 30% of the American people continue to support and believe in President Bush."

Wow, that many... I'd have thought it was 30 total, not 30%. Maybe 31 including Condoleezza Rice.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time" A. Lincoln....

"Take a deep breath and be thankful (and amazed, if you think about it) that the TSA has given us a forum where so many different opinions can be openly expressed."

Few real answers though, and personally I am not amazed. I believe that upper management ran out of possible answers on their own, and decided to pick the brains of the passengers whom they treat like carrion. Along with what I will now refer to as carrion luggage. But don't mind me, I get just a bit cynical.

April 21, 2008 9:42 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"I don't think anything will convince these people otherwise. And it might even be needlessly cruel to argue to them that the TSO who barks "reassuring" orders at them while they stand in stockinged feet is merely an actor in the security theater."

I was hoping to follow the trail of sloppy bread crumbs to some bit of logic or truth. Sorry, but you lost me at about 30%.

High marks for fantasy. Please tell me you have been chosen to replace GWB's current speech writer. I could use the comic relief.

April 21, 2008 9:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Does classified intelligence include means to violate the laws of Chemistry?"

I listen to everyone hear, and one says" Small liquids Bad.", then one says "No it's not". But neither side can give me PROOF of what they say. Anyone who says ALL chemists is a fool, as their is NO WAY ALL CHEMISTS can weigh in on it. Then you get the other side saying, well, it's true but classified.

I say put up or shut up. Any takers?

April 21, 2008 10:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If the government is requiring you to leave your property unguarded, it is reasonable to assume that the government will assume the responsibility to safeguard it."

Why is it reasonable to assume that? I find that your logic falls apart here. To use a gross analogy, the government requires me to drive the spped limit, but I don't assume they or the speed limit will keep me safe. I think you are reaching to make your arguement valid.
As for locks, I lock'em anyways. I've only have one cut. I now use the TSA Snetry Locks, and have nto havd a problem.

April 21, 2008 10:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ah, my Anonymous friend, you confuse me with Fox News. No, my contention that the TSA regularly violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments is based in sound argument that I have gone into repeatedly in other places on this blog (most recently a couple of days ago on the other post about the Behavior Detection Officer program in response to someone's question about what rights we are giving up).

Now while I hold that my arguments are sound, I'll be happy to have a reasoned debate about it with anyone. I don't always support everything I throw out there with carefully researched facts; however, if pressed to do so, I'll provide cites and evidence to back up anything and everything I put out there."

How does this all connect with the Administrative Searched that TSA sreens passengers under? Is this something that has been decided in the court system, or is it you sound logical but without any court decisions to back you up? One person has already said that the Adm. Searches are illegal, but they haven't been through the court system yet. SAY WHAT? That smacks of someone's opionon and NOT actaul court decisions.

April 21, 2008 10:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The TSA can't show that it has stopped anyone with terrorist intent."

I've asked this question before, but can anyone show that TSA is deterring the "bad guys" from trying?

April 21, 2008 10:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This raises an important question that I'd like the TSA blog staff to answer: Which of your 20-odd "layers of security" protects passenger's belongings? I can't tell that from the reduced PowerPoint slide you included in an earlier post.

TSA points at the airlines and the airlines points at TSA. No one wants to accept responsibility for making the luggage available for pilferage. You, the passenger, however take it on the chin.

April 21, 2008 10:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm curious if anyone from the TSA has any legitimate comments on why the comprehensive posts made by commenters are
a) far better researched than the bloggers
b)accurate
c)cite facts"

I find this statement false. So far, all this blog has been if TSA sez THIS: Bloogers say THAT: Bloogers say more of THAT: TSA sez more of THIS. This blog is full of people saying stuff, but no links to back it up to outside sources. It's very frustrating and annoying to have someone type:
"Yes, the TSA says so. Chemists say otherwise"
What chemists? Where? Who? Just because you type it doesn't make it any truer than is TSA types it. This whole blog is full of Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

April 21, 2008 10:54 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Somewhat openly expressed. The first time I posted my list of questions the blog comment was not approved. There were less than 30 comments. Heaven forbid the casual reader see my questions - they might want the TSA to answer them. Instead if there are 75+ posts in front of them only the most dedicated would notice them.

April 21, 2008 11:40 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Ayn R. Key said...

Yes, the TSA says so. Chemists say otherwise. That's why the research is classified. Your blind faith is amazing, given all the example of the TSA being less than honest with us. I repeated that Chemists say otherwise, because it is true that Chemists say otherwise.


What do your chemists say about the use of nitroglycerin? No mixing required and it has already been used. Thank God and good piloting that the only loss was one passenger.

April 22, 2008 12:58 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Sandra, blind faith in human beings or Govt. entities is never a good thing. I don't always agree with Ayn R. Key and he does not always agree with me, but I understand where he is coming from.

The threat of terrorism is real, but so is the threat of tyranny. If we as a people do not speak out and make our Govt. officials accountable for everything they do, we lose control of our Govt.

We have every RIGHT to demand that they show us the proof of danger if they want to enact ANY law or rule that curtails our freedom or invades our privacy in the least bit.

Ayn R. Key seems to believe that the 3-1-1 rule is ineffective at best or worthless at worst. I disagree with him, but he has the right to demand that the 3-1-1 rule be justified.

Without people like Winston Smith, Ayn R. Key and others protecting your rights by asking the hard questions and not taking "trust us" as an answer, your rights would surely be whittled away to nothing.

I say carry on to those that hold freedom's flame high.
I say carry on to those that question authority.
I say carry on to the patriots that wish to keep us free.
I say carry on, even when I disagree.

April 22, 2008 1:22 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Something like 30% of the American people continue to support and believe in President Bush.


And he STILL has a higher rating than congress.

April 22, 2008 1:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No, the TSA does not control airline baggage handlers or other airport personnel. The TSA does, however, require that checked luggage be unlocked, which invites theft."

TSA does advice people to use the TSA approved locks which can be opened with the master keys TSA has. I am reminded of the saying, "Locks only keep homest people honest."
Try this trick with your closed, zippered bag. Take a writting pen and press it against the zipper anywhere on the bag. Presto bag is now open and to close all you need do is slide the zippers from one side of the bag to the other.
I would also like to address the "You are not going to fly if" comments. The only times I have heard that said has been by supervisors to the passengers who refuse to listen and won't stop the verbal abuse and babyish temper tantrum about an item.
7 Year TSO

April 22, 2008 6:48 AM

 
Anonymous ScanMe said...

Rather than trying to get Nico or his family to have their scans posted, I'll volunteer to have a scan and let it be posted here, front and back. That way we can really see if the scans are as the TSA says.

No one knows me, and I really don't care i my scans show up on the Internet. TSA: You have a volunteer for scans for the internet, place a post on how I contact you. The scan would need to be done in the D.C. or Baltimore areas.

April 22, 2008 8:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Our job is to OBEY the rules, and do everyting we can to help the TSA do their job rather than bogging them down with whining and complaining. We don't have to know WHY the rules are there, except to know that the rules PROTECT US and keep aviation SAFE.

TSA in fear of the truth censored my last response to this poster. I strive to never challenge the "posting rules" as stated here so I will try again although I have a question for the Blog Operators; What are you afraid of the truth?

My comment to the OP dealt with blind trust. I used an extreme example of how a countries soldiers of the WWII era carried out the commands of their superiors. The result of these action was the death of millions of non-combatants. We all know the history of that time.

The point is that blindly following orders is not how the United States works. The citizens control the government, at least in therory. The current administration has done everything it can to unsurp the power of the people. "Trust Us" does not cut it any more. It is apparent that the trust of the public has been abused and nothing the current governement says or does is not above suspicion.

It is the responsibility of a citizen to question elected leaders who pass the legislation that creates and enables agencies like DHS/TSA. My opinion is that DHS has to few controls and is running rough shod on the Constituiton and the People of the United States. It is my duty as a citizen to do all I can to cause a correction of this abuse but only in a legal manner.

AS a point of reference, I too took an Oath to the Constituion, served a career in the military and consider myself to be a patriot.

TSA in my opinion violates my civil rights. I will not blindly obey the rules as the OP says we must do.

The goal of a terrorist is to disrupt and cause a people to be afraid. TSA supports the mission of terrorist organizations and in fact is helping to accomplish their goals.

April 22, 2008 10:18 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To the Anonymous poster who asks:

"Ah, my Anonymous friend, you confuse me with Fox News. No, my contention that the TSA regularly violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments is based in sound argument that I have gone into repeatedly in other places on this blog (most recently a couple of days ago on the other post about the Behavior Detection Officer program in response to someone's question about what rights we are giving up).

Now while I hold that my arguments are sound, I'll be happy to have a reasoned debate about it with anyone. I don't always support everything I throw out there with carefully researched facts; however, if pressed to do so, I'll provide cites and evidence to back up anything and everything I put out there."

How does this all connect with the Administrative Searched that TSA sreens passengers under? Is this something that has been decided in the court system, or is it you sound logical but without any court decisions to back you up? One person has already said that the Adm. Searches are illegal, but they haven't been through the court system yet. SAY WHAT? That smacks of someone's opionon and NOT actaul court decisions.


The court decisions regarding administrative searches on which the TSA relies are, per the post of Franine Kerner, the TSA lawyer from some time back:

United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1974)

United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)

Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006)

United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006)

Each of these cases deals with different aspects of administrative search. None of these cases has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court although each case can be relied on as precedent unless and until it gets overturned by a higher court (which would be the Supreme Court as they are all US Circuit Court decisions) under our legal system and the tradition of stare decisis.

What troubles me personally about these court decisions (other than the original Edwards decision which came from a completely different and somewhat less hysterical era is that they have all been taken very recently in the climate of fear that the current administration has so carefully cultivated among the American people. Had 9/11 happened under a different president with a more measured and rational response would these decisions have come out in the same way? We can only speculate. This is why I find them lacking and needing further testing. These are big questions deserving serious debate and no matter what your political persuasion there are good arguments to be made. You are not going to get the "right" answer from the tv news, from talk radio, or from USA Today.

You can google the court decisions my friend, learn, ask questions, and decide for yourself what you think and act accordingly. That is what informed citizenry is all about and it is what we owe ourselves, our children, and our country.

April 22, 2008 12:17 PM

 
Anonymous Roger said...

For once I find myself firmly on the side of the screening process, although I do find that I disagree with the policy of making it optional.

I also have a problem with the planned implementation...put the security officer next to the screening area, and for heaven's sake, if you're going to use wireless communications make sure it's heavily encrypted.

A "virtual strip search" is not inherently invasive. The true strip search is invasive because of a balance of power.. A person subjected to strip search is effectively imprisoned in the process.. their clothing removed means that they no longer have effective freedom of movement. The fact that one can see under their clothes is of minor consideration.

So if you can look under my clothes without effectively detaining me with the bars of our society's nudity taboo then I invite this innovation.

April 22, 2008 12:22 PM

 
Anonymous lulu said...

To Anonymous,
I can't speak for every airport but I know at my airport every bag check station has a camera. There have been numerous times that complaints come in for missing or broken items. Our Customer Service Agent gets a discription of bags and gets information from the customers to pinpoint time and reviews tape to locate them.He actually calls back the customer to inform them of his findings which usually are in our favor. He keeps information on file and still gives the customer the option to file a claim but warns of evidence on file.It does not matter how many locks you have on your bag common sense should push you not to pack valuables.

April 22, 2008 12:24 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Hey, Trollkiller, I think you got me mixed up with someone else. I certainly DO NOT have blind faith in our government and it's evil offspring, the TSA - far from it!

April 22, 2008 12:32 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Sayeth Anonymouse at April 22, 2008 12:58 AM

What do your chemists say about the use of nitroglycerin? No mixing required and it has already been used. Thank God and good piloting that the only loss was one passenger.

That, unlike the mythical chemicals barred by the TSA, it is easily and quickly detectable and just a little to volatile to be easily transported in carry-on luggage. (Yes, I'm understating the volatility - I'm being sarcastic.)

April 22, 2008 12:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If only natural selection happened in airport security, and not highly intelligent design aimed at keeping people scared into a false sense of security...

If full body imaging is what TSA security is evolving into, I am going to have to think seriously if I even want to set foot into the USA again.

I find it interesting that other countries that have dealt with serious security concerns for years, including Israel, do not use stupid TSA rules like liquids, taking computers out of bags, removing everyone´s shoes and now the virtual strip machine. Instead, they use well trained, intelligent people!

April 22, 2008 12:34 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

That's funny:

Someone posts on FT that the Delete-O-Meter has been stuck on a certain number for several days and all of a sudden the Delte-O-Meter goes up!

April 22, 2008 12:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one wants to accept responsibility for making the luggage available for pilferage. You, the passenger, however take it on the chin.

This seems to be one of several serious flaws in the TSA's implementation of the well-intentioned law Congress passed to require screening of checked bags. And it's especially troublesome because this implementation, which makes bags more vulnerable to theft and pilferage, is done in the name of "security."

I think the even larger flaw in the TSA's approach is that they have defined "security" far too narrowly. They focus exclusively on preventing the "one in several billion" occurrence of terrorist plots involving aircraft (whether they're effective at that task is a whole nother discussion). In the process, they significantly increase the risk of the "one in several hundred" occurrences of theft or pilferage.

Yes, the consequences and costs of a successful terrorist plot are orders of magnitude greater than those of a successful theft or pilferage. But if you add up the cost of all those petty losses that the TSA's approach to "security" facilitates (or even perpetrates, in the case of TSA screeners with sticky fingers), it could ultimately approach the cost of a terrorist attack. Of course, nobody in the TSA has any interest in compiling grizzly statistics about the indirect costs of "security," which should presumably include the number of people killed and maimed on the highways because they chose to drive rather than endure bullying and humiliation (and in the near future, millimeter wave strip searches) from the TSA.

It's not surprising that the TSA has taken such a myopic and intrusive approach to "security." The TSA is the reaction of a bureaucracy that was caught with its trousers down on 9/11, so of course their approach to everything is purely reactive without regard to the effects it has. The TSA asks us to give it our acceptance and trust because "Security" is its middle name. One reason they're having such difficulty gaining acceptance and trust is that they completely ignore the fact that "Security" means more than reacting to a dismal failure in 2001. Security means protecting aircraft and passengers, as well as passengers' belongings, from threats. Any "security" system that not only fails to protect passengers' belongings from the mundane threat of theft and pilferage, but actually facilitates and encourages that threat, is just another dismal failure.

April 22, 2008 12:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am concerned about this full body scanning technology being implemented, and the assurance that it is "optional". Remember that taking off shoes used to be optional? If they did not set off the metal detector, you were OK. Now everyone has to do it. I can already see the "optional" scanner going the same way.

Another small point: why do you make people put their arms up for this process? It is yet another reason why we feel like criminals when going through security.

April 22, 2008 12:54 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

lulu said...

To Anonymous,
I can't speak for every airport but I know at my airport every bag check station has a camera. There have been numerous times that complaints come in for missing or broken items. Our Customer Service Agent gets a discription of bags and gets information from the customers to pinpoint time and reviews tape to locate them.He actually calls back the customer to inform them of his findings which usually are in our favor. He keeps information on file and still gives the customer the option to file a claim but warns of evidence on file.It does not matter how many locks you have on your bag common sense should push you not to pack valuables.


So what should we do with them? We can't take them as carry on because they can be stolen of confiscated on a whim.

Seriously a hockey mask, they confiscated someone's hockey mask. (second link)

"Could be used as a weapon so I have to take it" is an excuse used too frequently.

In a pinch I can wield my laptop bag like a mace. In a pinch I can use a ballpoint pen as a shank.

We can't pack valuables because the TSA does not keep a chain of custody on our checked bags. "Hey we screened them it is out of our hands" is a poor and DANGEROUS excuse. If you can't keep your people or the airline's people from stealing my stuff, you can't keep those same dishonest and dishonorable people from putting an explosive IN my bag. In other words you FAIL.

So if we can't pack it and we can't carry it, so what do we do with it?

How about this, QUIT STEALING OUR STUFF!

April 22, 2008 1:50 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Another small point: why do you make people put their arms up for this process? It is yet another reason why we feel like criminals when going through security.


So you can't hide stuff in your armpit. The MMW supposedly penetrate just the surface of your body, so anything you had tucked away in your armpit would be hidden.

April 22, 2008 1:52 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Sandra said...

That's funny:

Someone posts on FT that the Delete-O-Meter has been stuck on a certain number for several days and all of a sudden the Delte-O-Meter goes up!


Who said the TSA is not responsive?

I guess they forgot to tell Blogger Bob that was another of his jobs.

April 22, 2008 1:58 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Sandra said...

Hey, Trollkiller, I think you got me mixed up with someone else. I certainly DO NOT have blind faith in our government and it's evil offspring, the TSA - far from it!


Whoops... my bad, I missed an end quote.

Please accept my most humble apology.

April 22, 2008 2:04 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Roger said...

For once I find myself firmly on the side of the screening process, although I do find that I disagree with the policy of making it optional.

I also have a problem with the planned implementation...put the security officer next to the screening area, and for heaven's sake, if you're going to use wireless communications make sure it's heavily encrypted.

A "virtual strip search" is not inherently invasive. The true strip search is invasive because of a balance of power.. A person subjected to strip search is effectively imprisoned in the process.. their clothing removed means that they no longer have effective freedom of movement. The fact that one can see under their clothes is of minor consideration.

So if you can look under my clothes without effectively detaining me with the bars of our society's nudity taboo then I invite this innovation.


The scans are invasive if the person being scanned has now idea what the image will look like and therefore can not make an informed decision.

If the screener tells someone that the scan just checks for weapons the person being screened may think it is just a real fancy metal detector and have no idea that someone is viewing them "naked".

This is why the front and back view of both male and female subjects needs to be shown to the public and posted right by the entrance to the machine.

Up to this point we are still waiting for front pictures to assure us that they are pre-school safe.

Well Kip, you hit that stairmaster yet? Are you ready for your debut?

April 22, 2008 2:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that as TSA publishes each new "News Announcement" as in this one for the MMW Imager that the Blog Team is at first actively engaged, provides some responses and clarifications yet when challenged to support their claims seem to crawl back into the dark void and ignore repeated request for information. This trait has been repeated on almost each new announcement.


Blog Team, you have a volunteer to have MMW imgages, front and back, made and posted here.

Here is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the us, the public, that we can trust your statements.

You have said that the MMW Imagers have no means to save an image.

How has TSA been able to overcome that limitation and have an image for posting here?

April 22, 2008 2:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see the postings saying that the technology is noninvasive. If someone inserts a device into a body cavity how will TSA know? X-raying carry ons - no, metal detector - not likely, BDO - don't think so and even if so how would you check?

The way I see it you need a system that can very quickly produce a medical quality x-ray and currently the US has not deployed such technology. The Russian Federation has though.

I know many on here will think I am some sort of Nazi but my only concern is to once and for all spend our tax dollars on reall technology that can answer the question of; is there a threat on or in the person of interest? It would really suck to deploy this technology only to have the threat react and the nation be faced with an internal threat. Security is measure and counter measure in a game that never ends. The technology must be very forward thinking and I fear that TSA has opted to do what they can but try not to cause a firestorm of lawsuits.

April 22, 2008 3:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comment on - Dunstan said...
Can this new millimeter wave technology really wipe the lipstick off the pig? Will it make us safer and more secure?

How many people have gone through TSA security since it began screening? (No, don't raise your hand...) 3-4 billion, is that about right? How many REAL terrorists have actually been stopped by TSO's and the screening process? Hundreds? no, A couple? well, if you want to put a PR spin on it, maybe We'll SPOT you one or two...

"Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300."
(reasononline)

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Franklin Roosevelt (our current president couldn't begin to put that sentence together)

FDR would likely jump out his leg braces and wheel chair then might well kick you in the jimmies for a comment like that! It sounds as though you are willing to accept an attack or 2 per year on a 9-11 scale? Forget your elementry ratio and look at the billions or trillions in economic cost to the nation and the world. Truely the dumbest post I have ever seen on a blog! Unbelievable!

April 22, 2008 3:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just have one question, when you opt for a pat down if you are female you get a female officer patting you down, if male a male officer pats you down. So why then is this not done when using the scanner, I am sorry but I have no problem going through the scanner, but me standing there watching my wife and daughter going through and some male perv viewing them - I just have an issue with that. Now if they said female scans go to a screen with a female behind it and male scans go to a screen with a male behind it I am ALL for this technology.

April 22, 2008 3:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What do your chemists say about the use of nitroglycerin? No mixing required and it has already been used."

Nitroglycerin can be stabilized in solid form as dynamite, without the risk of exploding while being carried on. I know, because I am a chemist.

There is no rule that will completely remove any form of weapon from an airplane (remember the human body is a great weapon). That is why we want to stop the TSA from implementing stupid rules that bother everyone and do not deter serious threats.

Puffers and chemical trace scans make sense to me, all else is nonsense.

April 22, 2008 4:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Question: "Why do you make people put their arms up for this process? It is yet another reason why we feel like criminals when going through security."

Answer: "So you can't hide stuff in your armpit. The MMW supposedly penetrate just the surface of your body, so anything you had tucked away in your armpit would be hidden."

Second question (I hope this does not give the TSA further stupid ideas): What about that other, larger, place between your gluteal muscles where things could be hidden if the scan only sees the surface of your body?

April 22, 2008 4:11 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Apology accepted, Trollkiller.

TSA, fix the comment area so that I don't get the message that I have illegal characters in my URL when I don't even give a URL. Thank you.

Now, folks, go to the TSA website and find the link about the 30 MMW machines the TSA is planning to purchase. Then go view the videos they put up - still NO FRONTAL VIEW except with the animation of how the machine works.

(However, George with his deer in the headlights look is good for a laugh.)

Put up or shut up TSA - you are scared to death to show us a FRONTAL view, aren't you?

April 22, 2008 4:40 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

""The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Franklin Roosevelt (our current president couldn't begin to put that sentence together)

FDR would likely jump out his leg braces and wheel chair then might well kick you in the jimmies for a comment like that! It sounds as though you are willing to accept an attack or 2 per year on a 9-11 scale? Forget your elementry ratio and look at the billions or trillions in economic cost to the nation and the world. Truely the dumbest post I have ever seen on a blog! Unbelievable!"

Twist my words whatever way you deem necessary, since you really are clueless as to what I was commenting on. I doubt FDR would kick me for quoting him. You would benefit from a spell checking program, by the way...

April 22, 2008 4:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, would the two levels of a metal-detector and MMW detect a plastic mine taped behind a warm pork-belly?

This sounds like another excellent program for the detector-machine salesmen.

April 22, 2008 4:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am completely aware of and in agreement with many of the concerns posed in this blog. Upon first, second, tenth glance, this appears to be an intrusive procedure that violates privacy and tears away at an individual's dignity. I too was skeptical until I was given the opportunity to see one of the machines before it was moved to a local airport for use. A young man stepped inside to demonstrate how it worked and what the image generated looked like. Being a very conservative person myself, I was quite concerned about what the frontal view would show. The image was nothing more invasive than looking at a man walking into the wind. This technology is not meant to violate your privacy as travelers, but, on the contrary, is evidence of a dynamic entity (TSA) trying to acquiece to the requests of travelers (those who do not want pat-downs). If this technology doesn't seem effective, it will be removed. In the meantime, the public needs to be aware that some things just take time to either meet the needs of those utilizing it, or be recognized as ineffective a/o inappropriate.

April 22, 2008 4:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that as TSA publishes each new "News Announcement" as in this one for the MMW Imager that the Blog Team is at first actively engaged, provides some responses and clarifications yet when challenged to support their claims seem to crawl back into the dark void and ignore repeated request for information. This trait has been repeated on almost each new announcement.

That's because they're busy coming up with a new blog post that will distract us from the old ones with the appropriate new PR spin. When they decide that one has generated enough negative and embarrassing comments (and further repetitions of questions that were ignored in all previous posts) they'll repeat the cycle. It's their way of keeping readers off balance, the same way they keep terrorists off balance with arbitrary unpredictability at airport checkpoints.

April 22, 2008 5:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Does classified intelligence include means to violate the laws of Chemistry?"

We have found the Philosopher's Stone and have Alchemists on staff. We can divulge no further details, though, as the process of transmutation is SSI.

April 22, 2008 6:27 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

TSA, is it official policy to pretend you don't see questions you don't like?

(I know how likely I am to get an answer to THAT!)

April 22, 2008 6:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have problems with these scanners to. My biggest concern would be about my left belongings while I'm in the scanner. As a fact you are not allowed to stop/refuse a screening while you are screened. Imagine somebody (other Pax/TSA) pokes through your wallet while you are in this machine.
Another issue, will the doors of the scanner be locked?
How often will these machines be cleaned? After every PAX? every 10th PAX, 100? 1000? hey and still no shoes allowed! GREAT!

I'm glad that this year it will be my last vacation in the US for a really long time!

Oh I almost forget one question: There was a future attempt to bomb the WTC in 1996 or so, they tried it with a minivan in the garage I think. So where is the TSA when you buy/rent/drive a car?

Greetings from TXL
Sorry for my english.

April 22, 2008 10:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So would this technology say, prevent a TSA agent from opening a sterile feeding tube wrapped in clear plastic that a child needs to survive?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/06/tsa-endangers-childs.html

April 23, 2008 12:11 AM

 
Anonymous Technology Slice said...

This sort of technology is one of many that are starting to infringe on our rights to privacy. I say keep the pat down.

April 23, 2008 1:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of these bloggers complaining about the invasiveness of new security technology. I have a suggestion for you. GO Greyhound.

April 23, 2008 2:22 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I volunteer! I'll get scanned and let the TSA post the scan pic front and back. At best, we'll see that TSA is telling the truth, at worst, I'll make Trollkiller jealous.

April 23, 2008 4:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandra,

Follow the "millimeter wave technology paradox" link under "links to this post" bellow, and you will see frontal images. They are not, in my opinion, kindergarten-friendly.

April 23, 2008 6:32 AM

 
Anonymous Stephen said...

I have just spent quite a bit of time reading these comments, and I understand the concerns that many of you have with the safety aspects of the new MMW machines. They are valid concerns. I also understand the concerns many of you have with privacy as it relates to these machines. Having said that, I am a TSO and would be happy to take up the challenge of being scanned and posted. I am, however, not based in an airport that has this technology. If Nico would approve it I would be happy to go to an airport with the appropriate tech in order to assuage any fears about this machine.

April 23, 2008 7:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Second question (I hope this does not give the TSA further stupid ideas): What about that other, larger, place between your gluteal muscles where things could be hidden if the scan only sees the surface of your body?

April 22, 2008 4:11 PM

The procedure used in correctional institutions and jails is the "squat and cough".

Anything secreted or hide will either cause injury or drop away.

TSA must be aware of this procedure since many things they do now is simular to how inmates in prisons are controlled.

April 23, 2008 9:56 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This technology is not meant to violate your privacy as travelers, but, on the contrary, is evidence of a dynamic entity (TSA)


Then why has TSA and the Blog Staff refused to post frontal images?

April 23, 2008 10:25 AM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

To the Anonymous poster who states:

I am completely aware of and in agreement with many of the concerns posed in this blog. Upon first, second, tenth glance, this appears to be an intrusive procedure that violates privacy and tears away at an individual's dignity. I too was skeptical until I was given the opportunity to see one of the machines before it was moved to a local airport for use. A young man stepped inside to demonstrate how it worked and what the image generated looked like. Being a very conservative person myself, I was quite concerned about what the frontal view would show. The image was nothing more invasive than looking at a man walking into the wind. This technology is not meant to violate your privacy as travelers, but, on the contrary, is evidence of a dynamic entity (TSA) trying to acquiece to the requests of travelers (those who do not want pat-downs). If this technology doesn't seem effective, it will be removed. In the meantime, the public needs to be aware that some things just take time to either meet the needs of those utilizing it, or be recognized as ineffective a/o inappropriate.

You have hit the nail on the head. If the images that this technology are as inoffensive as the TSA claims and that you affirm, there should be no problem with their posting, as has been requested by so many, full frontal and rear images on this blog and at the checkpoints. Until that happens, the TSA is saying "trust us" and I know that I, for one, do not trust the TSA, nor do many others if I'm reading the tenor of the commenters here correctly.

April 23, 2008 10:43 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

To Anonymous, this morning at 6:32 a.m.

Thanks for finding that for all of us.

No, these pictures are definitely NOT kindergarten or Reader's Digest friendly. Now we know why the TSA refuses to post them.

I invite all to go visit the link that Anonymous referred me to and let us know what you think.

April 23, 2008 10:52 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

In the meantime, the public needs to be aware that some things just take time to either meet the needs of those utilizing it, or be recognized as ineffective a/o inappropriate.

And what of the cost involved in implementing technology that, in the end, doesn't work?

Should the TSA just keep spending taxpayer monies until they stumble upon something that does work properly or should they just keep taking shots in the dark hoping that sometime, something will work?

April 23, 2008 11:03 AM

 
Anonymous lulu said...

Trollkiller said what should we do with our valuables? When I say valuables I mean cash jewlery not clothes or sports equipment. When there are many individuals handling your bag how is one group of people singled out? I am glad for a forum that entertains gripes, complaints and sometimes a compliment and they try to get something positive out of that but it seems some individuals will always be stuck on negative. Items were missing out of bags long before the lowly TSA stepped into the picture but at least you have a place to let go of your frustration now.

April 23, 2008 11:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stephen said...
"Having said that, I am a TSO and would be happy to take up the challenge of being scanned and posted."

Yes, but the question is, would you also be as happy about letting your wife and daughters be scanned and their pictures posted (assuming you are married and have daughters)
That is the question

April 23, 2008 11:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have read through all this and I have a very serious question for TSA, based on the fact that these scanned images are pretty revealing with regards to the private parts, are children going to be exempt from using these machines? If not how is the TSA going to get around the fact that this can be very easily classified as child pornography. I have seen people spend many years in jail for taking pictures of underage children showing a lot less detail than these images.

April 23, 2008 12:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Until there is a totally passive device,such as one capable of reading natural body heat, I'll NOT use this device.
Sure they say it's 10000 times less than a cell phone, but as a engineer I know:
a) cell damage is related both to energy AND wavelength.
b) I didn't design it, don't know what controls there are for energy regulation.

No problem with the puffer unit, sniff away as much as you want.

April 23, 2008 12:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having said that, I am a TSO and would be happy to take up the challenge of being scanned and posted.

I, and I hope others here, appreciate your offer.

The problem is that TSA has apparently drawn a line in the sand and refuses to post any frontal MMW images.

The only question that remains is why? I think I know why but since I don't have access to one of these machines cannot prove my concerns.

This whole discussion could be nicely resolved but the powers to be have chosen to not do so.

Hence the continued and justified distrust of your agency.

Not related to this response but to the Blog Operators; this Blog is a PR Nightmare. Why doesn't someone at DHS/TSA address the concerns and questions raised by the public? Do you people have a goal of total public relations failure as a desired endpoint? Sure seems like it!

April 23, 2008 12:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you have to take your wallet out of your pocket when you step in this machine?

April 23, 2008 5:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

winstonsmith: You have hit the nail on the head. If the images that this technology are as inoffensive as the TSA claims and that you affirm, there should be no problem with their posting, as has been requested by so many, full frontal and rear images on this blog and at the checkpoints. Until that happens, the TSA is saying "trust us" and I know that I, for one, do not trust the TSA, nor do many others if I'm reading the tenor of the commenters here correctly.

This is my conjecture, based on what I've seen so far. Some TSA manager ordered Bob and Nico to write blog posts promoting the electronic strip search (i.e., millimeter wave scanners) as a friendly, inoffensive alternative to the dreaded pat-down. Perhaps the manager even suggested content, such as "the images are friendly enough to post in a preschool" and perhaps a recommendation that Bob mention that the measures the TSA take to protect privacy are so dependable that he'd be perfectly happy to send his own wife and small children through the scanner. Bob and Nico did their job as ordered, and presumably moved on to something else.

Not surprisingly, skeptical commenters challenged those assertions. They noted that the posted image was of a person's back, which isn't sufficient to verify the claims of "nonoffensive" images. When some commenters asked for Bob to post "nonoffensive" FRONTAL pictures of himself and his family (or better yet, Kip Hawley and his family), the attempt at PR unraveled. Bob (who claims to have seen the "nonoffensive" images himself) was quite understandably offended and indignant at the idea of exposing himself and his family in that fashion. Then other people within the TSA jumped in and told us that any such pictures would violate their privacy. And there seems to be no interest in taking up the volunteer's offer to forfeit their own privacy by being scanned and having the resulting frontal image posted here so we can see for ourselves.

Putting all this evidence together, I must conclude that "full frontal" millimeter wave scan images are anything but "nonoffensive" and are certainly not suitable for posting on a government website (let alone on the cover of Reader's Digest or in a preschool). Whoever ordered Bob and Nico to write the PR pieces knows full well that actual pictures of millimeter wave scans from the front would be offensive enough to make anyone who sees them oppose the scanners, possibly enough to make that opposition known to their members of Congress. In short, we seem to have caught the TSA in not merely a fib nor a little white stretched truth, but in a genuine bald-faced lie. Since the bureaucracy is incapable of ever admitting error, the only thing they can really do at this point is to ignore it and hope we'll all forget about it. Which is what they seem to be doing about the comments people post here anyway.

(And Bob, Nico, Kip, or whoever: If I'm wrong about this conclusion, you know how to prove it to us. Unlike you, I will be very happy to admit that I got it wrong, once you show us the evidence. However, "trust us" does not qualify as evidence! Alternatively, you can tell us the truth. We can handle it, believe it or not. I'm actually willing to believe that the benefits of the electronic strip search may be worth the invasion of privacy. But not if you lie about what it actually entails. The best way to make us willing to believe you when you say "trust us" is to tell us the truth.)

anonymous: Not related to this response but to the Blog Operators; this Blog is a PR Nightmare. Why doesn't someone at DHS/TSA address the concerns and questions raised by the public? Do you people have a goal of total public relations failure as a desired endpoint? Sure seems like it!

I don't know if whoever started this blog fully realized the risk of opening up their attempts at PR to critical comments. They are apparently quite aware of the low regard and very low credibility many travelers have for the TSA, so the amount of criticism should not have been surprising. I can imagine the secret meetings in TSA headquarters berating whoever came up with the idea of the blog, and figuring out ways to control the damage and put the evil genie back in the bottle.

If they did actually intend the blog as a way to improve the TSA's image among the traveling public, it does seem to be having the opposite effect. At least among the small percentage of the traveling public who read the blog.

April 23, 2008 6:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think TSA has been caught in a Catch 22. If they post images of themselves, then we have the opportunity to say, see, you can save and print images. If they don't, we will continue to claim, unknowingly, that the images are grotesque.

In the meantime, many of the visitors to this blog will claim TSA's incompetence based on news reports of covert tests and the TSA failure rate. If the answer is new and improved images, like these, again, they are caught in a Catch 22. I saw the images on my local news, and frankly didn't see much about them that would get anyone too excited.

Personally I think it's a little creepy that so many of you have been asking for images of these people, maybe you are as most imagine bloggers to be, creepy.

April 23, 2008 7:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the "millimeter wave technology paradox" link bellow has an interesting set of frontal pictures of women. One is less sharp then the other, but both are much too revealing to make me feel comfortable. Having seen these pictures, I am certainly going to be one of the persons refusing this kind of scan.

April 23, 2008 7:41 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Not related to this response but to the Blog Operators; this Blog is a PR Nightmare. Why doesn't someone at DHS/TSA address the concerns and questions raised by the public? Do you people have a goal of total public relations failure as a desired endpoint? Sure seems like it!


I don't think a PR failure is what they are going for but according to this article, the goal is to get us to argue.

"Neil Bonner, Web strategist at TSA, said the agency decided that open commenting would be the best way to involve as many people as possible and encourage them to argue."

To be fair I think they probably paraphrased Neil and turned what he said to a negative.

April 23, 2008 11:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Do you have to take your wallet out of your pocket when you step in this machine?"


Yes. I can't find the link right now, but one of the LA papers had some pictures of the machine on it's website. One of the pictures showed the signs near it, and the sign said you must remove everything from your pockets.

April 23, 2008 11:16 PM

 
Anonymous Chris Boyce said...

Fellow bloggers, I tried to post a link to the LA Times article that had frontal images of the female screener who had her images taken. But, the bloggers have been too afraid to post it. Note that it is a male screener enjoying the view.

It leaves very little to the imagination. Speaking of which, look closely at the rear view on the blog. Look in the right location and the victim's family jewels are obvious.

April 23, 2008 11:38 PM

 
Anonymous trollkiller said...

lulu said...

Trollkiller said what should we do with our valuables? When I say valuables I mean cash jewlery not clothes or sports equipment.

When there are many individuals handling your bag how is one group of people singled out?

I am glad for a forum that entertains gripes, complaints and sometimes a compliment and they try to get something positive out of that but it seems some individuals will always be stuck on negative.

Items were missing out of bags long before the lowly TSA stepped into the picture but at least you have a place to let go of your frustration now.


Ok so we take our cash, jewelry, iPods, iPhones, and cameras as carry on. Now it gets stolen while we are separated from it. Like I said before, we can't carry it with us and we can't pack it, so what do you want us to do with it?

It does not matter how many people handle my bag, the TSA assumes responsibility for the bag the second I hand it over to them until it slides out at baggage claim.

If the TSA can not control my bag then they can not protect the airplane.

The TSA assumed responsibility when it REQUIRED that bags either be unlocked or if a lock is used it must be one that the TSA has a master key for. I can guarantee that all the master keys can not be accounted for.

If I am required to leave my bag unprotected, by either not locking it or locking it with TSA lock, and stuff goes missing, the TSA is to blame. It really does not matter who took the object, the TSA is as responsible as the thief.

April 24, 2008 2:15 AM

 
Anonymous trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
Sandra,

Follow the "millimeter wave technology paradox" link under "links to this post" bellow, and you will see frontal images. They are not, in my opinion, kindergarten-friendly.


If this is the image you are refereing to, I do not see what the fuss is. In fact I would say the image is not detailed enough to make a good/easy determination of a weapon.

I would consider that kindergarden safe, kinda makes me wonder why the TSA was reluctant to post a front view.

April 24, 2008 2:29 AM

 
Anonymous trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

I volunteer! I'll get scanned and let the TSA post the scan pic front and back. At best, we'll see that TSA is telling the truth, at worst, I'll make Trollkiller jealous.


It would not take much to make me jealous.

April 24, 2008 2:32 AM

 
Anonymous trollkiller said...

Sandra said...
To Anonymous, this morning at 6:32 a.m.

Thanks for finding that for all of us.

No, these pictures are definitely NOT kindergarten or Reader's Digest friendly. Now we know why the TSA refuses to post them.

I invite all to go visit the link that Anonymous referred me to and let us know what you think.


Sandra, please post a link to the picture, if it is the one I went to, I saw nothing inappropriate or anything that I would hide from children. It looked to me like a badly spray painted Barbie doll.

April 24, 2008 2:36 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
I have read through all this and I have a very serious question for TSA, based on the fact that these scanned images are pretty revealing with regards to the private parts, are children going to be exempt from using these machines?

If not how is the TSA going to get around the fact that this can be very easily classified as child pornography.

I have seen people spend many years in jail for taking pictures of underage children showing a lot less detail than these images.


Child pornography is not defined by the amount of nudity in the image but the "nature" of the image.

You can have an image of a completely nude child that is not pornographic and an image of a completely clothed child that is pornographic. It all comes down to what the image conveys to the viewer. If the image conveys a sexual connotation then you have child porn.

I think the TSA is safe on that, unless they make the children "model" in a sexy manner.

TSOs may look the other way when their coworkers steal or abuse passengers, but I think most would step in if the person viewing the images were making the children pose in a perverted manner.

Now before anybody thinks I am a pervert, I know this about child porn because I am a hobbyist photographer that was approached by a 17 year old for a fashion shoot. I did a good bit of research before I turned her down.

Once I found out that if a photo looks sexual in nature even if that was not the intent by either the model or me, I could be on the hook for child porn, I said "no way... see you in 6 months".

It is too easy for a model to blink and give you "bedroom" eyes by accident or move a hand slightly so it looks like she is being inappropriate. Of course you won't know it until you develop the film and find Johnny Law waiting for you at Walgreen’s.

April 24, 2008 3:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dunstan said...
"Something like 30% of the American people continue to support and believe in President Bush."

Wow, that many... I'd have thought it was 30 total, not 30%. Maybe 31 including Condoleezza Rice.

If I may point out that congress has a 23% approval rating so along with Bush they all need to be replaced with people that understand that their purpose is to serve the people that elected them and not special interest.
At that point maybe the then the TSA management might listen to the travlers and not make capricious rules. I also wonder how many of upper TSA management has had to wait in line and go thru screening. I image they can bypass the screening process with their credentials. Just a thought

April 24, 2008 8:02 AM

 
Anonymous Dave X the first said...

Steven: the images are deliberately fuzzed up. The technology is capable of a lot better imagery than is shown in the original post. One fear you cannot assauge by posting fuzzy images of our MMW-stripped body is how good the control of the fuzzing process is.

If TSA cannot control itself enough to agree on labelling on bottles, how can we trust that a few bad apple TSOs are hacking MMW image viewing to see full frontal nudity?

Heck, TSA thinks this blog is a quality management tool.

I still bet we'd be better off (in terms of real lives saved and deaths averted) by spending TSA's budget on highway improvements rather than fol-de-rol programs like this.

April 24, 2008 2:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also wonder how many of upper TSA management has had to wait in line and go thru screening. I image they can bypass the screening process with their credentials.

The ones who aren't entitled to travel by government jet probably take advantage of their privileged knowledge of SSI "rules" to avoid the hassles the capricious TSOs would impose on ordinary mortals. Either way, they probably look down on us ordinary mortals as hopelessly ignorant because we get so upset and complain so much about entirely reasonable and completely necessary security measures.

April 24, 2008 2:13 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Trollkiller,

I got to it by going to the bottom of the page the article is on and clicking on "links to this article" and then clicking on "millimeter wave technology paradox."

Perhaps you and I saw the same picture and you did not find it offensive. I did. I do not want to be stripped like that.

It's too bad the TSA still does not have the courage to post frontal images of both men and women.

I believe such pictures must be posted at all these machines so that victims can be allowed to make an informed choice on a secondary.

April 24, 2008 2:25 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home    «Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»