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:

212 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