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

5.09.2008

You asked for it...You got it, Millimeter Wave images.

Here are the much requested, much anticipated, full body images of millimeter wave - both front and back, male and female just like so many of you asked for.

These were provided to TSA by the manufacturer of the technology, L-3. We asked L-3 to blur the facial features just like they are blurred when our officers see the images in Phoenix, Baltimore, LAX and JFK. These are exactly what officers see at airports today and will see in future deployments.

While we have said this many times, it bears repeating, TSA will not keep, store or transmit images. Once deleted, they are gone forever. For additional privacy, the officer viewing the image is in a separate room and will never see the passenger and the officer attending to the passenger will never see the image. The officers have 2-way radios to communicate with other in case a threat object is identified.I venture to say, Mikhail Baryshnikov may have exposed more in his ballet costume than these robotic images portray.

Why did we decide to put them up now? Because you've asked for it... Hopefully the editors of Reader's Digest will consider these for their next cover.

What do you think?

- Bob

05/10/08 6:10 p.m. Christopher said:

There have been a couple of incorrect assumptions made regarding the actual screening that I feel are important to clear up.

The actual scan itself takes about 2.5 seconds. That is the length of time a passenger should stand still in the machine (which is clear Plexiglas, allowing passengers to view their items as they come out of the x-ray used to inspect carry-on bags). The remaining time, between 15-45 seconds, is used by the officer at the remote viewing location to evaluate the image. During that time, the passenger can move around at will next to the machine while the officer attending the machine waits to hear via wireless comms that the image is free of any potential threats. This is an important point as ALL items must be removed from passenger's pockets prior to entering the millimeter wave machine because they will show up and must be removed to ensure they are not threat items.

A couple of bloggers have advocated for the officer viewing the image to be out in the public area. We specifically require the remote location to protect the privacy of passengers using the machine. We just don’t think it’s appropriate for other passengers, airport, airline employees or just anybody walking by to see the images, much less snap a photo with a camera phone or anything else and post that image to TMZ.com or who knows where. That’s also why officers are not allowed to bring anything, including phones, bags or other items into the remote viewing location.

While we’re still collecting acceptance stats, the early word is that a great majority (more than 85 percent) of passengers prefer using this machine in lieu of a pat-down, which contrary to one poster takes much longer than 5 seconds and requires physical contact.

Hope this information helps.

Christopher
EoS Blog Team

Labels:

69 Comments:

Blogger CBGB said...

its about time...

I wouldn't want my kindergarden seeing those but they are not outright offensive (though the concept of the scan still is). However, if your that convinced there not a big deal, why not at least but the scanners out in view. There are plenty of other means of allowing privacy for the images besides hiding the screeners.

May 9, 2008 6:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those images look altered to me. In the original (see the link bellow to original images) found on line, underwear and nipples were clearly visible.

Even with the alterations, No one is going to see me like that.

But thank you for finally posting them. Now please answer why we can't see the screener analysing the images.

May 9, 2008 6:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to see - thanks for posting. I am impressed with this blog!

(From a regular traveler from the UK to the US.)

May 9, 2008 6:42 PM

 
Anonymous Dave said...

Some credit is due for finally posting this stuff, however, the resolution is horrible. How about posting what your operator is going to actually see? And then, make sure those are vividly posted at the airport for anyone who is directed to one of these machines. Your acceptance level will plummet.

This is disgusting, gross, and stupid. Why don't you spend some of this money on trace detection technology so we don't have to play the lame liquid and shoe games Bob?

May 9, 2008 6:56 PM

 
Blogger knarph said...

hey and we only had to ask several hundred times.

May 9, 2008 7:36 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Ta-Da...

Thank you Blogger Bob, Kip and anyone else at the TSA that put pressure on the "powers that be" to release the images. See it only hurt a little. ;-)

Thank you to all that kept up the pressure to have the images shown. Everybody take a bow. (warning do not take a bow at your desk... stand up first... trust me on this)

The people's voice in action sure does make for a good Friday.

May 9, 2008 7:43 PM

 
Blogger Brandon said...

Too revealing.

This is just one step closer to full color 1080i High Def "please remove your underpants" in-person strip searches. There's got to be a line, and I believe this has crossed that line.

Seriously, what will 2.0 look like, and at what point will the TSA declare a security risk for sharing what future scans look like?

Read 1984. This is how it all starts.

May 9, 2008 8:09 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Bob, thanks for posting the images -- finally. They are every bit as underwhelming as I expected they would be. Now why are they not posted at the entrance to the screening area? I happened to walk by Phoenix checkpoint D where they have one of those infernal strip search machines. I expect to see all four of those images posted prominently with an advisory sign in English and Spanish saying that this is what will be seen if you are referred for secondary screening; that you have the right to refuse to go through secondary screening in this manner and request a pat down without prejudice; and that there will be no undue delay to provide same should you request it.

At that point, see just how many people opt for the virtual strip search versus the pat down.

It is time for the ACLU to take this up. This goes far beyond the pale of routine administrative search. I have referred this to both my local and the national chapters of the ACLU and I urge other readers to do the same.

Thanks to all who kept the pressure up to get these images out there. Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.

May 9, 2008 9:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those are not acceptable and they are also not what your scanners will see. You admit that you had L3 specially create them for you for this purpose as opposed to taking them from a real machine. Also you conveniently down sampled them to lower their resolution. Oddly, we are not morons despite what your boss thinks.

May 9, 2008 9:28 PM

 
Blogger Phil said...

Will operators of this machine see only still images, or will they see live video?

May 9, 2008 9:35 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Brandon said...
Too revealing.

This is just one step closer to full color 1080i High Def "please remove your underpants" in-person strip searches. There's got to be a line, and I believe this has crossed that line.

Seriously, what will 2.0 look like, and at what point will the TSA declare a security risk for sharing what future scans look like?

Read 1984. This is how it all starts.


I think this will eliminate the "in person" strip search.

I disagree with you that the image is too revealing BUT, you have your modesty standards and I have mine.

Because of differing modesty standards I think the TSA needs to post these images at the check point and not just of the one man's backside.

I think most people will opt for the MMW instead of being "groped" but it must be our decision to make.

As for Version 2.0 I will worry about that when it gets here. If the TSA tries to pull the same stonewall they did this time they will be met with the same protest. This world is not the same one of just 20 years ago when most of the higher ups in Government started. The old guard does not understand instant information and the ability to search and compare tons of documents in just a few hours.

May 9, 2008 9:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

correct me of im wrong. but isnt this an option?

if you dont want to be patted down, wouldnt it be easier?

if you've never had a full body pat down, which includes 'sensative areas' why would you object to this?

i would much rather have a guy look a my backside, then touch it.

May 9, 2008 9:57 PM

 
Anonymous GI said...

First of all, thanks for posting the pictures finally.
Some questions:
Why would TSA use these primitive pictures, when there is technology like in several links shown, that is capable of so much more detailed pictures? Don't you waste money when you only use the second best technology?
You said that it will takes 45-60 seconds for the screening process, I guess you are not allowed to move much, how are you capable to watch your personal belongings?
I wouldn't use this thing, imagine 60 seconds inside, without shoes, without your personal things, knowing that another person is watching you and your are almost naked.

May 9, 2008 10:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, now about the issue with the liquids...

May 9, 2008 10:48 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

I just thought of something, what do you do with the large breasted women?

If the MMW only penetrates the clothes but does not go past the skin, I could see someone stashing something under their breast.

I assume the people being screened by the MMW have to go through the metal detector first, but what about non metallic contraband?

Before anyone thinks I am being silly, I had a customer once that pulled a wad of keys (10-15 keys) on a mace keychain, a checkbook, a wallet, a pack of cigarettes, Zippo lighter and a pen from one bra cup. It was like watching a magic show.

May 9, 2008 11:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the images.

Now that you guys have limbered up your graphics tools would you mind posting a copy of Iron Man so I can save a few bucks?

Thanks.

May 9, 2008 11:49 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
Those are not acceptable and they are also not what your scanners will see. You admit that you had L3 specially create them for you for this purpose as opposed to taking them from a real machine. Also you conveniently down sampled them to lower their resolution. Oddly, we are not morons despite what your boss thinks.


Come on now, there have been links to the front and back images from non TSA sources on this blog. What Blogger Bob posted is consistant with the non TSA sources.

L3 ProVision brochure

Brisbane Times

LaTimes

LaTimes

May 10, 2008 12:03 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow! The images are here! Thank you for FINALLY listening to us.

Can you now please:

1. Post these same images on the explanatory posters in front of the scanners.

2. Change the scanning system so people do the scans in private and can see the person evaluating the image, as in Heathrow. The Heathrow system is better for many reasons: there is no public embarrassment for the person scanned (remember you currently have to stand there for a full minute with your arms up in front of everyone), the screener is guaranteed not to do anything unacceptable while viewing images and personal belongings can be taken into the scanning area and watched by the person during the whole process.

3. Assure us that persons opting out will not be subjected to extra hassle because of this option.

Considering that the average pat down lasts 5 seconds, the graphic nature of these pictures (posted without the resolution I would have liked) and the fact I have no clue what the person viewing the images is doing, I am opting out. I think everyone should be able to make their own, well informed, choice.

May 10, 2008 6:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a frequent flyer, I am still kind of stumped as to why folks are so up in arms about these? Personally, it seems to me to be a bit of "thou dost complain too much..."

To me, the issues with real meat are those of a Constitutional level, not an "oh my God, you saw my winkie!".

So, if complaining loudly enough gets a response, then how about you show me a Constitutional basis for the RealID? Come on now, show me somewhere in the Constitition that it eliminates the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption - if you are fighting terrorists... THESE are some of the more revealing things I would like to see.... and I will gladly show you just about anything you want of my physical person... including, but not limited to, my winkie.

May 10, 2008 8:52 AM

 
Blogger Andy said...

Ahh, not bad... the only concern I have left is where to put our personal belonging... I'm not sure I can trust anyone to watch over my stuff while I'm in the scanner. You guys should think that through.

May 10, 2008 9:02 AM

 
Blogger SeeSaw said...

Trollkiller said...
I just thought of something, what do you do with the large breasted women?

If the MMW only penetrates the clothes but does not go past the skin, I could see someone stashing something under their breast...


It is not as easy of a feat as you may think. Yes, I suppose a larger breasted woman, or even a larger person could hide something under a skin fold. I would assume that the process of raising your arms could dislodge a strategically placed item.

May I suggest same sex viewing? As a female, I would much prefer another female viewing my image. Maybe it would be a little more difficult, but if it takes 60 seconds to view each image it wouldn't be that hard to judge who the next person in line is and have a screener of the same sex ready. Guys seem to care less then women, maybe they would prefer a female viewer too....

May 10, 2008 10:57 AM

 
Blogger SeeSaw said...

Oh...and btw. Thanks for posting the images. The recommendations on here to have these images visible at the checkpoints are good ideas.Just so everyone knows what they are getting into... I like the fact that the viewer won't see the passenger, but I wouldn't mind seeing the viewer. I can see where people with metal implants, who always set off the metal detector and receive a groping may opt for this scanner, but I don't see the benefit to someone who would otherwise pass thru without a problem.

May 10, 2008 11:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright guys, let's give credit where credit is due.

Thanks DHS/TSA/DOD whatever, for posting these...

They are not the strip show, that at least I myself were expecting...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the operator could be seen by the public and maybe the signs need to be in Spanish, Chinese, Swahili or whatever, but come on...

This minor accomplishment is huge for what normally is such an unnesecarily secretive agency...

Maybe this blog can end up actually being more than just a PR tool...

May 10, 2008 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few tech questions:

You claim the images are never stored, how is that achieved.

1: Do the images only exist in memory space?

2: If the image ever placed on a hard drive of any kind, they are in fact "stored".

3: If the images are in fact placed on a hard drive of any kind, which wipe method does the device use to ensure no trace is left:

US DOD 5220.22-m(8-306. /E,C and E)
US DOD 5220.22-m(8-306. /E)
Gutmann
Pseudorandom Data
?

Does it include cluster tips?

If the image only exists in memory, what method is used to protect against a memory dump? Is the image encrypted in memory space? Is the memory volatile or non-volatile?

Any technology professional will tell you that words "can't happen" are not in the technology dictionary. In fact, any time any technical claim that something was "unhackable" it has quickly been proven to the contrary.

On more question, you claim the device uses a proprietary image format, how was this achieved?

Did the creators code an entirely new image format? or was this format modeled off of another format?

May 10, 2008 11:07 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Anonymous writes:

Those are not acceptable and they are also not what your scanners will see. You admit that you had L3 specially create them for you for this purpose as opposed to taking them from a real machine.

Look, give Bob a break on this one.

He's said, repeatedly, that the MMV machines don't have the ability to preserve images, so that screeners can't make copies of individual passenger's scans. This is an attempt to respect passenger privacy.

So, when a thousand bloggers have been asking for copies of the scans, HE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM, BECAUSE THE MACHINE CAN'T MAKE A COPY! He had no choice but to go back to the manufacturer and ask them to provide the images.

May 10, 2008 11:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YAY! The whiners can finally whine about something else now.

Wait nevermind, we want higher res photos, photos of what a large breasted woman looks like to make sure they are not hiding anything. If a child goes through is it considered child porn?
We want to know what file format, is it memory or not? Is the person looking at me a male or female? Are they gonna be skinny or fat?
Does members the ACLU have to go though, I think they should have to, mandatory. Don't trust those poeple as far I can throw one.
HMmmm, can't think of anything else to whine about the MMW, guess I got to go back to the dog post to whine about the inhumane doggy treats they give.

May 10, 2008 5:28 PM

 
Anonymous logistyka said...

That post is very good, thank you it is very interesting ;)

May 10, 2008 6:02 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

YAY! The whiners can finally whine about something else now.

Wait nevermind, we want higher res photos, photos of what a large breasted woman looks like to make sure they are not hiding anything. If a child goes through is it considered child porn?
We want to know what file format, is it memory or not? Is the person looking at me a male or female? Are they gonna be skinny or fat?
Does members the ACLU have to go though, I think they should have to, mandatory. Don't trust those poeple as far I can throw one.
HMmmm, can't think of anything else to whine about the MMW, guess I got to go back to the dog post to whine about the inhumane doggy treats they give.


And the idiot troll has something else to try his unique brand of sarcasm on. Why don't you go back to the witty banter you had about bathroom scales?

May 10, 2008 6:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christopher,

We are not asking for the screeners to be in the public area viewing the scans. We are asking for the person to be scanned and viewer (same sex) to be in a separate location, where the scan and analysis is done. Look up how it is done in London.

May 10, 2008 7:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christopher
Having the employee doing the screening review out where s/he can be observed by the public does not require the image to be viewable by the public. Put the employee's back to the wall and have the screen facing the wall, or use a hood, or use a privacy cover on the screen to narrow the viewing angle. Just a few top of the head ideas. BUT have the employee viewing the screen out in public so we can see that s/he doesn't point out "interesting" subjects to coworkers or snicker or otherwise act inappropriately.

That said, I will choose to opt out as I do not want your employees looking at the non-metallic contents of my pockets. particularly when they are out of my control on a table someplace.

It really seems like you are just looking for excuses to conduct a more thorough search.

May 10, 2008 8:11 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Christoper said...

A couple of bloggers have advocated for the officer viewing the image to be out in the public area. We specifically require the remote location to protect the privacy of passengers using the machine. We just don’t think it’s appropriate for other passengers, airport, airline employees or just anybody walking by to see the images, much less snap a photo with a camera phone or anything else and post that image to TMZ.com or who knows where. That’s also why officers are not allowed to bring anything, including phones, bags or other items into the remote viewing location.


Ok Christopher, that is a load of bull. If traveler's privacy was an issue you would not fondle our underwear in view of other people.

Privacy of the person being screen is easily accomplished by blocking the area behind and to the sides of the screener with cubicle walls and placing a privacy screen the monitor.

Be honest, the reason why you want to hide the TSO viewing the image is you don't trust your people. You don't trust that they will behave themselves and not make crass or stupid comments within earshot of the passenger.

Seeing some of what the TSA hires I really can't blame you for wanting to hide them.

The other reason you wish to hide the TSO viewing the image is it will allow males to view females and vice-versa.

Logistically it would be a nightmare to have same sex screeners viewing the image.

You would either need two machines or two people in the viewing area with one turning their back at a time. Production would stop if one of them had to use the restroom.

The simple solution without having to buy two machines for every station is to place the screener viewing the image by the machine and staff those positions with nurses.

Most people are not afraid of a nurse of either sex seeing them naked. The thought process is the nurse has seen it all before.

Give the nurses a different uniform shoulder patch with the medical staff and snake emblem to differentiate them from your regular TSOs.

When a passenger objects because the viewer is not the same sex you simply tell them "it's ok they are a nurse".

Added bonus is you will have someone that is properly trained to handle a medical emergency unlike now when you must rely on being lucky.

Kudos to Chris Harrington that was a good catch, but what if had been someone else?

May 10, 2008 8:42 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

A few tech questions:

You claim the images are never stored, how is that achieved.

1: Do the images only exist in memory space?

2: If the image ever placed on a hard drive of any kind, they are in fact "stored".

3: If the images are in fact placed on a hard drive of any kind, which wipe method does the device use to ensure no trace is left:

And a whole bunch of other geeky stuff.


Wow, and I thought I was picky. You left out the possibility of intercepting the data as it is being sent from the MMW to the viewer. I mean is the data conduit set up with vibration and vacuum sensors? What about shielding? Is the data encrypted from point A to point B? Will they have armed guards stationed along the whole conduit?

I am being a bit snarky but everything above except for the armed guards was standard security for the data line running to the secure print lab at Pratt & Whitney.

Ok that was fun, now let's deal in the realistic world, the data (images) from the MMW device are not valuable enough to worry about data wipes and purging the memory so that absolutely no residual data is left.

I am more concerned about a TSO being able to sneak in a thumb drive with a screen capture program on it. Even if they don't have a screen capture program they can simply hit the Print Screen key and paste the image into Paint.

To Blogger Bob or Christopher:
Has the TSA tested the program to see if you can capture the image with PRT SCR and Paint?

May 10, 2008 9:09 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

I read two posts with interest, one from an anonymous individual and one from Christopher who thought it a good idea to add onto Bob's comments on the blog post. First to Christopher's comment:

While we’re still collecting acceptance stats, the early word is that a great majority (more than 85 percent) of passengers prefer using this machine in lieu of a pat-down, which contrary to one poster takes much longer than 5 seconds and requires physical contact.

While I am not privy to your raw data or to your sampling methods, my best guess is that the people whom you have sampled are not fully aware of what some random individual in some unknown part of the airport will see (they have not seen all 4 pictures that we fought so hard to see for example and do not necessarily know that they will have to stand with their hands in the air with pockets empty prior to saying that "yeah, sure, if you don't have to touch me, I'd rather go through the machine."). If you are honest with people and present WBI for what it is, a virtual strip search, and show them the pictures, your acceptance rate for this will plummet.

And on to our Anonymous poster who writes:

YAY! The whiners can finally whine about something else now.

Wait nevermind, we want higher res photos, photos of what a large breasted woman looks like to make sure they are not hiding anything. If a child goes through is it considered child porn?
We want to know what file format, is it memory or not? Is the person looking at me a male or female? Are they gonna be skinny or fat?
Does members the ACLU have to go though, I think they should have to, mandatory. Don't trust those poeple as far I can throw one.


I know you think you are so very right in your outright condemnation of the good people (including myself) who are holding the TSA (and by extension our whole government) to a high standard of truth as "whiners." To do that though shows a sad and remarkable ignorance of what this country is really about.

After we won our independence from the British we were so fearful of centralized government power that we set up a government under the Articles of Confederation that could not truly hold the country together. Faced with this the founding fathers replaced the Articles with the Constitution which provides for substantial but limited powers for the federal government. And even that was too much for some without an explicit declaration of inviolable rights that would be reserved to individual citizens, which is the principal reason the Bill of Rights came into being concurrently with the Constitution. It is our right as American citizens to petition our government for redress when we feel we have been wronged by the government -- directly or indirectly and to force the government to carry out its actions in the light of public scrutiny.

You Sir, may well support the TSA and everything it does. That's fine. That is your right. I, on the other hand, do not. It is my considered and reasoned opinion that the TSA oversteps constitutional limits on government infringement on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from self incrimination, freedom from deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law, and equal protection under the law. I feel that it generally pushes the limits of what the courts have defined as reasonable warrantless administrative searches. I feel that its upper management is not fit to occupy the offices it does based on its inability to properly manage budget priorities and on the misdirection of limited resources to the areas of airport security that provide the least actual additional security for anyone. That is my opinion and it is my right to express it. There are others out there with opinions not dissimilar to mine who have expressed them here and in other forums.

You may disagree with me on any or all points and may in fact debate me, but to call me or anyone else a "whiner" does not advance the discussion and just makes you look rather foolish.

On the other hand, the freedom of expression gives you the right to make a fool out of yourself, and I've got a pretty thick skin personally (and I'll bet most of the other "whiners" in here do too), so if you really need to call people names like some kind of schoolyard bully for doing the right thing, well you go right ahead.

May 11, 2008 1:04 AM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Bravo to the TSA for finally doing the right thing. While I would definitely not post those pictures on the cover of reader's digest or hang them in a kindergarten classroom they aren't that bad.

But there is another problem.

You've actually responded to blog comments.

Do you know what that means?

Twice as many comments about the insane 3-1-1 rule as before. More requests for you to reveal how you violated the laws of chemistry.

So how much snargleberry juice did Professor Snape say you needed for the exploding potion?

May 11, 2008 1:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about people with different kinds of bodies (transgender, intersex, etc)? What are you doing to protect this vulnerable population from the ignorance of your agents?

Am I going to be having to explain to the TSA why I have no dick but look like a man? You want me to pull out my fake dick in front of everyone and put it on the belt? Or would you rather I left it in my pants and had the person behind the wall call me aside to explain why I had some object 'hidden' in my jockstrap.

Are my transgender sisters going to have to explain why they have a dick but are beautiful women? Do you want the women who've had breast cancer and lost their breasts in the process to pull out their falsies right there in line?

Don't you think I have enough to suffer through without having to explain my non-normative gender/body to someone who is carrying a weapon and thinks I'm a terrorist?

At least with a pat down I'm not getting a panty check, the person has to meet my eye and I can call for a supervisor if I feel like the situation is getting out of hand.

May 11, 2008 12:50 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Ayn, adding on to the following:

You've actually responded to blog comments.

Do you know what that means?

Twice as many comments about the insane 3-1-1 rule as before. More requests for you to reveal how you violated the laws of chemistry.


It also means a great many more questions about how only a mere 7 years after 9/11 that the TSA is just "thinking" about the fact that not everyone who goes into the sterile areas of an airport gets checked each time that person enters. This to me represents as big an actual security risk as the MMW represents an unconstitutional invasion of personal privacy.

May 11, 2008 1:20 PM

 
Anonymous Bob Hanssen said...

I actually had seen some frontal images in several newspapers. What you posted were of a lesser quality than I saw in the LA Times, which, by the way, was an official TSA test.

Don't think for a nanosecond that you have made this issue go away by a myopic view that we will all go away because you have honored our request -- no, our DEMAND -- for full disclosure.

You haven't -- the fight has just begun. How about these for starters:

1. The 85% of those you polled who said they preferred the strip search over a grope responded under a stressful and high-pressure environment. They had already been selected for a secondary, which, especially under the stress of a checkpoint, will force people (especially infrequent flyers) into a less than reasoned choice. Had they been given full disclosure -- all images, active RF emitter, separation from their belongings -- and had more then 5 seconds to decide, there's no way this 85% figure would hold up. So, don't flatter yourselves. Your "poll" was basically for people to decide between lethal injection and the firing squad.

2. I demand to confront my accuser. If I ever submit to this strip search, I want the same opportunity to look my accusers right in the eye, just like at the checkpoint. I don't buy your argument that we can't see the images. The X-ray guy is right in front of me with the screen away from the passengers. Do the right thing and put the stripsearcher right in front of me. Besides, how will I know his first name and badge number when I fill out a compliment form???

What are you afraid of?

3. Being separated from one's personal belongings for this period of time is simply unacceptable.

4. It's only a matter of time before you find someone who is physically unqualified to go through this thing. Other posters have mentioned large-breasted women or obese people with rolls of body fat. Then, I fully expect a hoard of screeners to violate the ADA, someone's civil rights, and several other discrimination laws.

5. This thing is an active RF emitter, and you have not come clean on its parameters and potential hazards, both individual doses and long-term exposure.

6. Like several other posters, I simply don't believe your assertion that the images can't be saved, transmitted, or printed. You can't buy any IT system on this planet today that does not contain these features. The best you can do is to disable them, which is a simple command from a sys admin guy. There is a buffer or temporary file somewhere is this system, it simply can't operate without one. If it's temporary, it can be made permanent.

7. How soon before this stripsearch device becomes mandatory?

How much of our money are you spending on this garbage? As I said above, the fight has just begun.

May 11, 2008 1:39 PM

 
Blogger CBGB said...

TK-

to be fair you are assuming that they are using a viewing console/program with some base OS that we are all familiar with. That may or may not be the case, so lets take a look!

Given that the brochure shows the viewing console as a screen keyboard and mouse, I think we can make a few assumptions/comments:

1) there is some form of controller somewhere. And given that there doesn't appear to be any interface capabilities on the machine, its likely remote. Something needs to be used (hardware and software) to initiate the scans and control the machine and take the image.

2)(based on that) there needs to be some sort of interface that can be used to load software upgrades and other sorts of things into the machine. What type of interface?

3) looking through the brochure, I notice that the viewing screen has fast forward, play, stop, and rewind buttons. That seems to me that the scans must be stored somewhere otherwise there would be nothing to rewind to...

4)It has a keyboard...why? all the controls on the screen used for viewing appear to be more than controllable through the mouse. Does CTRL ALT DEL kick you out of the full screen forced program?(like it does on a lot of internet portals including those at mcdonalds and disneyland)

5)It states that it runs on a windows based PC...that makes the anonymous technophiles concerns much more valid. Where is the PC, what is used, who has acces, what ports are on it.

6)what does the enhanced scanning
option in the brochure refer to?

7)To challenge thou who said "they had to go to the manufacturer to be able to save the pic because the machines can't" Well they generated it now so how did they do that. Also, they had rear shots already posted...care to explain TSA how you got these?

I'll come back in two weeks and ask for all the answers again...

May 11, 2008 2:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you say the images are not offensive but you will not put the examiner in a public area?

May 11, 2008 2:32 PM

 
Anonymous The Dave said...

Jim,

Re: "So, when a thousand bloggers have been asking for copies of the scans, HE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM, BECAUSE THE MACHINE CAN'T MAKE A COPY!"

Sure he can -- You get a waiver from a willing scanee, take a digital SLR camera into the room and take photos. You show the room where the TSA agent sits, and the actual screen that they will be looking at.

May 11, 2008 5:49 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Ok guys I can't stand it anymore, the TSA logo on the Twitter site is choppy. I took the liberty of cleaning it up for you.

Large Logo

Small Logo

May 11, 2008 5:57 PM

 
Anonymous Debanjan Ghosh said...

I think this system is great i would rather stand in this for 2.5 seconds than letting somebody pat me down i dont know why i feel very odd doing that... thanks a lot for clearing up some of the miss conceptions about this system..

May 11, 2008 6:28 PM

 
Anonymous txrus said...

Blogger Bob, Chris, et al-again, thanks for finally providing the MMW images.

To follow-up on, I believe it was Blogger Bob who, in an earlier thread re: the MMW machines, outlined a list of facilities where these machines are currently in use, namely a variety of courthouses & at least 1 prison. I should have asked you at the time, but who is subjected to the MMW machines in those facilities? Those who are entering 'voluntarily' (such as judges & guards) or 'involuntarily' (I'm pretty sure you can figure out who I'm talking about).

You see, I can think of only one reason a prison would employ a machine like this & that's to negate the need for cavity searches. Frankly, any machine that could find contraband in a cavity, will leave little to the imagination.

Again, if those who have been screened using this machine in an airport knew this, my guess is your '85% acceptance' rate would fall thru the floor.

May 11, 2008 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christopher,

Could you please tell us how those acceptance rates were measured? If they were a tally on the answer to a question like "please step into that machine" then 85% is actually quite low, considering we have been conditioned over the years to do whatever a TSA officer says to do "or else".

The only fair assessment would be if the person is clearly told they have two equal choices: (1) step into the machine that will take an image of their body like these (show the pictures you posted for us) which will be viewed by an officer in a remote location or (2) get a pat down of such and such areas of your body, with the back of the hand of officer X (show officer).

I am sure that given these choices, some persons would prefer not to be patted, while others would prefer not to have an unseen stranger see the outline of their body. We just have to ensure the choices are fair, and that "acceptance rates" are measured to reflect a fair choice.

May 11, 2008 7:11 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

What about people with different kinds of bodies (transgender, intersex, etc)? What are you doing to protect this vulnerable population from the ignorance of your agents?

Am I going to be having to explain to the TSA why I have no dick but look like a man? You want me to pull out my fake dick in front of everyone and put it on the belt? Or would you rather I left it in my pants and had the person behind the wall call me aside to explain why I had some object 'hidden' in my jockstrap.

Are my transgender sisters going to have to explain why they have a dick but are beautiful women? Do you want the women who've had breast cancer and lost their breasts in the process to pull out their falsies right there in line?

Don't you think I have enough to suffer through without having to explain my non-normative gender/body to someone who is carrying a weapon and thinks I'm a terrorist?

At least with a pat down I'm not getting a panty check, the person has to meet my eye and I can call for a supervisor if I feel like the situation is getting out of hand.


Well there you go, we can't offend the confused.

Let me help you out friend, if you have a penis you are a male. If you have a vagina you are a female. If by some sad chance you have both you are a hermaphrodite and can get the that cosmetically fixed.

I am sorry the whole world can not stop because of your psychological problems.

May 11, 2008 10:07 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

I wrote:

"So, when a thousand bloggers have been asking for copies of the scans, HE CAN'T PROVIDE THEM, BECAUSE THE MACHINE CAN'T MAKE A COPY!"

The Dave replied:

Sure he can -- You get a waiver from a willing scanee, take a digital SLR camera into the room and take photos. You show the room where the TSA agent sits, and the actual screen that they will be looking at.

And then all of the conspiracy theorists (who might be right, of course) will complain that this isn't the actual image, because the process of taking a high-quality photo of a high-quality screen will still, inevitably, lead to a loss of quality on the image. And they'll still demand a copy of the actual image seen on the screen.

So, Bob loses either way ...

May 11, 2008 10:10 PM

 
Blogger Neil said...

Trollkiller said...

Ok guys I can't stand it anymore, the TSA logo on the Twitter site is choppy. I took the liberty of cleaning it up for you.


Thanks, Trollkiller. Hey, let me know if you are looking for a job in the web or blog field.... I know people...

-Neil
TSA Blog Team

May 11, 2008 11:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
What about people with different kinds of bodies (transgender, intersex, etc)? What are you doing to protect this vulnerable population from the ignorance of your agents?

THIS IS A NO-WIN SITUATION.

May 11, 2008 11:59 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Neil said...

Thanks, Trollkiller. Hey, let me know if you are looking for a job in the web or blog field.... I know people...


If you think someone may be interested in my opinionated talents you can email me at troll.killer@rebelmodel.com

p.s. You can post this as I can kill that addy if it gets too clogged with spam.

May 12, 2008 3:52 AM

 
Anonymous chita said...

well, there go my 4th amendment rights. privacy is apparently a thing of the past in this country. (don't suggest the whole - if you don't want to fly, you don't have to. business trips require you to fly.)

also - as someone who's pretty decent with computers. if you can't "download/copy" an image to save it, all you have to do is print screen and paste it into a paint image or word doc, so don't be as naive to say that these screeners can't keep a little memento if they don't want to.

May 12, 2008 10:01 AM

 
Blogger SeeSaw said...

Trollkiller said...
Logistically it would be a nightmare to have same sex screeners viewing the image.

No it wouldn't be a nightmare. It may be more complicated than having just one xray operator assigned, but not a nightmare. If a male is in the machine, than the male operator would be viewing, and the female operator could be collecting the items of the male passenger...or at least watching the items.

May 12, 2008 10:20 AM

 
Anonymous Mycroft said...

Great, good job.

However, I am still going to have to pass on using this technology. See, some of us have already had events in our lives that show us as succeptable to radiation effects and don't wnat to try it again.

In my case, it appears that I aquired cancer from electromagnetic radiation. While I survived the cancer and the treatment, I am not going to accept "dosage levels" that YOU say is safe, if I know I am in the small percentage that is already proven on the wrong end of the bell curve.

May 12, 2008 10:34 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob & Christopher:
Why are the mmwave images not SSI? If TSA's rationale for protecting x-ray images is that release would allow terrorists to learn TSA's configurations and capabilities, does this not also apply to mmwave images? Have you just undercut your own arguments?

May 12, 2008 11:36 AM

 
Anonymous lulu said...

Bob,

I know it took some time but thanks for being thorough. I can also see that all will never be happy. I will continue to view this blog, it does not guarantee fast answers but it is good to see answers.

May 12, 2008 11:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You won't have to worry about the transgender population because officers that see the x-ray image will not be able to see who goes into the MMW portal.

May 12, 2008 12:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Bob and Chris, you appear to have hit a home run with the posting of the images. But, as we can see, some people are never satisfied nor will you be the first to do so.

May 12, 2008 12:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, your think your operators are good enough to visually detect a snap blade tucked under a guy's junk from these thumbnails? Either you are showing better images to your operators or you are showing worse images to us.

Are you going to use your Threat Image Projection to try to manage your visual detection rates on this system as well?

May 12, 2008 12:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY WINSTON!
winstonsmith said...
[snip] Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.


GAO audit 08-48T
...GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers. The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. .... In addition, the second device was an IID created by combining commonly available products (one of which is a liquid) that TSA prohibits in carry-on luggage. .... Tests that GAO performed at a national laboratory in July 2007, in addition to prior tests in February 2006 that GAO performed in partnership with a law enforcement organization in the Washington, D.C., metro area, clearly demonstrated that a terrorist using these devices could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf

May 12, 2008 1:42 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

So, your think your operators are good enough to visually detect a snap blade tucked under a guy's junk from these thumbnails? Either you are showing better images to your operators or you are showing worse images to us.

Are you going to use your Threat Image Projection to try to manage your visual detection rates on this system as well?


You just look for the guy walking real slow and careful.

May 12, 2008 3:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would TSA like to discuss the accruacy of the MMW images at the following link?

http://files.ciotaenterprise.com/Millimeter%20Wave%20Photos/millimeterwave2.jpg

May 12, 2008 3:35 PM

 
Blogger Peter A. Stinson said...

I read an interesting piece recently about a screening at DCA: See here. Would you care to comment?

May 12, 2008 5:21 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Engineer chiming in here...

There are two aspects to electromagnetic safety. One is frequency (wavelength), the other is amplitude. Sufficient amplitude is always dangerous, but some frequencies are safe - which is why our bodies have organs trained to detect certain frequencies. We call these organs "eyes". Unless the TSA is considering some different range of frequencies to be MMW (and I doubt they are doing that) then we are discussing frequencies that are between microwave and infrared - milimeter wave as is described.

Low frequency (high wavelength) radiation is non-ionizing. That's important to consider. While the amplitude can be dangerous (and there's nothing to indicate that the TSA is using such amplitude) the frequency really is safe. This type of radiation is of a higher frequency than the microwave used to cook your food, but is less than that of visible light. The worst that a large does of it can do is to cause you to overheat. This could result in death as the heated water molecules cause cell membranes to rupture, and certain organs in our body have high fluid content (such as the eyes which would cause blindness). But assuming there is no heat damage from the exposure then as soon as the radiation is removed the person is in a safe environment. Our bodies can absorb a certain amount of heat, which is why we can take hot showers and can go out on hot days. In this case the only real consideration is amplitude, and we'd know pretty quickly if we were being subjected to too much.

On the other hand are the high freqency (low wavelength) radiation, such as x-rays or gamma-rays, ionizing radiation. If the TSA had used actual x-rays then there would be cause for concern because there really is no safe dosage, no safe amplitude. Because it is ionizing, the effect is lingering, and therefore cumulative. This is the radiation that causes cancer because it breaks up atomic bonds. Many years after exposure this type of radiation can still be present which is why radiation meters (geiger counters) still read higher than normal levels in Hiroshima.

No regular reader of these comments could mistake me for a defender of the TSA, but since the TSA is using non-ionizing radiation, the only physical concerns that we should have are amplitude. The privacy concerns, the 4th amendment concerns ... well, that is another issue entirely, and one the TSA really should be disbanded over.

May 12, 2008 6:05 PM

 
Anonymous Abelard said...

GAO audit 08-48T

Because if it's a GAO report that talks about undisclosed liquids or detonators and was conducted in a unnamed "national lab" (presumably just like the lab they have on airplanes), why it must be the Gospel truth.

Of course, the government would never misguide its citizens for its own political gain. Why just the other day, I saw those stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq and Congress cut off all funding for the Iraq War because the oil there was paying for everything and then some.

May 12, 2008 8:36 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Yes, anonymous, I've read the GAO audit, where they fail to identify HOW they violated the laws of chemistry or physics.

Because the 3-1-1 potion has a few key requirements:

1. You can mix them under conditions more primitive than a fully stocked laboratory. You need to be able to mix them in the terminal or on an airplane.
2. The individual chemicals have to fail to trigger the explosives sniffer.

THAT potion can only be brewed by a Hogwarts graduate. Do you think that may be why the TSA keeps not answering, relying on anonymous "useful fools" to keep up the statist security theater?

May 12, 2008 10:38 PM

 
Anonymous Chris Boyce said...

Anonymous said:
Well Bob and Chris, you appear to have hit a home run with the posting of the images. But, as we can see, some people are never satisfied nor will you be the first to do so.

You're right -- we're not satisfied. You know why? We, The People, require answers to these questions:

1. Where is your Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of this device? You are supposed to publish a draft PIA and permit public comment. Even Hazel, or whatever her name is, would remind you of that.

2. Tell us your standard for deleting and overwriting images. Even you bloggers and Kippie himself know that just hitting the "delete" button doesn't delete a file or image.

3. Tell us how we are going to be in sight of our possessions at all time. Tell us how you are going to ensure that either a screener or someone else will steal our stuff while we're being strip-searched.

4. Provide us with independent, peer-reviewed science concerning the amount of exposure to RF radiation, both single dose and long-term. Tell us how you will keep stray RF radiation from contaminating the innocent public who happens to walk by this thing. What is your "keep-out" zone and how will you designate it at every checkpoint?

See, TSA, we have a LOT of other legitimate questions. We, The People, require answers before we will permit you to use this device on us.

Get busy...

May 12, 2008 10:52 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

An Anonymous Person has tried to answer my call for validation of 3-1-1 with the following:

HEY WINSTON!
winstonsmith said...
[snip] Now let's see the basis in science that makes 3-1-1 necessary.

GAO audit 08-48T
...GAO investigators identified two types of devices that a terrorist could use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers. The first device was an IED made up of two parts—a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. .... In addition, the second device was an IID created by combining commonly available products (one of which is a liquid) that TSA prohibits in carry-on luggage. .... Tests that GAO performed at a national laboratory in July 2007, in addition to prior tests in February 2006 that GAO performed in partnership with a law enforcement organization in the Washington, D.C., metro area, clearly demonstrated that a terrorist using these devices could cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf


First, may I thank you for linking to a document. This is the kind of thing that actually helps advance a discussion. I am familiar with this document, but took a moment to re-read it (fortunately it is pretty short). The downside is that this particular document does not really make your case. Let's look at it.

First, a quick review of what the GAO was looking to achieve:

"At the Committee’s request, GAO tested whether security gaps exist in the passenger screening process. To perform this work, GAO attempted to (1) obtain the instructions and components needed to create devices that a terrorist might use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers and (2) test whether GAO investigators could pass through airport security checkpoints undetected with all the components needed to create the devices."

The GAO report does in fact state quite clearly that the investigators were able to get the component parts of both IEDs and an IID through the checkpoint even after 3-1-1 had been implemented including the liquid component of the IID. Interesting to note, the report states explicitly that the IID had liquid components to it but is silent as to the composition of the IEDs. It is likely, however, that if the IEDs had liquid components the report would have mentioned it though since it mentioned the liquid component of the IID. The report does also state that the IEDs and the IID, when assembled were most effective and could in fact cause extensive damage to a plane in flight.

What the report did not say, however, whether it would have been possible to assemble the IEDs or the IID outside the confines of a laboratory environment. It's one thing to get all the pieces to the puzzle in one place and quite another to put them together -- especially in the close quarters of an airplane. Dealing with volatile liquids in a plane in flight is an iffy proposition at best. Many explosives and incendiaries are highly temperature sensitive and can only come together in narrow temperature bands. These things are not addressed by the GAO report, just that under laboratory conditions they were able to create IEDs and an IID.

If you do a little reading up on the Bojinka plot (one of the favorite red herrings people like to pull out to justify 3-1-1) you'll find out that the people who were behind it abandoned the plot because the liquid explosives were too volatile to be reliable (despite the fact that they did manage successfully to plant a bomb that killed an individual on a Japanese airliner as part of a test for the larger plot).

So really, what you have given us is not much more than we had. We know that a liquid component (as to which, we don't know) of an IID can get through a checkpoint despite 3-1-1. We know that the GAO managed to get non liquid components of IEDs and and IID through security (which really kind of falls outside the discussion of 3-1-1). We know that IEDs and IIDs can be built and detonated in the right conditions but we don't know the nature of the IEDs or the IIDs or the conditions under which the testers built them so we can draw no real conclusions there.

Really the only apparent conclusion that we can draw from the report is that the TSA is incompetent -- or at least that it was at the time the GAO ran the tests. The GAO did say that it provided recommendations for improvement to TSA after it ran its tests; however, it is anyone's guess whether the TSA has actually implemented any of them or how well as we don't know what the recommendations were and I have a feeling that were we to ask the TSA would simply hide behind "SSI".

Again, thanks for bringing this study up. Even though it does not really make the case, it is definitely worth taking a look at these things.

May 13, 2008 1:22 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.

If this goes into affect then I don't know if I will be flying again. What a great way to kill the airline industry.

Think of all the Muslim women and their fathers, husbands and brothers. This would go over like a lead balloon.

May 13, 2008 10:36 AM