Government Waste: $40 Million Dollar Mistake
May 23, 2015, 9:33 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Government Waste: $40 Million Dollar Mistake
Those scanners were pulled out of airports like the one here in San Antonio after public outcry over privacy. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) paid $160,000 a piece for them, but we found them being auctioned off in San Antonio for as little as ten bucks.
Local government agencies can bid on surplus equipment the federal government no longer wants. Most of the stuff is old; furniture and computers, border patrol flashlights and other items the government got years of use out of. But in the middle of the warehouse, still sitting in the original boxes, we found six full-body airport scanners that have never been used.
Local government agencies can bid on surplus equipment the federal government no longer wants. Most of the stuff is old; furniture and computers, border patrol flashlights and other items the government got years of use out of. But in the middle of the warehouse, still sitting in the original boxes, we found six full-body airport scanners that have never been used.
I would have paid $10 to scrap one when they first came out.
May 24, 2015, 10:07 am
#2
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,786
To be fair, the scanners when purchased met the specification in the RFP. It was latter that the rules changed that made them unusable as originally intentioned. What TSA screwed up on was not thinking that the public would not find the initial images to be invasive. Especially given the make up on their front line staff.
That said being in the image processing research field I was rather surprised that Rapidscan was not able to modify their software to meet the new rules.
Further, as much as I dislike the AIT, the technology does work as proposed. The problem is that it is not effective (can not detect keistered items) and until recently was intrusive. Not too mention a whole host of other issues.
In the end I am surprised these did not end up at federal prison as substitute for strip searches (sans the squat and cough).
That said being in the image processing research field I was rather surprised that Rapidscan was not able to modify their software to meet the new rules.
Further, as much as I dislike the AIT, the technology does work as proposed. The problem is that it is not effective (can not detect keistered items) and until recently was intrusive. Not too mention a whole host of other issues.
In the end I am surprised these did not end up at federal prison as substitute for strip searches (sans the squat and cough).
May 24, 2015, 1:22 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
To be fair, the scanners when purchased met the specification in the RFP. It was latter that the rules changed that made them unusable as originally intentioned. What TSA screwed up on was not thinking that the public would not find the initial images to be invasive. Especially given the make up on their front line staff.
That said being in the image processing research field I was rather surprised that Rapidscan was not able to modify their software to meet the new rules.
Further, as much as I dislike the AIT, the technology does work as proposed. The problem is that it is not effective (can not detect keistered items) and until recently was intrusive. Not too mention a whole host of other issues.
In the end I am surprised these did not end up at federal prison as substitute for strip searches (sans the squat and cough).
That said being in the image processing research field I was rather surprised that Rapidscan was not able to modify their software to meet the new rules.
Further, as much as I dislike the AIT, the technology does work as proposed. The problem is that it is not effective (can not detect keistered items) and until recently was intrusive. Not too mention a whole host of other issues.
In the end I am surprised these did not end up at federal prison as substitute for strip searches (sans the squat and cough).
May 24, 2015, 3:43 pm
#4
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
AIT is still intrusive. Addition of a filter does not change the fact that a detailed search of one's body akin to a strip search is occurring without probable cause, suspicion, etc.
May 24, 2015, 6:49 pm
#5
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Northwest NJ, USA
Programs: HHonors (Gold), One Pass (Peon)
Posts: 680
I would love to see if someone could buy one of these machines and then test it for the amount of radiation they emit. I always wondered why these values were never published by Uncle.
DD
DD