RadioGirl

Poster Boy is back, misusing "hopefully", headlining a puppy post with "See SPO Screen..." and giving us these gems:
As Dilbert said, "Sir, when I need a no-brainer I know I can always count on you."
"Relatively" well informed? So, iPod-sized signs again?
Please let Paul know what you think. Awesome, dude?

LoganTSO

Well, since I work at BOS, and at least for the moment, I've only seen the SPO in my terminal. The majority are yes, iPod sized. However... there is a big one located right next to the screening station saying that screening is being conducted. I'll take a picture of the layout for you all.

I think it's awesome. It does close a potential security risk, ie suicide bombers setting themselves off in a ticket queue.

Superguy

This is an illegal search that violates the 4th amendment under Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)..

Same should apply for a person as well for anything that's not in public view.

Not that TSA really cares what the law is that they're violating the 4th amendment, but it's good to see that there's precedent for smacking them down should anyone be harassed by this.

Superguy

Too bad it's unconstitutional.

See the post I just made.

PoliceStateSurvivor

Application of this argument to its logical conclusion would suggest that anyone can be searched anywhere. How is this constitutional?

As I understand, we have to submit to administrative search in order to board an aircraft. Why should a person who is meeting an arriving passenger be subjected to a search? Please cite a legal precedent that allows it.

Mr. Gel-pack

Just how does it close that imaginary security risk?

triehle

This is great news that Paul is reporting at PV! Go see for yourself!

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/see-...creen-spo.html


If you go look for yourself, the first thing you will realize is that Blogdad Bob's suggestion discouraging photography of monitors has gone by the boards. Paul has posted a great big photo of this device's screen monitor. That's good news!

You will want to say "thanks" for another reason as well for Paul having posted that "example of the image an operator would see." Having done this, I am sure nothing will stop Paul from posting a full-size, accurate photo of "what an operator would see" using the full-body image Virtual Strip Search MMW's currently in operation in some airports.

All we have seen so far are those tiny, grainy i-pod size photos. We'd like to see what the TSA in the back room actually sees on his or her screen, just as Paul has done today on PV for the SPO-7 screen monitor. Thanks to Paul, we must surely now be on our way to getting some good information about what pax who submit to the Full-Body MMW are really subjecting themselves to.

TSORon

Here is some additional information about this technology. Familiarize yourselves with it, there is no possible way that this can invade anyone's privacy.

http://www.planningsystemsinc.com/do...PO_jan23PM.PDF

Superguy

Read the SCOTUS decison Ron, and also the decisions by the lower courts leading up to it. They made the argument that they were monitoring heat eminations from the house and based probable cause for a search based on unusual heat eminations. Also that such eminations coming out of house were public and not considered private.

Lower courts agreed and said that was constitutional. SCOTUS didn't buy it and rightfully overturned it. So apparently, it DOES violate people's rights.

TSA, by its own admission, said it's scanning for energy emitted from devices carried by people. This includes stuff under clothing and in bags. It's the EXACT SAME THING and TSA is making the exact same arguments that SCOTUS rejected. The only real difference is it's using a slightly different technology instead of infrared.

Even if people are in public, like a "house" was, it's still a search to see objects that are under clothing, in bags, etc. You know, things that are private. SCOTUS found that search to violate the Fourth Amendment.

I highly doubt SCOTUS would up hold TSA's actions if/when this goes to court based on previous precedent I cited earlier. TSA's making the exact same arguments that were made in Kyllo. You'd think a lawyer like Francine would read applicable case law BEFORE violating people's Fourth Amendment rights.

JSmith1969

Maybe Google wasn't loading for her that day.

Italy98

+1 ^

polonius

It CLOSES that risk? How? Once again, do you guys have ANYONE in your organisation that can think like a terrorist?

You guys just don't seem to get it. I'm a senior manager at a global corporation, working with a bunch of other people -- legal, commercial, engineering, marketing etc. Most of what you see in "Dilbert" looks pretty familiar to us -- we have our share of incompetence, hubris, mediocrity and simple pig-headedness. Nontheless, we somehow manage the operational, technical, and legal challenges needed to launch products and services and in so doing, make money for our shareholders.

Now imagine for a moment that the legality/morality of terror is irrelevant, and me and my colleagues are given a new assignment -- find a way to sow as much terror and destruction throughout the world as possible. We have the same budgets, the same skills, the same resources as at present.

Do you have ANY idea how much EASIER it would be to launch two terror attacks/month, each killing a minimum of 100 people, every month for the next 12 months, then it would be to continue doing our current jobs? Running your typical McDonalds -- hiring workers, managing workers, buying supplies, keeping the place cleaned, keeping the place secure, maintaining the equipment, dealing with the health authorities, etc., ALL of that is lot more complex than running a terror organisation. All this TSA nonsense doesn't make any real difference. People standing in a ticket queue at an airport is only one of dozens of potential targets. I could think up two dozen more while I take my shower tomorrow morning. 99% of us have jobs that are more challenging than that of your typical "international terrorist." Only an idiot would find such work difficult, and only a real idiot would think anything the TSA has done (shampoo war? shoe removal? those are a couple of things that might have caused terrorists concern -- for about 10 minutes) has done anything to make it any more challenging.

IslandBased

Sounds like a great device to stop people from bringing their own popcorn to the cinema.

PhoenixRev

Unfortunately, 9/11 made us exceptionally myopic in terms of security. We focused so much on airports, just about everything else gets a pure pittance of engaged security. You are correct that one could spend 10 minutes to come up with a list of targets in any large city that doesn't have anything to do with aviation.

Perhaps someday we will focus on real security particularly in other areas apart from airports, but my guess is it will take an incredibly tragic incident for that to happen.

brandinius2

It sure is "awesome." I think TSOs should be able to enter my home after I print my boarding pass and search everything in case it can be used as an explosive and packed in my bag. That would close a security risk.

Further, I think they should be able to track my purchases and, when I have bought ammunition, or knives, or any explosive of any kind within 7 days of a flight, be able to search my bags simply because of that. It would close another security risk.

If I have used charcoal lighter fluid within 4 days of a flight, then TSOs should have the right to search my body cavities. That closes another security risk.