TSA plans to replace the walk-through metal detect with MMW
 

http://tinyurl.com/cj94ju

<i>Joe Sharkey, New York Times News Service

"In a shift, the Transportation Security Administration plans to replace the walk-through metal detectors at airport checkpoints with whole-body imaging machines – the kind that provide an image of the naked body.

Initially, the machines were supposed to be used only on passengers who set off the metal detectors, to provide them with an alternative to the customary secondary physical pat-downs and inspections by electronic wand."</i>

Me thinks the TSA is taking liberties (insert your own punchline there) when they say passenger feedback has been positive. What was likely said was that the passengers enjoyed not being physically groped.

Schneier is right in the article, it will only slow things down.

It's hard to believe that the agency that was forced to change its SOP because of passenger complaints about breast-groping will be allowed to move forward with this strip-search.

Time to have some fun with tape.

The problem I had with the full-body image thing, when they were testing it at DFW, is the TSA said I had to have nothing in my pockets. I was required to hand my passport and wallet over to a TSO.

It royally pissed me off, but I wanted to go to Paris that day.

I guess you have to put those in your carry-on now. Damn!

Call 1 800-TSA-PORN for all your porno needs.

I'm still confused - how about kids? Infants? Do they go through the MMW machines too?

How much radiation do those machines dose you with?

Hmmm, if it is the back scatter stuff then none. If it is the active MMW machines you might be hit with a few milliWatts of power (milli= 1e-3). Non ionizing RF.

Wasn't this discussed here when his column on this subject first appeared in early April?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/bu...road.html?_r=1

Can This be Challenged in Court?
 

If my memory serves me right, the aiport searches with X-ray machines and WTMDs were upheld, in part, because the intrusion was minimal compared to the compelling need of keeping guns off the airplanes.

I think the issue needs to be reopened - the intrusion is far from minimal. Any lawyers on this board that might be intersted?

[QUOTE=doober;11608310]Wasn't this discussed here when his column on this subject first appeared in early April?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/bu...road.html?_r=1[/QUOTE

If so I missed that discussion.

TSA made all kinds of statements that the MMW would be voluntary for those who objected to having their nude image seen.

This is especially important considering young children and teenagers will be subjected to this abuse if TSA is not stopped.

If an adult wants to submit to this form of Strip Search then I say ok, however no child should even be compelled to do this.

I would hope so since this is far over what is required to even have a face to face talk with POTUS and all most of us want to do is to simply fly from point a to point b with our luggage and dignity intact.

The MMW images are much better than what BB at PV leads us to believe. You can make out scars, colostomy bags, adult diapers, etc. and this shouldn't be anywhere near a requirement to fly anywhere.:(

I don't think most of the passengers who have gone thru them actually know what they did, or what the TSA did to them. If there were any signs, they were likely so small & so far away they weren't noticed.

Which leads to the Tampon Paradox.

I truly think that anytime someone's children get put through, the parents need to hit TSA with kiddie-porn complaints. After all, that's exactly what it *IS*. If a passenger went through the checkpoint with a MMW picture of a child in his carryon and got a bag check, they'd get arrested.:mad: (at TSA, not over someone getting busted for kiddie porn - thought I'd better clarify my mad-face)

Perhaps adults not in favor of being forced to be exhibitionists should file sexual-harassment complaints. After all, they're being forced to essentially appear naked in front of someone in return for being permitted to do something they have an unquestionable right to do (fly on a common carrier). It would seem to this layman that the definition of sexual harassment is satisfied.