|
Originally Posted by N965VJ
(Post 13067811)
Kind of a strange way to let it die quietly –
[URL="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14077239"]Chaffetz sticks by image-screening ban after terrorist attempt |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13067904)
He cant pass the bill all by himself. He is going to need 50& of the House to go along with him. I no longer see that happening, and neither does he.
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 13067922)
The bill already passed the House, Ronnie, by a sizable majority IIRC. ;)
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 13067922)
The bill already passed the House, Ronnie, by a sizable majority IIRC. ;)
Only two more hurdles to go before it can become law. And I don’t see it anywhere in the Senates legislative calendar. Maybe you can find it and provide a link? |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13068060)
Seems your right. *sigh, such a pity.
Only two more hurdles to go before it can become law. And I don’t see it anywhere in the Senates legislative calendar. Maybe you can find it and provide a link? |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13068060)
Seems your right. *sigh, such a pity.
Only two more hurdles to go before it can become law. And I don’t see it anywhere in the Senates legislative calendar. Maybe you can find it and provide a link? |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13067728)
I have never actually seen one of these machines myself, but the information on what they can do is pretty much public knowledge.
It detects anomalies. Things in pockets or pretty much anything on top of the individuals skin including clothing. And of course any anomalies must be investigated further. I know for a fact that they can detect small amounts of marijuana in people’s pockets, we get reports on it every day. It does not detect it as marijuana but as an anomolie. In the meantime, do you have an explanation for your management's brilliant decision to require people to remain in their seats for the last 60 minutes of an international flight? Turning off the route map and prohibiting in-flight announcements about location? Yes, I know the decisions have allegedly been rescinded, but what stupendous mental acuity led to those stupid original decisions? |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13067728)
It detects anomalies. Things in pockets or pretty much anything on top of the individuals skin including clothing. And of course any anomalies must be investigated further. I know for a fact that they can detect small amounts of marijuana in people’s pockets, we get reports on it every day. It does not detect it as marijuana but as an anomolie.
|
.......
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13067728)
I have never actually seen one of these machines myself, but the information on what they can do is pretty much public knowledge.
It detects anomalies. Things in pockets or pretty much anything on top of the individuals skin including clothing. And of course any anomalies must be investigated further. I know for a fact that they can detect small amounts of marijuana in people’s pockets, we get reports on it every day. It does not detect it as marijuana but as an anomolie. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 13063258)
Watching Fox News (shut up, don't want to hear it) just now Lieberman and the rest of the Government officials and Representatives on the show are pushing the WBI.
I just saw NBC nightly news (... and before comments on that, I'm not a fan of any tv news channels, but was channel surfing to see how what news programs are saying about this incident). On the referenced news show they brought up the WBI and showed ... I kid you not ... a cartoon character-type image as an example of the image that would be taken at the airport "for your security." And then of course they had some lady saying "of course they should use these machines ... it's all about saving us!" Disgusting. If they want to use these machines then they absolutely should put an unaltered shot on display at the airports. There are plenty of people who would not like this invasion, even if they are in the "do everything to save me" club. I disagree with it, as many others do, based upon it being a strip search without cause. period. And I absolutely would fly less if these became the norm. |
Originally Posted by JenGal
(Post 13070262)
I just saw NBC nightly news (... and before comments on that, I'm not a fan of any tv news channels, but was channel surfing to see how what news programs are saying about this incident). On the referenced news show they brought up the WBI and showed ... I kid you not ... a cartoon character-type image as an example of the image that would be taken at the airport "for your security."
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 13064601)
There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about drugs.
Explosives can be detected reliably and unobtrusively with ETP/ETD. There's no need for disgusting WBI. |
Originally Posted by MrPink
(Post 13067851)
Do you have a link to an original source of the TSA images? As is, one could argue that the comparative image has been "doctored."
Here is the source for the right side images. Click the picture box to the second image. The only edits I did was to crop just the MMW image and enlarge it to match the TSA released image. Here is the source for the TSA released image. Click the image for a large version. |
Originally Posted by Dorlee
(Post 13070604)
What kind of device is the ETP? Is that the swab? Is the ETD something you walk through?
ETD = Explosives Trace Detector, aka The Swab (smaller machine using swabs to test items in carry-on luggage) |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 13064614)
The WBI does not detect anything, it only allows the operator to look under your clothes. It is up to the operator to determine if you are hiding something.
Of course it is worthless if the object is hidden in a fat fold or body cavity. |
We have one wbi at sfo here, and I work with it every day at the checkpoint. Honestly, the images we see aren't that great, but good enough to determine if you have a wallet in your pocket or a knife strapped to your chest (and that's happened with me before). It's great technology, and it does work. There are signs next to it to explain what it does, and we have people explaining what it does as well. As a passenger, it is your right to not go through it. Anyone who opts out of the wbi instead gets a patdown. Nobody can force you to go through the wbi. It uses zero x-rays, so it's not going to expose you to anything. If I remember correctly, the machine that uses x-rays is the backscatter, a machine we don't use.
|
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13070870)
We have one wbi at sfo here, and I work with it every day at the checkpoint. Honestly, the images we see aren't that great, but good enough to determine if you have a wallet in your pocket or a knife strapped to your chest (and that's happened with me before). It's great technology, and it does work. There are signs next to it to explain what it does, and we have people explaining what it does as well. As a passenger, it is your right to not go through it. Anyone who opts out of the wbi instead gets a patdown. Nobody can force you to go through the wbi. It uses zero x-rays, so it's not going to expose you to anything. If I remember correctly, the machine that uses x-rays is the backscatter, a machine we don't use.
I've refused twice. One time got a very friendly patdown and hassled about why I should have just went thru it. Along with that, my laptop was nearly stolen because they kept me out of view of my belongings. I got my laptop back but it was damaged - which is why I think I got it back in the first place. The other time, I got treated to a bunch of conspiracy theory by the screener screening me. It was far from a trivial experience either time I refused. :td: |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 13070929)
Right ... you have the "right" to refuse which TSA will make you pay dearly for if you invoke.
I've refused twice. One time got a very friendly patdown and hassled about why I should have just went thru it. Along with that, my laptop was nearly stolen because they kept me out of view of my belongings. I got my laptop back but it was damaged - which is why I think I got it back in the first place. The other time, I got treated to a bunch of conspiracy theory by the screener screening me. It was far from a trivial experience either time I refused. :td:
Originally Posted by Napolitano Testimony to Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee
Sen. Udall: Okay. Okay. Thank you. I probably don't have enough time to get you to answer the question but on whole-body imaging let me just lay it out a little bit here. You're -- TSA's greatly expanding its use of whole-body imaging for primary passenger screening at airports, and Albuquerque is one of the airports where it's doing that. And although TSA has voluntarily taken certain measures to protect passenger privacy, I believe several serious questions should be answered before TSA deploys these whole-body imaging machines more widely, and one of the issues really is if you decline the machine you get a full-body pat down, and as you can see, that could -- you either one of the other -- that could be very intrusive. So I -- I'm going to submit the questions to you because my time is up and I know the chairman may want to get to other senators here. But I hope that you'll give us a prompt response on that.
Sec. Napolitano: Right, and Senator, in the airports I've been at observing how that technology is used and there's been a -- that technology is much different than as portrayed in the press. But in any event, it hasn't been a pat down but you go through the standard magnetometer process. So -- but we'll be happy to answer the questions that you have. |
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 13070929)
Right ... you have the "right" to refuse which TSA will make you pay dearly for if you invoke.
I've refused twice. One time got a very friendly patdown and hassled about why I should have just went thru it. Along with that, my laptop was nearly stolen because they kept me out of view of my belongings. I got my laptop back but it was damaged - which is why I think I got it back in the first place. The other time, I got treated to a bunch of conspiracy theory by the screener screening me. It was far from a trivial experience either time I refused. :td: Also, when we ask, it's more curiosity for me. But TSA wants to know why people are opting out of it. And how did your laptop get damaged? Damged how? |
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13070870)
We have one wbi at sfo here, and I work with it every day at the checkpoint. Honestly, the images we see aren't that great, but good enough to determine if you have a wallet in your pocket or a knife strapped to your chest (and that's happened with me before). It's great technology, and it does work. There are signs next to it to explain what it does, and we have people explaining what it does as well. As a passenger, it is your right to not go through it. Anyone who opts out of the wbi instead gets a patdown. Nobody can force you to go through the wbi. It uses zero x-rays, so it's not going to expose you to anything. If I remember correctly, the machine that uses x-rays is the backscatter, a machine we don't use.
|
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13070969)
If you want your items in your view, you only have to ask. We're not going to tell you no :)
Also, when we ask, it's more curiosity for me. But TSA wants to know why people are opting out of it. And how did your laptop get damaged? Damged how? You "ask" about why people opt out of the WBI to serve your purposes of retribution and intimidation. If the TSA REALLY, REALLY was legitimately interested in what the public had to say, they'd eliminate the WBI, the shoe circus, the kippie bags and the fluid limits. Look, the easy answer is this: We already go through the magnetometer. Why not walk through an ETP and be done with it? (And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming "technological concerns"). |
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13070870)
We have one wbi at sfo here, and I work with it every day at the checkpoint. Honestly, the images we see aren't that great, but good enough to determine if you have a wallet in your pocket or a knife strapped to your chest (and that's happened with me before). It's great technology, and it does work. There are signs next to it to explain what it does, and we have people explaining what it does as well. As a passenger, it is your right to not go through it. Anyone who opts out of the wbi instead gets a patdown. Nobody can force you to go through the wbi. It uses zero x-rays, so it's not going to expose you to anything. If I remember correctly, the machine that uses x-rays is the backscatter, a machine we don't use.
That is not what the head of DHS said. She clearly said that refusal only resulted in a trip thru the WTMD. So how come you folks at SFO are doing patdowns? |
I don't know. That's what we do. Not because we want to intimidate you, but because that's the rules. I have no control over it. And trust me, none of us particularly care for the device.
And thyroid problems? Never heard of if from the wbi, but whatever. I mean, I work with an x-ray machine every day, what's the difference with a bit more :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13071163)
[color=red] I don't know. That's what we do. Not because we want to intimidate you, but because that's the rules. I have no control over it. And trust me, none of us particularly care for the device.
Unfortunately, you may be sincere and not want to intimidate us, but as I am sure you know, perception is reality. The perception is that everything about TSA is to intimidate the flying public and make them cower to all the rules, no matter how inane they may be. And lastly, do you not understand how absolutely maddening the "that's the rules. I have NO control over it" line is? You have ABSOLUTE control over it! If you were sincere in your beliefs, you would either a) work with the chain of command to improve the process and failing that b) quit. |
Originally Posted by Brewfangrb
(Post 13071297)
Are you doing anything about it? Providing feedback up the chain of command with your concerns about how the WBI affects the quality of the security process, how it affects the public's view of the security process, etc? If not, then I don't believe "Your safety is our top priority". I believe "I do what I am told, no matter what, so I can pay the rent."
Unfortunately, you may be sincere and not want to intimidate us, but as I am sure you know, perception is reality. The perception is that everything about TSA is to intimidate the flying public and make them cower to all the rules, no matter how inane they may be. And lastly, do you not understand how absolutely maddening the "that's the rules. I have NO control over it" line is? You have ABSOLUTE control over it! If you were sincere in your beliefs, you would either a) work with the chain of command to improve the process and failing that b) quit. As me and my friend do, we cross our arms, say "BWAHAHAHA, EVIL TSA" and laugh it off. It's just better to be in a good mood then pissed at the world :) |
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13070870)
We have one wbi at sfo here, and I work with it every day at the checkpoint. Honestly, the images we see aren't that great, but good enough to determine if you have a wallet in your pocket or a knife strapped to your chest (and that's happened with me before). It's great technology, and it does work. There are signs next to it to explain what it does, and we have people explaining what it does as well. As a passenger, it is your right to not go through it. Anyone who opts out of the wbi instead gets a patdown. Nobody can force you to go through the wbi. It uses zero x-rays, so it's not going to expose you to anything. If I remember correctly, the machine that uses x-rays is the backscatter, a machine we don't use.
T-ray devices are no better at detecting explosives. |
The wbi and the x-ray machines don't detect explosives. It's all a human effort. Other than the etp, we don't have much else. It would be real nice.
|
Originally Posted by DevilDog438
(Post 13070965)
Plus, dear DHS leader assured the dorks on the Hill that no one is patted down for refusing the WBI.
(underlining mine) |
Originally Posted by senseker
(Post 13070870)
We have one wbi at sfo here, and I work with it every day at the checkpoint. Honestly, the images we see aren't that great, but good enough to determine if you have a wallet in your pocket or a knife strapped to your chest (and that's happened with me before). It's great technology, and it does work. There are signs next to it to explain what it does, and we have people explaining what it does as well. As a passenger, it is your right to not go through it. Anyone who opts out of the wbi instead gets a patdown. Nobody can force you to go through the wbi. It uses zero x-rays, so it's not going to expose you to anything. If I remember correctly, the machine that uses x-rays is the backscatter, a machine we don't use.
And just to add to the chorus: WBI does not work. You should detect explosives, not images. Images can be anything, including perfectly innocent but very personal things you have no need to know about. |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 13068064)
It's there but I'm not doing your work for you.
Originally Posted by N965VJ
(Post 13070086)
What threat to commercial aviation, besides someone cleaning out the F snack basket, does marijuana have?
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 13070134)
Are you looking forward to personally handling used tampons, panty liners, colostomy bags or the like, or are you just in this for the the in-person- and/or video-monitoring of removals of those items? That is what will come with increased use of strip search machines.
Originally Posted by BubbaLoop
(Post 13072273)
Could you please tell us in which terminal and what lanes lead to it? Is it used for primary or secondary screening?
And just to add to the chorus: WBI does not work. You should detect explosives, not images. Images can be anything, including perfectly innocent but very personal things you have no need to know about. ETP and ETD only say that yes these elements are present. The actual detection of the explosives is done by the screeners. WBI and MMW only give a picture of hidden items. Its screeners who decide if those items are hazardous or prohibited. They all do exactly what they are designed to do, and they do it well. It’s the screeners who actually do the work of determining what is questionable, prohibited, or hazardous. Calls for Full-Body Screening Devices Grow After Terror Attempt "Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) -- A suspected terrorist’s attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner may override privacy concerns and intensify a push for full-body scanning equipment at airports. U.S. officials charged a 23-year-old Nigerian man with trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253 as it prepared to land in Detroit on Christmas Day. President Barack Obama said yesterday he ordered a thorough review of the episode and called for new scrutiny of screening policies and technologies. Metal detectors currently used to screen passengers wouldn’t have found the explosive allegedly carried aboard by the suspect, said former Federal Aviation Administration security chief Billie Vincent. Only more sophisticated devices such as low-level X-rays and millimeter-wave technology would work, Vincent said. " More here |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13072548)
Calls for Full-Body Screening Devices Grow After Terror Attempt
"Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) -- A suspected terrorist’s attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner may override privacy concerns and intensify a push for full-body scanning equipment at airports. U.S. officials charged a 23-year-old Nigerian man with trying to blow up Northwest Flight 253 as it prepared to land in Detroit on Christmas Day. President Barack Obama said yesterday he ordered a thorough review of the episode and called for new scrutiny of screening policies and technologies. Metal detectors currently used to screen passengers wouldn’t have found the explosive allegedly carried aboard by the suspect, said former Federal Aviation Administration security chief Billie Vincent. Only more sophisticated devices such as low-level X-rays and millimeter-wave technology would work, Vincent said. " More here |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13072391)
Oh get over it. Nothing detects explosives.
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 13063319)
Is Senator Lieberman going to see to it that WBI's are installed throughout the entire world?
|
Follow the money
I don't have time to research this right now, but we need to find out where the Nude-O-Scopes are manufactured and in what states do the manufacturer have a substantial presence.
|
Sorry for a dumb question here, but why don't they just get rid of the offensive Nude-o-scope™ and use bomb-sniffing dogs? Have I missed something here?
|
Originally Posted by honeytoes
(Post 13072779)
Sorry for a dumb question here, but why don't they just get rid of the offensive Nude-o-scope™ and use bomb-sniffing dogs? Have I missed something here?
Dogs are the best! There are those sniffer wands also. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13072366)
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post Are you looking forward to personally handling used tampons, panty liners, colostomy bags or the like, or are you just in this for the the in-person- and/or video-monitoring of removals of those items? That is what will come with increased use of strip search machines. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13072391)
Oh get over it. Nothing detects explosives. All the technology does is detect elements that are commonly used in explosives, not the explosives themselves. ETD, ETP, WBI, MMW, none of it works without human assistance and intervention.
ETP and ETD only say that yes these elements are present. The actual detection of the explosives is done by the screeners. WBI and MMW only give a picture of hidden items. Its screeners who decide if those items are hazardous or prohibited. They all do exactly what they are designed to do, and they do it well. It’s the screeners who actually do the work of determining what is questionable, prohibited, or hazardous. Have you seen the terrorist´s underwear? Unless WBI has the resolution necessary to, say, show the contours of you pubic hairs, there is no way it could have differentiated between underwear bomb and a maxipad, adult diaper, or any number of intimate necessities you do not need to know about. How do you expect to "resolve" such situations when using the WBI? Physical inspection of pads used by menstruating women? I can tell you ahead of time that will backfire very quickly. |
Go ahead and yell
I know this will run against the grain of this thread and this forum, but if TSA wants to assign someone to view my 62-year-old penis, I really don't care. Why are some folks so concerned if some anonymous stranger sees their body? Have they never been to a hospital? Never been to a high school or YMCA locker room?
I would rather quickly walk through a machine than submit to the pat-down. I just don't think the "aversion to nudity" phobia evidenced in this Forum is as widespread as one might think if one lives here only. I do not deny that the involuntary aspects of the machines are objectionable, but why do so many seem to object? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:39 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.