Just like TSA is going to eliminate the restrictions on LGAs by Fall 2009. :rolleyes:

Hey, I hope I'm wrong, but ... there's a big difference between "taking steps" and "done".

Two plausible answers:

1. They didn't have the capability before now. Just because they can do it now doesn't mean that they could've done it then.

2. They didn't realize what a kerfuffle would be raised over the AIT images, and so didn't plan to do it in the first place. (Hindsight is always 20-20.)

HSVTSO Dean has posted in another thread (I'll look it up if you really want me to) that, currently, TSA does have a targeted pat-down procedure in place to be used to resolve anomalies, without the need for a full pat-down. Of course, whether or not the TSO screening you is aware of that procedure is an independent question.

I say publicity stunt. Like a month ago when TSA was in front congress begging for more money, they said the technology was not yet ready but they were making progress and might be ready for limited trials at a test checkpoint or two later this year. Not that it is anywhere near being deployed nationwide.

Also doesn't address the fact that the damned things are easily defeated and therefore a useless waste of money.

/yawn

The TSA has been floating this idea for some time now, while having some serious reliability issues with the technology behind it, which -Surprise!- will lead to more gropes to resolve what the software thought it saw.

They can do all they want to make the images unoffensive, it still does not address the serious issues of

• Health concerns about radiation and improperly calibrated equipment
• The fact that this technology does not detect explosives
• The fact that this technology does not see into body cavities or under folds of flesh
• The political grift of Michael Chertoff and his lobbying firm when he touted these machines as the solution to the Underpants Bomber

The answer is simple; dump the Nude-O-Scopes. Screening methods should only include x-ray of belongings, metal detectors and Explosive Trace Detection / Explosive Trace Portals for people.

Not good enough, TSA.

No MMW.

No BKSX.

No enhanced patdowns, or any patdown performed with anything other than the back of the hand and an inward patting motion.

No private rooms.

No prohibition of photography.

Anything less than this is insufficient and will result in no change to anti-TSA political action.

Don't care if it helps catch terrorists. Don't care if it helps save lives. Not listening to arguments, too busy drafting Congress and media correspondence to get your budget slashed and your staff terminated.

Very good question.

+1000

Imaging technology and/or patting/rubbing are the wrong methodological approach to detect threats to aviation. No software changes that fact.

Bravo! ^^^^^

I just contacted all of my representatives again yesterday, before the video of the poor woman at ORD popped up. I'm drafting another letter, with a link to her video, as we speak.

My understanding (and from personal experience) is that it's the same pat-down procedure, just done only on the area of the anomaly.

*scramble* Oh, crrrrrrrap!

ORD is my home airport, I live practically within spitting distance.

I need to write to Durbin, Kirk and Schakowsky about the ORD gropedown.

This seems like a good thing to me, I suppose. It's reasonably well documented that the MMW machines don't pose a health risk (unlike backscatter), and the new technology should resolve the privacy issues (it's a computer looking at your naked image, not a person). I don't think I would mind going through a MMW machine with this system.

Right. But the question I was replying to up-thread asked if this was a "full" pat-down. I would argue that it's not a "full" pat-down, in the sense that it's targeted at the area of the anomaly.

Please point me to the independent peer-reviewed studies confirming there are no health risks associated with millimeter wave machines, along with the procedures the TSA follows to ensure that they they are properly calibrated as to not cause injury.

Here are a couple of the issues that I have regarding this:

1. I do not like that it does not require the TSO to be in the back room and that it may take fewer TSA employees. Anything making the body scanners more efficient makes it more difficult to avoid going through the body scanners. Fewer people will likely be directed to the metal detectors because of the lines behind body scanners if this makes it more efficient. Also, if staffing is one of the reasons that body scanners are sometimes roped off, this may eliminate that.

2. Regarding the MMW, there are still questions about its safety. I have read that perhaps MMW may unzip one's DNA. How can this be considered to be safe?

Universally used products such as feminine hygiene...mastectomies...localized rubs helps one not at all

I'm definitely not a scientist-- just going off what I've previously seen on FT.

Quite simple, when first deployed the powers at be did not think that privacy would be an issue. (We are from the government and we are here to help). Once it became an issue to the point where something needed to be done, investment was made. As such, software was developed.

I will give some small credit but not much to those who rolled out this software now and not earlier. Remember, this software or similar was deployed in the Netherlands last year. Pistole said he was not satisfied with the number of false positives as such more work was done. Obviously he is now happy. However, it does not take a former FBI head to know that given the out cry over the patdowns that rolling out new software that would result in false positives and thus patdowns would be a good idea. That would make people even more pissed that they went through the scope and still got a patdown.


Right those are secondary issues. Efficacy is primary, then address the admim. search minimums, then safety, then finally other issues like storage. The privacy IMHO has been a red herring falling between admin search and safety. However, it made for great sound bites.