boatseller

I interpret this as a face-saving way to admit those particular devices, MMW, are not as effective as they should be.

It's most likely L3 got the competing bid to deflect from the shenanigans behind the RapidScan deal with the machines receiving only a superficial vetting.

Exactly how the software will identify anomolies will never be published but I can say for sure it's not easy and there's a lot of people much smarter then anyone working for TSA or L3 that are inching forward.

Consider the very narrow field of fingerprints. The software helps, but even after decades of refinement, it still doesn't actually identify a match.

Such patterns aren't really feasable, the delta taken from one of a set of standard outlines might work, think like a video codec. If diffence is >x, well, you get an X.

realjd

They emit K-band RF energy. That's the same frequencies that police radar guns, automatic door openers, and other similar devices use. You'll be getting hit with a much larger dose every time you walk through an automatic door. So unless you also plan on avoiding any modern retail establishment, avoiding the smaller amount of RF emitted by the MMW machine due to health concerns doesn't make sense. Save the health concerns for the backscatter machines which emit ionizing, cancer causing x-rays.

Here's one source:
http://www.medicaldosimetry.org/meet...t_Scanners.pdf

Personally, while I agree that the scanners are ineffective and dumb, the new software eliminates my concerns with the MMW machines. I'll continue to avoid the backscatter machines.

clrankin

May I then assume that you have little to no privacy concerns then?

While the images these produce might be "family friendly" (unlike the current crop of images), the underlying issue of being strip searched to step onto an airplane still exists.

I don't see how TSA keeps being able to skate around what I understand to be a "minimally invasive" requirement of administrative searches. Strip searches - whether done by machine or by human - are nothing close to minimally invasive.

Sure - having a machine rather than a human look at the images makes them less objectionable. But to people like me who have absolute belief in the Fourth Amendment, they still fall very close on the radar to strip searches administered to convicted felons in prison. This holds especially true if TSA and its contractors ever develop a way to overcome some of the machine's shortcomings - like developing a way to see into body cavities and under folds of fat/flesh.

Of course, I'll be the first to admit that I'm less willing to budge on my position than both sides of Congress appear to be on the debt ceiling issue.

jtodd

Not skating around, outright ignoring and making a mockery of the rules and laws that this country is built on. This is only 1 step removed from the most invasive searches possible. You can't have the range from 1 to 2 cover minimally invasive and the most invasive!

realjd

This eliminates my privacy concerns personally. My concern was with the minimum wage pervs in the back room looking at naked pictures. The way I see it, if humans can't see me naked, it's not a strip search any more than a metal detector or ETD portal would be. The machine isn't capable of seeing a human body for what it is. It just takes the data feed from the antennas, performs some math, and determines if it needs to highlight a part of the stick figure on the screen or not.

But that's just me. I respect that others may have differing opinions. I may only see it this way because I'm an engineer.

JoeBas

Now, if only we could be sure that if/when the machine fails, you won't hear blue gloves snapping and cross your legs...

HookemHorns

This approximates my feelings. Given the choice between software mod MMW vs pat-down, I'd probably take the MMW, but will still SSOO XRBS. I still have very strong feelings about the effectiveness, tactics, and overall disposition of the TSA, but perhaps this is the start of the pendulum starting to swing back to normalcy.

MDtR-Chicago

I'm not sure why you believe this. It's the same machine with different software.

It would be trivial to send the image thru data processing software while at the same time sending it to a human to view anyway. Or to save the raw image.

This rollout is no more trustworthy than when TSA repeatedly assured the public that the existing machines could not save an image. No, really. Well, ok, it theoretically can, but the setup at the airport doesn't allow it. Well actually, sure, if you have the right password you can download, but no one at the airport would have those. Etc.

Do you really trust DHS not to do whatever they want?

Beyond all of this, why not be concerned about the false NEGATIVE rate? There is no reason to believe the image processing algorithm will be significantly better than a human at identifying anomalies. How often will a gun slip thru the checkpoint now, because the algorithm uses less "sensitivity" in order to reduce the false positive rate? Will this development cause us to slow or stop research into a real, effective detector for explosives to replace this ineffective boondoggle?

This whole stick-figure concession changes nothing but is apparently great at lulling otherwise intelligent travelers into a false sense of privacy and security.

Majuki

It would eliminate the privacy concerns for me as well if implemented like in AMS, but I still don't trust them as long as the frosted glass rooms remain. Until the peep show booth has been dismantled, I'm not going to believe someone isn't in the back room "verifying" it's all clear in addition to the "OK" screen. Without the back room, while it would still be possible to have the images saved somewhere in the raw data format, I imagine your average TSO wouldn't have the necessary DSP skills to write a program that reconstructs an image from the raw data. If he did, I'd question why that individual isn't doing more meaningful work with the knowledge.

Being an electrical engineer, I do have far less health risk concerns personally with the MMW machines than the BXSX variety. There are still valid medical reasons to avoid the MMW machines for some people, so I don't view people negatively who claim even the MMW scanners are unsafe.

Even with ATR installed, I will likely still opt-out on principle from the MMW machines and always for the BXSX due to not wanting to increase my exposure beyond what's necessary. (This is coming from someone who doesn't even get routine dental x-rays unless the dentist has a specific need to see something.)

txrus

Heads up-new post over on PV about this.

chollie

I'm against any product that has not been independently tested and reviewed.

When I'm at the airport, TSA is convinced I'm guilty of trying to hide something. The burden rests with me to prove them wrong, every single time (sometimes multiple times, like gate checks or the BDO who followed me into the restroom and continued badgering me while I was in the stall).

I do not believe anything anyone from TSA says unless it can be independently verified.

If TSA has nothing to hide, then why not allow these machines to be independently tested?

celticwhisper

Bingo. Goes beyond that too - As far as I'm concerned, any TSO saying anything about anything is automatically wrong until proven right. Any TSO accused of criminal misconduct is automatically guilty until proven innocent.

If they want to violate the spirit of American liberty with their "prove you're not a terrorist" BS, then I'll do the same right back.

gojirasan

1. Talk is cheap. Especially when it comes from a known pathological liar. I think the chances of them actually making these changes is close to zero.

2. Many airports use the xray machines, which are clearly unsafe. In fact my local airport uses the xray scanners. Having said that, I don't particularly care if I get cancer in 10 years, and I only travel about once a year on average. So that is not an issue for me.

Note that realjd is correct in what he says about the mmw scanners. They are no more dangerous than police radar, electric door openers, or even certain small satellite tv dishes. There are some excellent threads here on the topic if you do a search. The study about the DNA twisting was discredited by a later (unbiased) study.

But that doesn't really matter because so many US airports use the xray scanners. For domestic travel you can't realistically escape them. For international travel you might be able to though if your home airport uses mmw and you schedule your connections carefully.

3. The chances of this not being a lie are infinitesimal, but if by some miracle it comes to pass I would be willing to be scanned if selected. Of course I would absolutely refuse any follow up genital patdown fishing expedition. Not only would I be willing to miss my flight in order to avoid it, but I would be quite willing to go to jail if necessary.

I also would like to see them openly dismantle the viewing areas and allow the press to document it. Of course it is still difficult to trust such sneaky liars. They could just move the viewing room to a distant, secret location. I definitely wouldn't put it past them. They think they are being patriotic even though they are traitors.

LeapingFrogs

It doesn't eliminate my concerns at all. As a software developer myself... I'm going to guess that while they CAN obscure the naked image, they don't have to. How much you want to bet that if the "outline" image shows and anomaly that the operator can flip to the full nudie image to see what's really going on. How much you want to bet? I'm still not convinced they arent storing our pictures in their database. Again, no self-resepecting software engineer would develop a system that didn't save data.

I want them gone -- I don't want them to feed us a line of crap just to make us feel better.

Ord Liza

One more step toward getting rid of the ability to opt out...