New technology will enhance privacy on body scanners, TSA says
 

Washington (CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration is taking steps beginning Wednesday to eliminate the image of an actual passenger in the body scanners at airports and is replacing it with a generic outline of a person.

The new software on its millimeter wave Advanced Imaging Technology machines is designed to enhance privacy but maintain security standards.

It "will auto-detect items that could pose a potential threat using a generic outline of a person for all passengers," according to a statement from the TSA.

"If no potential threats are detected, an 'OK' appears on the monitor with no outline, and the passenger is cleared," the statement said.

Passengers will be able to view the same outline a TSA officer sees, and it will no longer be necessary for a separate TSA officer to view the image in a remotely located viewing room.

Currently, there are nearly 500 imaging technology units at 78 airports in the United States and more units will be deployed this year, the TSA said. Some of the units use the millimeter wave technology, while others use so-called "backscatter" technology.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/07/20...ns/index.html?

Only time will tell how screeners adapt to this. In the meantime, people are still being irradiated.

Based on the number of passengers who are seemingly patted down anyway after going through the NoS, the auto-detection can't be any less accurate than the screeners viewing the images!

I've flown only once since this kabuki theater stuff was instituted, and lucked out on my outbound flight not having to go through the nudie scanners. My destination was a small airport that only had metal detectors, so the flight back I was spared as well.

My question is - if they can do this change now, why didn't they use it from the beginning?

Still have one more flight planned for the end of this month, at which point I expect that my luck at avoiding these things will run out.

Any bets on whether the media will report that "ALL" scanners will use this new technology despite backscatters still being widely deployed?

So many in the media still perpetuate the myth of the "patdown" OR "scan" when the reality is the choice is "patdown" OR "scan likely followed immediately by patdown, with a chance for a bonus patdown at the gate"

If they go to this method, will a full patdown still be required to resolve any anomaly? If somebody leaves something in their pocket, will the screener just examine the pocket? That would make sense, but this is the TSA.

Any bets that this is just a PR stunt due to the backlash?
"Oh this machine auto-detects threats." Meanwhile there is still someone in a hidden room getting their jollies looking at your naked image.

Taking it to the next step, how likely is it that the machine will have a random, or TSO-initiated, function to "see" an anomaly, requiring a full patdown?

You know, for random auditing or attractive female passenger purposes?

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.5.0.138 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

You Communist Islamic Fascist who wants to bring down America! How could you possibly think that???? :-)

They can do what they want. It's still a STRIP SEARCH. Lipstick on a pig.

There are two sides to the technology. As someone who has been involved in digital image processing I find the algorithmic aspects interesting. But that is as far as it goes.

From a deployment side one perhaps two positives. No private rooms for the TSO perps they will now be out in the open. Second perhaps it will now only take two instead of three TSOs to conduct the scoping.

So while the above addresses the privacy issues, it does not address the primary issue efficacy. As such, TSA can invest all they want in processing software and even address the exposure issues. Until they address the efficacy it is more money down a piss hole.

:DThanks flies! I needed the laugh. I am composing a post about a couple phone conversations I had with the CS rep for the TSA and the Airport CS rep both at BUF. Spent over 30 minutes talking to the former, and 15 minutes with the latter. Would tell more, but I don't want to hijack;) this thread.

Is that supposed to the "Communist Islamic Fascist" mentioned in the previous post laughing at us?

Sorry, don't want to take this to OMNI, but couldn't resist... ;)

Does not address the raw image or Backscatter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

Heads up-new post over on PV about this.