ATR MMW experience
Dec 22, 2011, 11:41 am
#31
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: Marriott Plat
Posts: 946
It's a reasonable position to use the MMW with ATR. However, whether "opting out" really matters or not - by going through the machine, you are "casting your vote" in favor of: (in no particular order)
(snip)
There are so many reasons to reject this technology. The "pat down" is terrible, certainly. But it's really hard to respect the choice to surrender to the AIT when I think about what it represents.
(snip)
There are so many reasons to reject this technology. The "pat down" is terrible, certainly. But it's really hard to respect the choice to surrender to the AIT when I think about what it represents.
) But I think these benefits are pretty minor, especially since they don't really add up to any meaningful form of protest. So if it's a choice between MMW/AIT and a patdown, I'll take the MMW.
Dec 22, 2011, 12:55 pm
#32
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
So in other words we should just have a pretend scanner that automatically detects a "prohibited" item for every passenger so that if a "prohibited item" is really found we have an excuse for strip searching the passenger. That way, we have no record of why we strip searched the passenger other than "the machine beeped". I think that's what we already have.
Dec 23, 2011, 10:37 am
#33
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 591
It's sad to see the revolutionary fervor that rightly swept through this place fade as soon as the government throws us a bone. Whether a machine or a government flunky is looking at you nude is largely irrelevant, as is the safety of the machine. This is about submission. The airports, Border Patrol checkpoints, VIPR teams, etc. are experiments to see how much we, the slaves, will tolerate. And we are proving to be very reliable slaves indeed.
Dec 25, 2011, 1:22 pm
#34
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Miami, Fl, sometimes
Programs: AAEXP, MRPLT
Posts: 126
I wouldn't be surprised if the ATR technique was comicly simple, like CS101 simple. BTW, that's not necessarily a critiscism of the implementation.
My guess would be the software, new with ATR, takes the difference, P-frame, of the PAX image and a reference image based on body type. This can be done with any one of dozens of redily available compression algorithms. Then it counts the number of macroblocks within a certain grid size, or even contiguous grids. Differences above a threshold are marked on the screen.
There's nothing remotely revolutionary about this, like is said, it's CS101. If they, L3 or one of their subs, did come up with a better techinque, awesome.
I would be suspicious if anyone tried to claim any sort pattern recognition, along the 'fuzzy/neural' line of research. Kinect looks like the first viable commercial application of this so it'll be decades before the government gets there.
In my observations, if the subject of the scan presents anything to justify the alarm, they are cleared. I have never, ever seen anyone rescanned.
I believe they've said as much.
My guess would be the software, new with ATR, takes the difference, P-frame, of the PAX image and a reference image based on body type. This can be done with any one of dozens of redily available compression algorithms. Then it counts the number of macroblocks within a certain grid size, or even contiguous grids. Differences above a threshold are marked on the screen.
There's nothing remotely revolutionary about this, like is said, it's CS101. If they, L3 or one of their subs, did come up with a better techinque, awesome.
I would be suspicious if anyone tried to claim any sort pattern recognition, along the 'fuzzy/neural' line of research. Kinect looks like the first viable commercial application of this so it'll be decades before the government gets there.
In my observations, if the subject of the scan presents anything to justify the alarm, they are cleared. I have never, ever seen anyone rescanned.
I'm absolutely sure that it's reflection/scatter, not a through transmission. The attenuation by the human body at these frequencies is so great that a transmission system would only generate a silhouette where the beam missed the body completely, and blackout where the beam hit the body.
Dec 26, 2011, 7:11 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
It's a reasonable position to use the MMW with ATR. However, whether "opting out" really matters or not - by going through the machine, you are "casting your vote" in favor of: (in no particular order)
1) A reckless bureaucracy that has repeatedly proven it will do whatever it wants and openly lie about it, without fear of consequence.
2) Whatever hare-brained scheme they come up with next.
3) The unrestrained waste of millions of tax dollars, adding onto a monstrous debt, for less than zero benefit.
4) The slow decline of the ability of the average American to understand probability, economics, and various other numerical disciplines.
5) The routine abuse of the thousands of people who can't "hold the pose", especially the frail and elderly.
6) The much easier ability to smuggle a metallic weapon through the checkpoint, in the very rare instances someone might want to cause harm.
There are so many reasons to reject this technology. The "pat down" is terrible, certainly. But it's really hard to respect the choice to surrender to the AIT when I think about what it represents.
1) A reckless bureaucracy that has repeatedly proven it will do whatever it wants and openly lie about it, without fear of consequence.
2) Whatever hare-brained scheme they come up with next.
3) The unrestrained waste of millions of tax dollars, adding onto a monstrous debt, for less than zero benefit.
4) The slow decline of the ability of the average American to understand probability, economics, and various other numerical disciplines.
5) The routine abuse of the thousands of people who can't "hold the pose", especially the frail and elderly.
6) The much easier ability to smuggle a metallic weapon through the checkpoint, in the very rare instances someone might want to cause harm.
There are so many reasons to reject this technology. The "pat down" is terrible, certainly. But it's really hard to respect the choice to surrender to the AIT when I think about what it represents.
I will not be touched by government clerks! I don't care if it means I can't fly, if I'm stranded on the other side of the country and have to rent a car and drive 4 days to get home and miss work and incur huge additional costs. I will not allow them to put their hands on my person, for any reason, EVER. This is MY choice to make, and I don't really care whether others respect my choice or not.
You may be right.
My logic is this: These devices are capable of providing a piece of evidence in a potential criminal prosecution. If the computer detects no anomaly, then it has decided there is no potential evidence and the data goes away. If it does detect an anomaly, it should at least keep the data required to construct the image until it is no longer a potential bit of evidence. To do otherwise would be nonsensical from a law enforcement perspective and I would expect it. When I am cleared, I also expect the bits and bytes to go to their cyber graveyard somewhere.
My logic is this: These devices are capable of providing a piece of evidence in a potential criminal prosecution. If the computer detects no anomaly, then it has decided there is no potential evidence and the data goes away. If it does detect an anomaly, it should at least keep the data required to construct the image until it is no longer a potential bit of evidence. To do otherwise would be nonsensical from a law enforcement perspective and I would expect it. When I am cleared, I also expect the bits and bytes to go to their cyber graveyard somewhere.
TSA assumes that we're ALL guilty until proven innocent, and even after we're proven innocent at the CP we are often forced to prove our innocence again at the gate. They never assume that we're cleared; heck, remember those stories of a VIPR team at a bus terminal screening arriving pax before allowing them to leave the terminal?
And besides, there has been at least one incident - the Orlando courthouse - where the AIT DID store every image of every person who went through it, to the tune of tens of thousands of saved, fuzzy, indistinct nude images. The excuse, of course, was, "Oops, we forgot the flip the switch to 'don't save'. Sorry about that!" Since TSA is so secretive, we don't know whether their AIT scanner save images. They have repeated stated that the machines are "incapable" of storing the images - even when that was proven to be a bald-faced lie by the Orlando courthouse incident - so I simply don't believe them when they say that the ATR means that no live human will ever see the image.
The info in this thread is the first I've heard about the possibility that ATR-equipped scanners don't actually compose an image from their scan returns but simply feed the raw returns directly to the ATR software. I had always assumed that the machine continued to perform its primary function of creating an image from the scan returns, and funneled either the image or the image plus the raw scan returns, to the ATR for pattern recognition.
Dec 26, 2011, 7:47 am
#36
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Your points are all valid, and I respect your decision to be abusively rubbed down rather than peeped. But I choose the AIT, even without the ATR software.
I will not be touched by government clerks! I don't care if it means I can't fly, if I'm stranded on the other side of the country and have to rent a car and drive 4 days to get home and miss work and incur huge additional costs. I will not allow them to put their hands on my person, for any reason, EVER. This is MY choice to make, and I don't really care whether others respect my choice or not.
You're using logical thinking, Ink, which doesn't apply terribly well to either TSA or law enforcement.
The info in this thread is the first I've heard about the possibility that ATR-equipped scanners don't actually compose an image from their scan returns but simply feed the raw returns directly to the ATR software. I had always assumed that the machine continued to perform its primary function of creating an image from the scan returns, and funneled either the image or the image plus the raw scan returns, to the ATR for pattern recognition.
I will not be touched by government clerks! I don't care if it means I can't fly, if I'm stranded on the other side of the country and have to rent a car and drive 4 days to get home and miss work and incur huge additional costs. I will not allow them to put their hands on my person, for any reason, EVER. This is MY choice to make, and I don't really care whether others respect my choice or not.
You're using logical thinking, Ink, which doesn't apply terribly well to either TSA or law enforcement.
The info in this thread is the first I've heard about the possibility that ATR-equipped scanners don't actually compose an image from their scan returns but simply feed the raw returns directly to the ATR software. I had always assumed that the machine continued to perform its primary function of creating an image from the scan returns, and funneled either the image or the image plus the raw scan returns, to the ATR for pattern recognition.
Logical thinking and the TSA...I should have caught that.In machinery analysis systems, technology with which I am familiar, they originally tried to analyze the data in the same manner as human technicians. It would complete all of the mathematical transforms and create virtual data representation similar to what would be "seen" by analyst. The analyst would provide feedback to the system and the system became smarter and smarter. Eventually, the system was able to "see" the patterns within the data itself without a human interpretable representation having ever been made.
This creates a serious problem. Problems that are unique and outside the previously seen problem set must be flagged for human analysis or ignored. It depends on how the thought process of the designer works. If they think "We know all that we can possibly know" then any new anomaly will be considered just that. It will be discarded as every known (read "possible") problem will already be in the system and anything new can not be a problem.
The second is equally problematic: "We will always be discovering new problems that will need to be programmed into the system." This requires a continuing analyst presence to determine the source and severity whenever new patterns present themselves. This continues the perfection of the detection/discernment/determination loop. This would be done by the ATR flagging an area, resolution of the anomaly by physical inspection and informing the system that the pattern is innocuous or should be flagged in the future.
We do not know which thought process is used. I suspect that all changes are made in the laboratory and software upgrades are sent to the system as improvements are made.
Dec 26, 2011, 2:53 pm
#37
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SJC
Programs: AA, AS, Marriott
Posts: 6,066
Your points are all valid, and I respect your decision to be abusively rubbed down rather than peeped. But I choose the AIT, even without the ATR software.
I will not be touched by government clerks! I don't care if it means I can't fly, if I'm stranded on the other side of the country and have to rent a car and drive 4 days to get home and miss work and incur huge additional costs. I will not allow them to put their hands on my person, for any reason, EVER. This is MY choice to make, and I don't really care whether others respect my choice or not.
I will not be touched by government clerks! I don't care if it means I can't fly, if I'm stranded on the other side of the country and have to rent a car and drive 4 days to get home and miss work and incur huge additional costs. I will not allow them to put their hands on my person, for any reason, EVER. This is MY choice to make, and I don't really care whether others respect my choice or not.
Dec 26, 2011, 3:06 pm
#38
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Opt out is 100% rub down. I consider the opt out rub down equally invasive as the old system. The ATR is enough better to move me towards its use. BXS is still opt out all the way.
Don't get me wrong. I still consider all of them abuses of the administrative search doctrine. I have to fly or the bills do not get paid.
Dec 26, 2011, 3:43 pm
#39
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SJC
Programs: AA, AS, Marriott
Posts: 6,066
InkUnderNails,
You'll get no disagreement from me that opt-out is 100% an aggressive patdown, and, with some adjustment of clothing and luck, you can avoid a patdown with MMW+ATR. Even pre-ATR, I used the MMW twice at SFO. Once was to test it out, and the second time was because I was running late for a flight. I also understand there are those with implants and such for whom the WTMD would always alarm, but now they can get through with "dignity" and a green OK on the screen. (Of course, there used to be HHMD that TSOs could use to isolate the alarm to a replacement hip or knee, but that's another story...)
However, I generally see the MMW+ATR as being a way for the TSA to placate the masses while still being able to waste millions of taxpayer dollars. It also requires far more people to operate the MMW checkpoint setup than the historical WTMD checkpoint. There was a time when you would see only a single person behind the WTMD. Alarms would get sent to the glass penalty boxes to get resolved.
Now I see: A male and female TSO at the output side of the MMW machine, the TSO moat dragon on the front end directing everyone to the MMW and finally a TSO on the back end of the WTMD to make sure nobody sneaks through or to receive the few people going through the WTMD.
You'll get no disagreement from me that opt-out is 100% an aggressive patdown, and, with some adjustment of clothing and luck, you can avoid a patdown with MMW+ATR. Even pre-ATR, I used the MMW twice at SFO. Once was to test it out, and the second time was because I was running late for a flight. I also understand there are those with implants and such for whom the WTMD would always alarm, but now they can get through with "dignity" and a green OK on the screen. (Of course, there used to be HHMD that TSOs could use to isolate the alarm to a replacement hip or knee, but that's another story...)
However, I generally see the MMW+ATR as being a way for the TSA to placate the masses while still being able to waste millions of taxpayer dollars. It also requires far more people to operate the MMW checkpoint setup than the historical WTMD checkpoint. There was a time when you would see only a single person behind the WTMD. Alarms would get sent to the glass penalty boxes to get resolved.
Now I see: A male and female TSO at the output side of the MMW machine, the TSO moat dragon on the front end directing everyone to the MMW and finally a TSO on the back end of the WTMD to make sure nobody sneaks through or to receive the few people going through the WTMD.
Dec 26, 2011, 4:17 pm
#40
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
There is a big difference between the very localized patdown of the area that's highlighted with ATR and a full patdown! The former seems to only take 3-5 seconds while the latter takes almost a minute.
Dec 26, 2011, 4:37 pm
#41
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
Not if you wear shorts with a t-shirt like I do now. At DCA I get through faster than the line waiting for the scope.
Dec 27, 2011, 11:32 am
#43
Moderator: Chase Ultimate Rewards
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 2P, MR LT Plat, IHG Plat, BW Dia, HH Au, Avis PC
Posts: 5,457
I think these are all fairly valid reasons to opt-out (and I'd add that you get to annoy the TSOs, which is always worth it ) But I think these benefits are pretty minor, especially since they don't really add up to any meaningful form of protest. So if it's a choice between MMW/AIT and a patdown, I'll take the MMW.
) But I think these benefits are pretty minor, especially since they don't really add up to any meaningful form of protest. So if it's a choice between MMW/AIT and a patdown, I'll take the MMW.The only other hope we have is the court system and it's anyone's guess how corrupt that system is these days.
Last year, when "sheeple" went right on thru the AIT, gleefully showing their surrender, FT was livid, lambasting them for how stupid and cowardly they were for taking the "easy" way out; how eager they were to give up their precious constitutional rights without a fight.
Now, because TSA pinky-swears no one will see an image - so many here are ok with it? For similar reasons as the sheeple would use - it's easier, more expedient, doesn't really matter, etc. ?
I'm not sure what to think. It's almost comical.
Dec 28, 2011, 3:56 am
#45
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Still, I will not let them touch me. Whether I alarm the AIT, or they choose me at "random", I will absolutely, categorically refuse the rubdown.
This is my choice. I am not meekly submitting, and I choose it with my eyes wide open as to the civil rights violation represented by AIT, and the radiation risk posed by MMW. But I will not be sexually assaulted, no matter what.
Unfortunately, opting-out is probably the only method of "protest" left. The entire legislative infrastructure has made it clear they don't care. The vast swath of infrequent flyers don't care - even if it's their own family being abused.
The only other hope we have is the court system and it's anyone's guess how corrupt that system is these days.
Last year, when "sheeple" went right on thru the AIT, gleefully showing their surrender, FT was livid, lambasting them for how stupid and cowardly they were for taking the "easy" way out; how eager they were to give up their precious constitutional rights without a fight.
Now, because TSA pinky-swears no one will see an image - so many here are ok with it? For similar reasons as the sheeple would use - it's easier, more expedient, doesn't really matter, etc. ?
I'm not sure what to think. It's almost comical.
The only other hope we have is the court system and it's anyone's guess how corrupt that system is these days.
Last year, when "sheeple" went right on thru the AIT, gleefully showing their surrender, FT was livid, lambasting them for how stupid and cowardly they were for taking the "easy" way out; how eager they were to give up their precious constitutional rights without a fight.
Now, because TSA pinky-swears no one will see an image - so many here are ok with it? For similar reasons as the sheeple would use - it's easier, more expedient, doesn't really matter, etc. ?
I'm not sure what to think. It's almost comical.
I have always chosen to go through the AIT, despite how disgusting and despicable I found them, because I prefer to be peeped and have my Constitutional rights violated over being sexually assaulted. Perhaps it's my personal hangups, or a form of latent homophobia, but the idea of another man rubbing my entire body and touching my genitals makes my skin crawl far worse than the AIT peepshow. This is my choice, which I make fully informed and with my eyes open. I am not a sheeple who mindlessly accepts the load of fertilizer that the gubment has shoveled about how these civil rights violations are necessary, or legal, or safe; I know they're lying, but for the moment, until the country wakes up and AIT and full-body rubdowns are limited to cases with clear probable cause or articulable suspicion, I will take the AIT option over the rubdown.
So far, I haven't had to cease flying, but I will if they try to sexually assault me.