New TSA screening system in development "sees" too much
A new system being tested to screen passengers at US airports appears to be exposing more than it should..... The system the TSA purchased, called “TAC,” is described by ThruVision as a “people-screening camera that sees any type of item—including metal, plastic, ceramic, gel, liquid, powder and paper—hidden in peoples’ clothing at distances of 3 to 10m,” or about 10 to 32 feet. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-ai...202743394.html |
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 31035584)
So anything not fully visible is considered to be deliberately "hidden". If that's true and this equipment gets into operation, almost everyone is going to be stopped and molested.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-ai...202743394.html Who gets stopped and hassled by DHS employees at airports varies and is too often prejudice-based, and I expect that DHS will continue with that. In other words, I doubt that they will be stopping and molesting morbidly obese 70 year old males perceived to be of European ethnic background(s) at the same rate as young ethnic minorities, for example. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31035686)
I've mentioned before that Terahertz technology can allow for the TSA to see people's "junk" in detailed ways, and it can be in detailed enough ways that the images produced may be classified as illegal or otherwise unethical pornography production in some jurisdictions.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31035691)
If true then any images of children would make TSA the largest Child Pornographers on the planet.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/chec...s-25-feet.html |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31035686)
I've mentioned before that Terahertz technology can allow for the TSA to see people's "junk" in detailed ways, and it can be in detailed enough ways that the images produced may be classified as illegal or otherwise unethical pornography production in some jurisdictions.
Who gets stopped and hassled by DHS employees at airports varies and is too often prejudice-based, and I expect that DHS will continue with that. In other words, I doubt that they will be stopping and molesting morbidly obese 70 year old males perceived to be of European ethnic background(s) at the same rate as young ethnic minorities, for example. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31035695)
It could end up being the largest institutional producer of pornography of sorts.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31035711)
The simple act of creating an image of a minor that shows genitalia can be considered child pornography.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31035735)
It can be, but it also may not be under some circumstances. For example, an image capture for the explicit purposes of medical referral for diagnosis/treatment isn't necessarily going to end up being considered production of child pornography. And we know that "security" is an excuse government is able and often willing to use as an excuse to get what it wants on and from passengers.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31035758)
I have used the qualifier "can" in my comments purposely. I agree for medical purposes explicit images would be considered necessary if created for a specific diagnostic purpose but there is no reasonable excuse, in my mind, for TSA to create explicit images of adults or children. If Congress disapproved of the WBI images before privacy filters I don't see this going over well at all. If TSA knows the images are explicit then not modifying the machines before deployment would be shortsighted.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31035780)
Congress disapproving or not, it doesn't make a difference unless and until Congress makes sure to get passed a law restricting TSA from doing what Congress may seem to have disapproved. But government seems less eager to pass laws restricting government than it is in expanding the capability for government to expand power over the traveling public and providing room for government to decide for itself what is and is not allowed to be done to the traveling public.
|
Isn't this just the same as the original "Nude O-scope" way back when, with different technology?
|
it is jokingly being referred to by some insiders as the "FLExxx"
|
Originally Posted by Section 107
(Post 31035951)
it is jokingly being referred to by some insiders as the "FLExxx"
|
Related threads discussing the Passive Terahertz Screening technology:
|
Your tax dollars at work:
The system has so far cost $662,840, with the software patch costing $250,000, for a total of $912,840, per the US government’s Federal Procurement Data System. Here's the marketing blurb: Minimum object size of 5cm x 5cm (2in x 2in) at 5m (15ft) on stationary person and 35cm x 25cm (14in x 10in) at 8m (24ft) on walking person |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:28 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.