|
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 |
If it gets me through security faster and does not pose an increased risk of cancer, I am all for it. Not sure why everyone is so hung up about this issue. There will be millions of people passing through; if you are so 'special' that they take notice, consider it a blessing and move on with your life. The level of prudity in the USA is absolutely astounding, but then again, that why we were run out of Europe in the first place. Technically, the TSA already has the right to perform a strip search on any one at any time as it is.
|
Originally Posted by downinit
(Post 31037363)
If it gets me through security faster and does not pose an increased risk of cancer, I am all for it. Not sure why everyone is so hung up about this issue. There will be millions of people passing through; if you are so 'special' that they take notice, consider it a blessing and move on with your life. The level of prudity in the USA is absolutely astounding, but then again, that why we were run out of Europe in the first place. Technically, the TSA already has the right to perform a strip search on any one at any time as it is.
Where did you come up with the idea that "the TSA has the right to perform a strip search on any one at any time"? It sounds more like the wishful thinking of some than reality as it is for the flying public. |
Originally Posted by downinit
(Post 31037363)
If it gets me through security faster and does not pose an increased risk of cancer, I am all for it. Not sure why everyone is so hung up about this issue. There will be millions of people passing through; if you are so 'special' that they take notice, consider it a blessing and move on with your life. The level of prudity [sic] in the USA is absolutely astounding, but then again, that why we were run out of Europe in the first place. Technically, the TSA already has the right to perform a strip search on any one at any time as it is.
|
Originally Posted by downinit
(Post 31037363)
Technically, the TSA already has the right to perform a strip search on any one at any time as it is.
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 31037565)
Technically, the TSA is part of the United States Government. The United States is a federalist republic. The TSA does not have rights as the United States Government does not have rights. People have rights and States have rights. The United States has powers and only those powers delegated to it by the constitution. Performing a strip search on anyone at any time is not one such power.
|
Originally Posted by Collierkr
(Post 31037645)
good luck fighting your position. Having said that this new technology and what is being written about it is pure BS. It will be dumbed down as needed. Then again If you polled the families of the 9/11 planes they would gladly tell you they would rather have some odd pictures out there I return for their lost ones. These machines would not have prevented 9/11 since the terrorist carried no prohibited items. |
Originally Posted by Collierkr
(Post 31037645)
good luck fighting your position. Having said that this new technology and what is being written about it is pure BS. It will be dumbed down as needed. Then again If you polled the families of the 9/11 planes they would gladly tell you they would rather have some odd pictures out there I return for their lost ones. WTMD and ETD of passengers, flight crew and airport ground workers is more than sufficient to secure flights to a reasonable extent -- all without buying more, new expensive junk and without doing de facto, remote strip-searching of the flying public, flight crew members and airport ground workers. |
Once these are installed, I'll consider wearing a "prosthetic" just to see who's paying attention to what. :p
|
Originally Posted by rickg523
(Post 31037734)
Once these are installed, I'll consider wearing a "prosthetic" just to see who's paying attention to what. :p
|
So what would this machine find that wasn't found on 9/11?
|
Originally Posted by rickg523
(Post 31037734)
Once these are installed, I'll consider wearing a "prosthetic" just to see who's paying attention to what. :p
|
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 31037830)
So what would this machine find that wasn't found on 9/11?
|
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 31037830)
So what would this machine find that wasn't found on 9/11?
|
Originally Posted by DragonSoul
(Post 31038169)
Is that you Derek?
I was thinking more of Dirk Diggler. Or to be specific, the Dirk Diggler :D |
I'm confused. If we now (post 9/11) lock the cockpits with a deadbolt and the passengers know to physically attack any hijackers, why do we need this?
Sounds like a billion dollar boondoggle. |
Originally Posted by yandosan
(Post 31040654)
I'm confused. If we now (post 9/11) lock the cockpits with a deadbolt and the passengers know to physically attack any hijackers, why do we need this?
Sounds like a billion dollar boondoggle. |
Originally Posted by rickg523
(Post 31040669)
Boondoggle? Wanna bet a former DHS executive is a principal in the company awarded the
|
Thruvision Begins US Manufacturing to Meet Growing Demand for Stand-Off People Screening Security Solution
ASHBURN, VA / ACCESSWIRE / September 25, 2018 / Thruvision, a provider of next-generation people screening solutions, today announced that it has begun US manufacturing in Melbourne Florida. All Thruvision Systems intended for sale in the Americas will be manufactured at this location. Thruvision has already completed production of multiple units at the facility for shipment to its US government customers. |
Originally Posted by rickg523
(Post 31040624)
I've got to ask who's Derek?
I was thinking more of Dirk Diggler. Or to be specific, the Dirk Diggler :D |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31041117)
Thruvision Begins US Manufacturing to Meet Growing Demand for Stand-Off People Screening Security Solution
Someone in government is buying! |
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
(Post 31050180)
A case of Deja Vu all over again. These people certainly have a fixation for peering through our clothing. I wonder why they think this will be accepted any more than the nude scanners were.
|
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 31036076)
This will result in a field day for the TSA "accidentally" finding drugs.
Originally Posted by downinit
(Post 31037363)
If it gets me through security faster and does not pose an increased risk of cancer, I am all for it. Not sure why everyone is so hung up about this issue. There will be millions of people passing through; if you are so 'special' that they take notice, consider it a blessing and move on with your life. The level of prudity in the USA is absolutely astounding, but then again, that why we were run out of Europe in the first place. Technically, the TSA already has the right to perform a strip search on any one at any time as it is.
|
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
(Post 31050987)
Yup. It certainly looks to me like TSA is far more focused on drugs than terrorists.
Seconded. I don't care what it sees. However, I do care if this is yet another attempt to skirt the 4th amendment. |
In the Los Angeles Times:
TSA says an airport full-body scanner must add a filter to protect travelers' privacy A full-body scanner that the Transportation Security Administration hopes can speed up airport security checkpoints must go back to the drawing board for software to protect the privacy of travelers being scanned. The scanner, built by British firm Thruvision, was promoted as being able to simultaneously screen multiple airport passengers from a distance of up to 25 feet away. The TSA began trying out the device last year at an Arlington, Va., testing facility before planning to use it on a trial basis at U.S. airports. But now the federal agency is requiring the scanner to add a “privacy filter” before the TSA can test the scanner “in a live environment,” according to a TSA document. <snip> |
I object to a further senseless violation of my rights, but even more, I object because no matter how revealing this scanner is, I have no doubt there will still be a high rate of 'anomalies' needing invasive hands-on resolution.
I hope I live long enough to see the US adopt the hands-off security practices the rest of the world successfully employs. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:59 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.