Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

New TSA screening system in development "sees" too much

New TSA screening system in development "sees" too much

Old Apr 25, 19, 6:29 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,521
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.
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
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:08 am
  #2  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 94,386
Originally Posted by petaluma1 View Post
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
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.

Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 25, 19 at 7:13 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:13 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 19,134
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
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.
If true then any images of children would make TSA the largest Child Pornographers on the planet.
Spiff, Loren Pechtel and petaluma1 like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:15 am
  #4  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 94,386
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
If true then any images of children would make TSA the largest Child Pornographers on the planet.
It could end up being the largest institutional producer of pornography of sorts. But it depends on how much of the available technology available there they choose to put out and use. If it doesn't go beyond the following, then it's a ways off for now (but still an available possibility):

TSA gives green light to test new technology that can screen passengers from 25 feet

Last edited by GUWonder; Apr 25, 19 at 7:22 am
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:17 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
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.
But, but, but TSA claims it doesn't profile!!!!
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:23 am
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 19,134
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
It could end up being the largest institutional producer of pornography of sorts.
The simple act of creating an image of a minor that shows genitalia can be considered child pornography. No other action is required such as delivering the image to another person. There is no defense that TSA could use to justify these kinds of images. If deployed as is I would support an immediate warrant for arrest of the DHS Secretary and TSA's Administrator, along with Francine "the Googling Lawyer" for not putting a stop to this.
Spiff and Redhead like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:30 am
  #7  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 94,386
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The simple act of creating an image of a minor that shows genitalia can be considered child pornography.
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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:38 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 19,134
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
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.
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.
Spiff and Redhead like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:47 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 94,386
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
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.
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.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 7:53 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 19,134
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
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.
Hopefully EPIC and ACLU will take point on this again.
Spiff and GUWonder like this.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 8:05 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,006
Isn't this just the same as the original "Nude O-scope" way back when, with different technology?
Pesky Monkey is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 8:35 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 1,905
it is jokingly being referred to by some insiders as the "FLExxx"
Section 107 is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 8:51 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 19,134
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post
it is jokingly being referred to by some insiders as the "FLExxx"
I would be much happier if these insiders were sounding the alarm on this invasion of privacy rather than joking about it. Kinda tells us about the quality of some government employees!
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 9:08 am
  #14  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 15,098
Related threads discussing the Passive Terahertz Screening technology:
TWA884 is offline  
Old Apr 25, 19, 9:08 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 13,724
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.
I haven't found any procurement documents to tell me how many cameras we're buying for $663K. This just may be the cost to design and test a single prototype.

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
This will result in a field day for the TSA "accidentally" finding drugs.
Spiff, chollie and petaluma1 like this.
FliesWay2Much is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: