You assume the offending TSO goes unscathed, and you (of course I do not mean you personally) assume retalitory screen was done I the first place. I do believe such screening happens; would be foolish not to believe so. Behavior like this exist I every industry - through college I work in various restaurants, and you might not want to know what happens to some disgruntled customer's food. Every industry has this problem.

How would you prove that retalitory screening happned? Even with your metric, the TSO might just well lie. What I can not explain to you - SSI (i know you love to hear that) is that there actually is a system that "controls" random searches. Can't explain it more than that, other than to say a superior could smell that TSOs bs a mile away.

I am simply against profiling. If you alarm, or we need to check your bag, I think we should check you and your property, regardless of race, or age, or gender.

I am against any sort of retalitory screening. I have been accused of it, and I'm sure the passenger left believing I screened them because of their attitude, or pick any reason.

I simply feel attempting to document such intangible things as attitude and such is near impossible.

Have to cut this short, be back later.

Are you having to do the "honey do" list today or are you working?

I wish I could believe that the TSOs are so scrutinized that a retaliatory screening would never happen and if it did the TSO would be punished.

There are too many stories floating around where the TSO is backed by the supervisor even when it is obvious the TSO is wrong. There are too many stories floating around about thefts by TSOs. If you can't keep them from doing a tangible like theft you can't keep them from doing an intangible like retaliatory screening.

What do you suggest to minimize retaliatory screenings?

I think the images are indecent and I have not worn a t-shirt with the images on one. However I do think doing so is a legitimate form of protest.

TSA has in fact displayed an image that they claim is what the WBI operator sees. I still question that claim, in particular it is clear the size of the posted images are not the size the operator sees on the display. If the size is not correct then why should I think the resolution is correct?

We wear clothes when in public. Partially to protect us from the elements but also for reasons of modesty. An electronic strip search goes way beyond any administrative search and is invasive.

I would prefer to see WBI used only for secondary screening. However, if a person wishes to pick this form of screening I have no problem provided they are supplied with the information that details exactly what is being done, real full size images showing the result of MMW/Backscatter imaging and moving the operators console into view of the person being screened. It could be done in a manner that the operator does not have view of the person being screened or even as simple as one way glass. If a person refuses WBI then they should be no more subject to a pat down than a person who did not alarm a WTMD is.

WBI should never be used on minors and pat downs limited only to those cases that absolutely require it and then only to the extent to resolve an alarm.

TSA claims 98% acceptance of WBI screening yet seems unable (unwilling) to provide the source of these stats. If the information was really that favorable I see no reason to not release that information.

As the old saying goes figures don't lie but liars figure.

Today is both a "honey do" day and work day. Just a busy day..

I hope I didn't give the impression that I do not think TSOs do not retailate against passengers. I think some do. But as I pointed out, I believe this happens every industry, though in different ways. In my eyes, anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

As I said, I have been accused of retalitory screening of a pax. This is what happened: he ga the TDC position hell, his compute bag was stuffed full of wires and other electronic devices - when i was shown the image you couldn't hardly make out anything in the bag. He protested thathis bag isn't usually checked, as his computers are taken out already. I had to search the bag and ETD it. He even told me I was doing this because of whY happened at te TDC. At the time I had no idea what happened at the TDC. I saw the image on the x-Ray - I would have called the check too (until you work the x-Ray position it's hard to understand how one person can clear a bag on the screen and another can not, or how a slightly different angle difference in th bag position can change the entire image. He left sure we were beig vindictive, but I am 100% sure we were not. Who do you believe his family and friends believe?

Like I said, I'm sure it happens, but I am also 100% positive that sometimes when a pax thinks it has happened it actually has not.

Sorry, I realy have to go. Be back later!

So back to the OP.... We all know the problems with the MM Wave a.k.a nude-o-scope.

I for one, will never step foot in one of these machines in Canada and try to prevent their use as best as possible.

Something curious about the whole body imagers: as I have said I have not worked one, but when talking to others who haved, something came up. I am not a "computer" guy, yeah they are useful, great to get email and check movie times and I even buy stuff online, but that's the extent of it. So I have a question fir those who might know better.

When talking to some TSOs about image resolution, what you can see about the body on the whole body imager, the response I have gotten is that you can't see much, that it's hard to make things out. So, what how would using a low or mid quality monitor effect the POSSIBLE resolution of these machines? (I can tell you the monitors on our x-ray machines, except the AT x-rays, are sort of bad)

I asked one TSO specifically if you could see the private parts on the whole body imager, and his response was only if you looked really, really hard (sorry guys). Any ways just wondering.

I'm by no means expert in the display of graphics. Video display is controlled by the graphics card and the capability of the display monitor.

Perhaps there is an expert in the crowd who can fill us in on the details.

As far as the TSA WBI's I don't think we have seen actual images yet. TSA could have gone about introducing this kind of technology differently but has instead chosen to treat the flying public like the enemy instead of part of the home team.

I hope the Senate finds time to consider and vote on the bill that would limit WBI to secondary screening.

The imager has contrast, brightness and a few other "enhancement" controls that allow the operator to monkey with the image to get the best view. The images that CNN released that came from a unit in the field you could tell that the man was circumcised as well as the length and girth of his penis.

I think the TSO told you that to reduce the "creep" factor.

The one bad guy BWI operator who is interested in things he/she should not be interested will be the one looking really hard.

As much as I personally would never wear the shirt, I believe Trollkiller (and his fellow shirt-wearers) have a right to peacefully protest. And I believe what they are doing is squarely allowed within the 1st amendment.

I think the argument that what they are doing is indecent, is incorrect. The shirt clearly demonstrates (using TSA’s own sample photo) what their technology does. It clearly conveys the idea that Trollkiller (and friends) disagree with having the TSA use MMW (due to privacy, and other, concerns).

I also believe the TSA has a right to express their own opinions. If the TSA wants to start giving the TSOs shirts that go over the positive points of MMW, they can. Same goes for posting signs and setting up a blog. In fact, I believe the individual TSOs have a right to tell Trollkiller (and friends) straight to their face that they think they are idiots. Now, things like retaliatory secondaries are (IMHO) too far, the TSOs need to follow policy, regardless of upset they might be; but there is nothing stopping them from being angry and voicing that opinion (be it at a checkpoint or on the internet).

The USA was founded on the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expressions. As much as anyone has a right to voice their opinion, everyone else has a right to disagree. And if Trollkiller’s t-shirt campaign actually leads to congress outlawing MMW devices, we will have one exceptionally fine example of the democratic process.

Don't fall into the same trap that TSORon has about this matter. No, the TSO's don't have that right at the checkpoint as it has a "chilling effect" on Trollkiller's (and friends') freedom of speech rights. They can do it off-duty and not in uniform, but as long as the TSO is a government actor, limitations exist to protect the First Amendment rights of the general public.

Yeah, see, I have always had a problem with that concept (and believe me, you are not the first to mention it to me). I find it hard to tell when someone starts and stops be a "government actor" (as per the currently accept definition). People are the sum of all their parts, just because someone is wearing a different hat, shouldn't mean they are any different (metaphorically, not fashionably, speaking). For instance, the use of a forum tag (like TSORon, SATTSO, etc) would that not be considered a uniform? But we know what all the TSOs on the board are not expressing the opinion of the TSA, they are representing only themselves, yet they have clear identification that they are TSO (serving the same function as a uniform).

Anyway, I know what you mean, and I really don’t want to start a debate on this. But like I said, my personal belief is simply that it one can’t split apart who someone is at home with what they are at work.

A simple explanation might be "control" or the "perception of control."

TSORon does not have any control over my actions on this board anymore so than any other poster. As such, no control (or even perception of control) and no government actor.

At a checkpoint, the TSO requires ID, requires an administrative search and a secondary if deemed necessary. And there is the perception that they can stop you from flying. In addition, the TSO can determine that any item you have is prohibited and will not be allowed into the sterile area. So when a TSO at the checkpoint calls you an idiot for wearing a shirt with language the TSO doesn't like, the potential perceived repercussions exist. As such, you will have second thoughts about whether you will wear the shirt. That is the "chilling effect."

Yeah, I understand all of that. And I know I don’t have a very popular opinion on this topic (you guys/gals are not the first bunch I have debated this with), so for the sake of my own sanity, I am going to stop posting in this thread. :)

This is precisely the problem I (and, I suspect, a few others) have with the strip-search machines and gropings. Given that there is no way to protect us from these pervs, the only sensible alternative is to deny them the opportunity, which means to stop these disgusting practices except in the very few cases when there is no other way to resolve an alarm.

Furthermore, I believe that both me and my wife were victims of such pervs. Yes, we both tried to complain, but receive the standard barrage of TSA threats.

BTW, sexual battery laws (at least in California) do not specify the gender of either the victim or the offender.