Lawsuit seeks suspension of TSA virtual strip-searches
Jul 6, 2010, 6:47 pm
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,040
Jul 6, 2010, 8:13 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
You are correct, that incident was accidential. But news agencies are now specifically selling photos of her privates - all while she is underage. That is not accidental. The photos aes ONLY being sold because they show her privates, and that's the only reason they are being bought. To see actual pictures of her privates. So there are 2 "incident" - the actual incident is the first, and after, the selling of that photo is the second. And the LA DA said it's legal, not child porn. The DA publically said it's the intent behind the photo - which would also apply to the WBIs. Even if you don't like that.
WBI does show a persons gentials and by some reports very clearly.
I don't think the LA DA gets to call the shots in this case anyhow.
Jul 6, 2010, 8:52 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
WBIs are image interpertation, and it's a skill, just the same as the x-ray machine. The longer one works on one, the better one gets. I've asked your question to some friends of mine who have some experience in the machines, and they think they would have detected that IED. But then again, some people are better than others at image interpertation.
I do know the WTMD would not have detected it. I believe a pat-down would have.
I do know the WTMD would not have detected it. I believe a pat-down would have.
But hey, a few TSA flunkies with a few hours training think it would have worked, so hey, game on.
Jul 6, 2010, 9:02 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
I mean, it would be for the safety of everyone.
Jul 6, 2010, 9:32 pm
#35
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
So why does that surprise you? Can you not make a distinction between cavity searches and the use of WBIs?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jul 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Jul 6, 2010, 9:41 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I have yet to see explain how the so-called "experts" came up with that percentage. The WBI does not detect anything - the person looking at the image does. And it's more than a few hours training, and as I have said before the TSO will get better over time. The same is true of x-ray. How do you put a percentage on what people will see? Please explain how they came up with 60%?
Can I attest to how they got their numbers? No. However, I trust their numbers and opinion a lot more than a few screeners saying "we think it would have detected it."
Jul 6, 2010, 9:43 pm
#37
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Jul 6, 2010, 11:44 pm
#38
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 381
"WTMD are utter failures. The shoe bomber got through with IEDs in his shoes with no problem, and the crotch bomber would not be detected by the WTMD either.
Does anyone here actually think someone would make an IED of out metalic parts strong enough to alarm a WTMD? Of course they would not. We either need a new technology (too bad puffers do no work - and they were slow, slower than the WBI), or we need to give full pat-downs to everyone."
Does anyone here actually think someone would make an IED of out metalic parts strong enough to alarm a WTMD? Of course they would not. We either need a new technology (too bad puffers do no work - and they were slow, slower than the WBI), or we need to give full pat-downs to everyone."
Jul 7, 2010, 12:10 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
WTMD are utter failures. The shoe bomber got through with IEDs in his shoes with no problem, and the crotch bomber would not be detected by the WTMD either.
Does anyone here actually think someone would make an IED of out metalic parts strong enough to alarm a WTMD? Of course they would not. We either need a new technology (too bad puffers do no work - and they were slow, slower than the WBI), or we need to give full pat-downs to everyone.
Does anyone here actually think someone would make an IED of out metalic parts strong enough to alarm a WTMD? Of course they would not. We either need a new technology (too bad puffers do no work - and they were slow, slower than the WBI), or we need to give full pat-downs to everyone.
I believe I speak for everyone who has a clue to your track record. "Go Away"
Edit to make clear I mean "you" as your agency, not "you" personally.
Last edited by birdstrike; Jul 7, 2010 at 8:45 am
Jul 7, 2010, 5:22 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,106
Confused though that while you seem concerned for our safety you are not willing to do those things that would ensure that safety.
Jul 7, 2010, 5:54 am
#41
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
SATTSO,
Could you please back up your information that detection gets better with experience? Real scientists have demonstrated that human performance in detecting rare objects visually is dismally low:
Reference (From the same top scientific journal Nature that the TSA is ignoring regarding the SPOT program.)
Could you please back up your information that detection gets better with experience? Real scientists have demonstrated that human performance in detecting rare objects visually is dismally low:
Reference (From the same top scientific journal Nature that the TSA is ignoring regarding the SPOT program.)
Last edited by BubbaLoop; Jul 7, 2010 at 6:32 am
Jul 7, 2010, 9:42 am
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Jul 7, 2010, 10:24 am
#43
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
SATTSO,
Could you please back up your information that detection gets better with experience? Real scientists have demonstrated that human performance in detecting rare objects visually is dismally low:
Reference (From the same top scientific journal Nature that the TSA is ignoring regarding the SPOT program.)
Could you please back up your information that detection gets better with experience? Real scientists have demonstrated that human performance in detecting rare objects visually is dismally low:
Reference (From the same top scientific journal Nature that the TSA is ignoring regarding the SPOT program.)
What these so-called experts did was the same thing as saying everyone who works x-ray has the same percentage of finding items regardless of experience, training, talent. Bah. We know that's not true. We know that some people are much better on x-ray than others. WBI is the same thing. Look at an image, interpert what you see, make a decision. I am sure than some on WBI will be lower than 60% detection rate(and hopefully they will eventually fail their image test and be gone) while others are much higher than 60% detection rate.
But if you ask for proof to back up my statement, then let me ask you if it's a flat 60% detection rate, why does not everyone score the same on test?
ETP was a joke. ETD is better, but if you really think it has close to a 100% detection rate, you would be wrong. WTMD is a failure.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jul 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
Jul 7, 2010, 10:32 am
#44
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
ETD has not only a higher detection rate for explosives, but also has the possibility of detecting explosives secreted in a body orifice. WBI detection rate for cavity-concealed explosives? 0.0%
WTMD reliably detects metal. All firearms are made of metal.
Jul 7, 2010, 10:43 am
#45
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
ETP isn't a joke. The deployment and operation was a joke.
ETD has not only a higher detection rate for explosives, but also has the possibility of detecting explosives secreted in a body orifice. WBI detection rate for cavity-concealed explosives? 0.0%
WTMD reliably detects metal. All firearms are made of metal.
ETD has not only a higher detection rate for explosives, but also has the possibility of detecting explosives secreted in a body orifice. WBI detection rate for cavity-concealed explosives? 0.0%
WTMD reliably detects metal. All firearms are made of metal.
ETD does have a higher detection rate. But let menask you this, how many passenger or their luggage do we use it on? How many people go through the checkpoint not subjected to it?
When we do random screening and ETD people and their bags, people on this site start to cry and moan.
I would support the use of WTMD if EVERYONE and their bags were subject to ETD. We both know that isn't going to happen, as it's a much longer process than WBI.
As another person said on this site, what terrorist would be stupid enough to carry a firearm on themselves? None.