(bolding mine)

For the remote viewing capability that TSA is using (aka peep show booth), I'd be willing to bet that the scanner would have to transmit images somehow-- most like via Ethernet using some networking protocol. If not using some network to transmit the information, the only other option I can think of off the top of my head would be a reeeeeeallly long monitor cable.

Now, if it does use some sort of network to transmit images, it's anybody's guess as to what networking protocol is used and if the information is encrypted prior to transmitting.

I'd also be willing to bet that the device uses some area on the hard drives for temporary storage-- even when operating outside of 'test mode'. Perhaps the average TSA screening clerk doesn't have the ability to access the temporary area (image cache?) to save the data (hence TSA's claim of not storing images), but I'll bet my bottom dollar that someone at the airport does.

Of course, these are just hunches... but it would start addressing my myriad of privacy concerns if TSA could convincingly prove them incorrect. Unfortunately, the only way to really do that would likely require providing access to information that they've probably classified as "SSI" (even though, IMHO, it shouldn't be).

United States v. Aukai is a case in which the facts include searching of a passenger's body. However, the breadth of the search and how it more often occurs randomly with WBI and other procedures has not been litigated as far as I know. The following quote is the standard for the extent of administrative searches:


I hadn't focused on this before. If the TSA changes the point in time for consenting to an administrative search, that would be chilling.

Bolding mine.

And I'll bet some of these images will be leaked over the next year proving TSA are liars. The right computer geek in the right place may be able 'catch' some of these images...and you can bet also the TSA doesn't have the brains to stop it from happening.

I sent an email to the TSA asking when a person is consenting to an administrative search. The response:

Thank you for your email message.


Under Federal law, when passengers place his/her baggage on the x-ray conveyor belt or walk through the screening equipment, consent to be searched is implied. This consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn until TSA security procedures are completed. Federal regulation prohibits interfering with, assaulting, threatening, or intimidating screening personnel as they perform their screening duties. Interfering with security screening personnel is also a crime under Federal law.

We hope this information is helpful.


I then asked:

If there is a passive MMW camera at the entrance of the airport screening people entering does that mean the "screening process" has been initiated simply by walking into the airport and past the camera?

The response:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) does not discuss specific security procedures. This information is considered Sensitive Security Information and as such, is unauthorized for public disclosure.


TSA Contact Center


I sent another email on 10/22 asking for clarification and got this response:

Thank you for your inquiry to the Transportation Security Administration. We have forwarded your email to the appropriate group for response.

I will let you know what the response is when i get it. Perhaps if more people send email we might get a quicker response.

I can't find sources now, but I did read somewhere that it Ethernet to the remote viewing booth, but it's a dedicated point-to-point wire and doesn't go into any broader network.

U.S. v. Hartwell is a case involving the search of a person by TSA, upheld as an administrative search.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1828192393761182480&q=airport+se arches+tsa&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000002&as_ylo=2003#[13]

The person set off the WTMD, was wanded, and the wanding indicated suspicious items in his pockets, which turned out to be drugs. While the court found this was an acceptable administrative search, it noted:
This is a Circuit Court decision, but it was written by then-judge Alito before he was on the Supreme Court.

Yes, I agree. But, this does not address the virtual strip search when there is no other indication.

I just posted a thread that includes a law article that documents much of the case law on administrative searches. In general the courts defer to the government interest in almost every case.

There are a couple of concerning things in the case cite:

I can see TSA arguing that AIT scans are minimally intrusive in the same ways that WTMDs have been held to be minimally intrusive. That is to say, they don't involve physical touching. (This seems to be one of the things the court considered, from the cite.)

Of course, there are a number of people (myself included) who would argue very differently. Perhaps the "not touching" part is minimally intrusive, but the whole "see your genitals" part is far from it.

This is how TSA is going to get away with "touchy, feely, proby" law enforcement criminal friskings... They're going to say that while such friskings are an escalation in invasiveness, they are only conducted after a lower level of screening (1) provided a reason to conduct the search, or (2) was voluntarily declined by the passenger.

If one is going to argue that law enforcement friskings shouldn't be given (I think it's pretty clear I feel that way), then an argument needs to be constructed to show that law enforcement friskings are an unreasonable escalation in the process. Hopefully TSA is dumb enough to use 2 styles of friskings-- 1 for alarms (a less "touchy, feely, proby" version) and 1 for opt outs (the more intimate genital fondling version). If they did that, I'd think that people might have a strong argument that jumping to anal cavity probes from a person's simple opt out is an unreasonable escalation.

I think this is the key to successfully arguing anything... TSA used 2 different types of searches in this case (WTMD, then hand-wanding) that showed gradual escalations in intrusiveness before resorting to reaching into a person's pocket. Further, the reach and grab was done only after the subject refused repeated requests to produce the item. The argument against TSA friskings is likely going to lie with how gradual an escalation is reasonable, what suspicions must be considered reasonable, and how many different methods must be offered prior to using the genital squeeze that TSA seems to be gearing up for in some way.

Well from what I understand from someone in the radiology field - GE was just awarded a contract from the TSA for storing the images. It could be bad info, but I could see them doing it.

clrankin and InkUnderNails, I agree with what both of you said. I'm sure that the TSA will argue that the AITs are "minimally intrusive" because of the lack of physical contact. However, I think the counter argument would be that using the machines as primary screening is not "well-tailored to protect personal privacy" regardless of physical contact. I personally believe using either of these techniques as primary screening far exceeds "minimally intrusive" although it's an open question how a court would actually rule on that.

Another interesting question raised by this analysis regarding escalation is given that the AITs produce many false positives for things like bra straps and sanitary pads, whether escalating to an enhanced patdown could be justified by seeing something "suspicious" on the AIT.

I'm going to post more thoughts in InkUnderNails other thread on the subject.

Hmm....rethinking my position on how the screening process happens and (as others earlier have noted) at no time was there ever an image presented to an LEO from an x-ray machine to establish probable cause...

What is the process for an LEO being called to a screening for a suspicious item? Are they taken into the screening room to be shown the image (similar to the x-ray image for a bag search)? Or is it up to the TSA to escalate and resolve any outstanding alarms (in the case of the drugs in the WTMD/wand/reach in pocket situation)?

Not to repeat the technical details of what mikemey posted but I will "ditto" it.

Signed,
15 years in IT security

** I think that's the quote that relates to disallowing improperly acquired evidence in a criminal proceeding.