TSA debuts new full-body scanner software

Old Feb 1, 11, 11:44 pm
  #61  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ Super Plats
Posts: 25,286
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post
As for the saving an image - the processed image can utilize the raw image as stored in a buffer (aka RAM). It is no different that the current system. There is ZERO need to put anything on local storage for processing. That said I am sure that in "test" mode it will be possible to save the raw image as well as the processed image.
These days the distinction between "a buffer" and "RAM" and "local storage" is very blurred. There are RAM that can retain data permanently (FRAM) and very large flash devices that can function as "disk" drives. Windows itself is a virtual memory system whose entire memory is mapped onto storage devices -- everything that you put into "RAM" in Windows has a place on the "disk" drive.
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 1:07 am
  #62  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,537
Originally Posted by MikeMpls View Post
These days the distinction between "a buffer" and "RAM" and "local storage" is very blurred. There are RAM that can retain data permanently (FRAM) and very large flash devices that can function as "disk" drives. Windows itself is a virtual memory system whose entire memory is mapped onto storage devices -- everything that you put into "RAM" in Windows has a place on the "disk" drive.
One way or another,pictures of us and our junk WILL end up in the Cloud. From there, it's just a couple of clicks away from being aggregated into our total travel profile so that the security intelligence software can do it's thing...

Why isn't MikeMpls wearing the same types of clothes he normally wears when he travels? Why is he wearing Doc Marten's today when he normally wears Rockports? Why is he two hours early for his flight? Why did he book travel using his wife's credit card? Why did the thermal imager detect a sudden flush in his face when the BDO asked him a question in the queue? Why didn't he refill his antidepressant prescription last week? Why is his life insurance company reporting he upped his life insurance by $250,000?

What's that? They don't know who's in the machine? OK, but think of me when you see the first nude-o-scope with a passport/id reader at the entrance.
PhlyingRPh is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 2:18 am
  #63  
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: 97,994
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post

One comment regarding "false positives" - they can be resolve via a pat down. However, "false negative" can not ever be detected.
"False positives" cannot all be resolved via a pat-down -- especially not when the pat-down includes the use of an ETD swab that itself triggers a "false positive".

"False negatives" can be detected in the sense that designed testing protocols can be engineered to try to see what approaches can result in "false negatives" and how reliably such approaches can yield "false negatives".
GUWonder is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 3:58 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, FB Plat, AS Gold, Marriott Gold, Fairmont Plat, BA wannabe
Posts: 684
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh View Post
One way or another,pictures of us and our junk WILL end up in the Cloud. From there, it's just a couple of clicks away from being aggregated into our total travel profile so that the security intelligence software can do it's thing...
I'd like to request a stipulation that "objects are larger than they appear" on any tagged cloud image of me.

Is there a (secret) form for that?

fishferbrains is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 4:20 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
This technology proves that the images being viewed now are indeed invasive.

It does not alter the fact that generating images is the wrong method to seek explosives secreted on or in a person´s body. It will continue to have many unresolvable false positives and, importantly, key false negatives.
BubbaLoop is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 6:34 am
  #66  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,044
Let's review.

There are four basic objections to the new procedures:
  1. Some people have legitimate modesty and privacy concerns about the new scanners.
  2. The new devices are expensive and are slower than the old technology.
  3. There are unknown and unprovable safety issues with the new technology.
  4. The procedures severely stress the current implementation of what is reasonable for an administrative search under the 4th amendment.

Only #1 is affected by the change, and then only partially. Even then, the process still does a virtual strip search, even though the image presentation may be different. The resolution of anomalies still requires a body frisk that possibly exceeds the legal limits of #4, and may make #1 more invasive and immodest.

The biggest change is that it continues the process of breaking down our natural original alliances of diverse objectors by splitting off those that the system can convert, one by one, into being agreeable with the system. They are dividing us to weaken us, and they will likely succeed with other objections as well. Look for a report that they are faster and cheaper, for example.

For me, even if my personal concerns and objections are fully met and alleviated, I will continue to stand with those remaining with objections as the issues that would remain would still be serious and worthy of my attention, even if they were not my personal reasons for objecting.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 6:55 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Ink,

My objection does not fall in any of yours: These machines do not detect explosives.
BubbaLoop is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 7:25 am
  #68  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
"False positives" cannot all be resolved via a pat-down -- especially not when the pat-down includes the use of an ETD swab that itself triggers a "false positive".
Correct, I was speaking in terms of just the processed image. If something shows up on the outline one can physically determine something is actually there. ETD false positives are another issue all together,

Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
"False negatives" can be detected in the sense that designed testing protocols can be engineered to try to see what approaches can result in "false negatives" and how reliably such approaches can yield "false negatives".
True, but once the machines are in use this option will not be entirely possible unless the TSO actually record the number of "false positives" while at the same have the raw images stored. Without having the raw images making changes will be like shooting in the dark.

Which at this point everything I read is that the new software is being tested so I am will to bet every image is being stored.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 7:28 am
  #69  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar View Post
Correct, I was speaking in terms of just the processed image. If something shows up on the outline one can physically determine something is actually there. ETD false positives are another issue all together,



True, but once the machines are in use this option will not be entirely possible unless the TSO actually record the number of "false positives" while at the same have the raw images stored. Without having the raw images making changes will be like shooting in the dark.

Which at this point everything I read is that the new software is being tested so I am will to bet every image is being stored.
The TSA has shown absolutely no inhibitions whatsoever about using American Citizens as test subjects and involuntary participants in drills, so you're undoubtedly spot on wrt their storing images.
ElizabethConley is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 8:02 am
  #70  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by BubbaLoop View Post
Ink,

My objection does not fall in any of yours: These machines do not detect explosives.
Objection noted and I concur.

2. The new devices are expensive, slower, and not effective in detecting explosives.

I tried to be too brief.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 8:24 am
  #71  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,387
Why so long? The cynic in me says that TSA followed a time-tested technique of government agencies seeking more budget: do something that causes a public uproar, then tell the budget folks that you need more money to fix it and calm down the public.

It's all about budget and power.
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 8:52 am
  #72  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by BubbaLoop View Post
Ink,

My objection does not fall in any of yours: These machines do not detect explosives.
But they work great detecting doobies
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 9:02 am
  #73  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
Additional Info

There's a new article on msnbc here.

Interesting tidbits:

Now, there is just a generic image — like the chalk outline of a body at a crime scene.
Wait a minute. Didn't they already say that the images were only a "chalk outline of a body"? Then why are they putting in software that purportedly does that now? Unless of course that's not what the image was before.

I believe LAS uses the L3 MMW, as that's exactly what is used at the second test site - ATL. If that's the case, the images presented by the TSA as what the screener sees is the least obnoxious of any I've seen.

That leads me to believe that they have not been entirely upfront and honest about this whole thing. Color me surprised.

"And hopefully it provides a greater deterrent to possible terrorists, who may realize 'OK, they're going to see it right there. If that shows up, and I'm here, then I'm going to be caught,'" [Pistole] added.
Wait. What? I thought if we put it out in the open the terrorists would know how to exploit the system.

If all goes well for two months, TSA can install the software to 250 of the scanners nationwide at a cost of $2.7 million. The expansion will be limited to that because the software only works on machines produced by one of the two companies that make them.
Oh, so this software actually is only available to 25% of the total projected electronic strip search machine hardware. Well, that doesn't really do anything.

The U.S. Travel Association estimates more than 70 percent of all passengers consider the TSA's searches inefficient and frustrating, said senior vice president Geoff Freeman. Incremental changes, he said, won't address those concerns.
Uh, doesn't TSA claim everyone's OK with these procedures?
barbell is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 12:51 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
The U.S. Travel Association estimates more than 70 percent of all passengers consider the TSA's searches inefficient and frustrating, said senior vice president Geoff Freeman. Incremental changes, he said, won't address those concerns.
I wonder if this percentage goes up if you ask everyone who got a scrotum or labia check in the reso rubdown. And I wonder if "inefficient and frustrating" would be how those people would describe it.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Feb 2, 11, 1:06 pm
  #75  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 22,214
Not sure if mentioned earlier, but reported on FOX news this morning this software is only compatible with MMW.
Boggie Dog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread