One lie on the court record
 

On March 10, 2011, a government attorney stated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that the scanners catagorically do NOT save images. Don't. Do Not. (Not a quote, here). Anyone who cares ought to look up the transcript of the proceedings in EPIC v. DHS and find the remark.

I believe that would be called perjury if the screener's statement is true.

Government attorneys - like any attorney - are dependent on what their client tells them.

There is no need to save the images for purposes of criminal prosecution as this is an administrative search. TSO says he saw an anomaly, which required further investigation. End of story. This is not a probable cause situation.

He is talking out of his posterior. THere is no way to save the images.

Saved Scanner Images
 

================================================== ========
:(Is it possible that the scanners do NOT save images but that they are saved elswhere on the system?
Computer images can be deleted BUT the service provider(msn,aol) do save all messages as does the hard drive of a computer.
I think it is a sleight of hand semantics to allow them to artfully decieve the public as most people are certain the images are saved.:mad:

Give it time and it will eventually come out (and imho, it will be via a simple accidental statement along the lines of what was said back during the Watergate hearings when the witness said something like "why don't you just listen to the tapes" where you could have then heard the proverbial pin drop in stunned silence)

Common sense tells me that the computer automatically stores images. It's what computers do: temporarily, at least, retain data until either the user permanently deletes the files or storage capacity is exceeded; then oldest files are deleted first. This is a reasonable assumption to make for any computer system.

However, these computers have special plates on them so that the user cannot insert anything into the computer such as a jump drive. The applications do not offer users the option to save any data. The user can't even go to the C-prompt and type in DOS commands.

And we have very strict rules regarding mobile phones and other electronic devices inside the reviewing room. Every officer has to read and sign an agreement to abide by these strict procedures.

I don't know what else TSA can do to ensure images aren't saved, recorded or otherwise retained. I'm assuming that images are temporarily stored simply because that's a fundamental function of any computer, but it's impossible for anyone to view these images.

By the way, the training images are mostly of TSOs and perhaps non-uniformed TSA employees. You can tell because you can see the outline of the epaulets on the majority of the images, and after a while, the body type repeats, which tells me that they used a limited number of people. Only the computerized image of the anomaly is different.

We know that for evidentiary purposes, there must be a way to save images (as the TSA specified when they procured AIT machines).

What I don't undertand is why Blogger Bob, Napolitano, and Pistole say that there is no way these images can be recorded. Isn't that just a blatant lie?

I have an idea
 

Then why did the contract specify the ability to save and transmit images, including a USB port?

What is the assurance this is not being done remotely for every scan? Again, the contract required that the machines be able to transmit the images.

Pshaw. There are also rules, strict ones I presume, against stealing from passengers, helping drug dealers bypass security, bypassing security on personal business while wearing a TSA uniform. Yet all these have happened.

TSA has no security against analog attack other than a promise by the TSO in the box. This could be improved. Frisk whoever's in the box before they go into the box. Give them the "enhanced pat down", same as the passengers. Run who's ever in the box through the WMTD and the Junkatron before entering the box. And do the same thing all over again when they come out of the box.

This is no more unreasonable that what TSA is doing to passengers every day.

What can be saved temporarily can be saved permanently. What can be saved permanently OR temporarily can be viewed so long as it is saved.

In other words, they are training on the job.

What is the need for "evidentiary purposes"? Do you know of a case where that was done for the x-ray machine?

Go back to the OP.

It's called CYA.

Doesn't matter if it's not really needed based upon current law: it bolsters a case and eliminates any possible "he said, she said" argument.

The TSA didn't require that these machines have the capability to store images for the heck of it.

To answer your question, no. But was it possible for x-ray machines to store images? No.

Unless they get before one of those judges whom the defense lawyer convinces that they need to see the proof as to what made their client be given a patdown in the first place. No WBI/NOS image. Judge just might dismiss the case because of that. So I still say those images are saved just incase they really have to produce them.

Not sure I understand your point. There is NO visible USB port on the computer. My point is that there are general facts about computers that understandably raise concerns about a TSO's ability to download images. I believe TSA has done everything possible to eliminate the possibility.


As with any computer system, there will be instances when either periodic maintenance is required or repairs will be needed. Computer techs will have to be able to access the hard drive in order to perform maintenance/repairs. So I suppose that the basic computer functions haven't changed but TSO access to the hard drive has.

And I'm curious why you insist that the machines are required to transmit images. Could you explain that one a little further?


Thieves are terminated from TSA and prosecuted by the law. As for smuggling drugs, please cite specific instances involving TSOs who were not prosecuted by the law. And as for bypassing security while on personal business, again, please cite specific instances. I'll grant you that there have been TSOs who have stolen items from passengers' luggage. Employee theft is a challenge under any enterprise. However, I don't know of any instance when an employee who stole was immune from prosecution and/or termination. Furthermore, federal employees who are terminated for cause forfeit any rights to be rehired by the federal government. These matters are simply the kiss of death for TSOs. So I'm pretty curious how you can insist that TSOs can get away with theft, smuggling drugs and bypassing security without any fear of prosecution or adverse consequence.

OK, good discussion until this point. But I'll grant you the shot at comic relief.


You would think so. However, this is apparently not the case. I'm not a computer tech, but I do know that the x-ray machines only store a certain number of images before they can no longer be retrieved/recalled. I guess some computer geek could probably explain with a great deal of expertise how "deleted images" aren't truly deleted, but until I see some TSO dismantling an x-ray computer or connecting laptops or other devices to the x-ray computer to transfer data, I can't give in to your paranoia.

There's no "in other words". Someone posted that images are retrieved for training purposes, and I wanted to clarify that these are images of TSA employees who agreed to be scanned in order have a baseline for operators to train with. These are images that are viewed repeatedly and are not newly installed images that are somehow downloaded from recently scanned passengers. I'm guessing that they're TSA employees only because you can see the outline of their epaulets on a great number of images, and because it makes sense to use employees for training images.

The scanner and the booth computer are linked by a standard TCP/IP based network. Therefore the data is being transmitted from the scanner to the booth with systems that don't care of they are going to another room in the same airport or into a datamart in a DC Suburb.

Actually, that would be pretty good security. I'm sure that the backscatter data could be turned into a biometric template with very nice security to make the watch list checks even better. That however is an idea that I don't wish to explore too much lest I give DHS ideas.

Not needed. I just need access to that wire any where between the scanner and the workstation.

I don't know the technical aspects of the AIT. I assume that all computers have at least a temporary storage capability. I mean, that's a basic computer function, agreed? Even so, there is no way to deliberately retrieve a file or to copy/move that file to another location. TSOs simply don't have access to the hard drive. So, no, Napolitano and Pistole are not lying. However, one universal truth about all computers is that when you or I delete a file, or move it to the recycle bin, or press the command to empty the deleted items folder, those files aren't truly deleted. I know that they are simply reconfigured so that the user can't retrieve the file any longer but a programmer can. From what I understand, the only way to truly delete any file is to purge/re-image the hard drive.

As for evidence, the point of discovery is the pat-down not the image. It's a lot like passing the hand wand over a pocket that has a pistol concealed in it. The specific hand wand used to detect the metallic object is not the principle piece of evidence. However, the officer who conducted the pat down because the hand wand alarmed is the principle witness, and the actual weapon itself is, of course, the piece of evidence that convinces jurors that the hand wand alarmed on the pistol and not a bunch of change or set of keys. Of course, rules of evidence will determine what is required and what isn't. I don't know of an instance when a copy of an x-ray image showing a pistol concealed on the body outweighed the actual pistol discovered during the search.

But I'm no lawyer. Are you?