Ah, sorry. Right. The OP, actually--

Just judging by that description, I'd say it's one of the so-called "Decision Gates." I don't know anything else about them other than the name, except that it seems to be a BDO thing.

It looks like there's been a bit of commotion about "Decision Gates" going on already. See page 5 of this PDF, and page 4 of this PDF.

They were also referenced as far back as late 2008 in this comment on the TSA blog, which is copying over a comment Kip Hawley left on Schneier's blog.

I wonder if they even realize that the term "decision gate" already means something else entirely.

From none other than BB himself:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/10/tsas-tak...c-article.html

I'll bet those terrorists at CLT were truly put off by the "decision gate" they faced there.

~~

Oops, didn't see G_Wolf's post before I posted.

That judgment appears to have been issued in 2007. Have there been any judgments issued since the beginning of the euphemistically and IMHO inaccurately named pat-downs? I have the impression that the extent to which the search may be excessively invasive is a question yet to be settled. If for example the TSA implemented mandatory strip searches it's hard to believe a court would uphold them. I'm guessing courts would settle on some line in between wanding and strip searches for what constitutes an appropriate administrative search or am I wrong?

I'm not debating the point (I'm not qualified) but simply asking the question.

I don't think anyone knows the answer yet.

There have been a number of cases filed recently and, to my knowledge, the federal district courts have punted all of them to the appeals courts based on a statute stating that the appellate courts have original jurisdiction on matters concerning TSA "orders".

My guess, and that's really all it is at this point, is that the courts may decide that using the strip scanners and pat-downs as a primary inspection tool is too much, but that they may use such techniques if TSA encounters an abnormality they cannot rectify during the initial inspection.

We'll see.

Even if that ends up being true, TSA is already proving itself adept at creating situations that cannot be "rectified" and force a full search, or denial of travel. Forgot to take off your belt? No second walk-through for you. Dirty gloves triggered a false positive for explosives? No second chance for you.

All they need to do is crank up the sensitivity of the metal detectors to the point where your dental fillings set it off.

As the normal use of "decision gate" involves both electronics and logic - two areas in which TSA is notoriously ignorant - I imagine not.

Very true. If that happens, you go back to court and argue that the initial screening failure rate has risen significantly, which has the effect of requiring more people to go through secondary screening.

You paint the picture that TSA is trying to ignore or bypass the court order. That really irks judges and the TSA won't like the result if they do that.

The judicial system in the U.S. is certainly not fast, but the results are overall pretty good.

Sadly, TSA will probably classify the screening rates and refuse to release them, and they'll just laugh at any judge who holds them in contempt. The Bush administration set a nice precedent on that one, ignoring court orders and blowing off Congressional subpoenas.

This is a trend I don't get at all. I can see not discussing national security matters in open civilian court, but there have always been ways to oversee these things in private. The idea that national security should operate without any oversight whatsoever is ridiculous. Even a former NSA director says that. (I finally started reading James Bamford's "Body of Secrets" 10 years after I bought it )

You know, I hadn't noticed this when it originally came out, but Pistole is admitting that the invasive gropes are retaliatory and that the immediate assumption is that anyone who opts out it a terrorist:

In other words, if you're not a sheep willing to be radiated and strip-searched, you will be subject to a much greater interrogation and invasive grope than you would otherwise. In fact, Pistole is admitting that the ETD is something that can't/won't be done by strip-search machine - and that it's done because the mere fact of an opt-out makes you a higher risk (which is total BS).

"Not retaliatory" - my ***.

A very interesting find, indeed, Global_Hi_Flyer.

The logic fail of TSA that NoS detects threats is laughable. I just didn't know they'd done such a good job of making the argument, though I'm not surprised.

As someone who reads images similar to those produced by NoS, there is virtually no way to distinguish between certain items on an image. I'm certain something the shape of a gun might be noticeable, but if I'm looking at a tumor of some kind on an x-ray there are some that all look very similar to one another and it requires additional testing to determine what is actually there. Now, the TSA will say something along the lines of, "We see an anomaly and then pat down the area to find out what it is." I highly doubt a "suspect" item will receive ETD. It will likely be "surrendered" and thrown in the trash.

However, my memory is that when the NoS was first rolled out, its stated purpose was to find non-metallic explosives like those used by the panty bomber. Never mind the fact that GAO disagrees.

They've carefully wordcrafted a current speech that it's to look for "non-metallic prohibited items" not necessarily "explosives". For one, I always had trouble getting my contact lens solution through, even declared as a medical liquid, so I would either put it in my sock at the back of my leg, or in my waistband. I was never hassled again. TSA created its own problem here. I think they decided to use these machines to look for anything an everything on a person, such as what I used to do. The problem is that they continue to miss stuff.

So, can NoS detect explosives? Sort of, but not actually.

What the court cases need to show is that TSA purchased these machines with the intent of finding explosives, regardless of the current newspeak used. The machines can't detect explosives, and yet the opt out "pat down" is more invasive in that it includes the additional step of using an explosive trace detection device. I think I'll email Affection right now...