Gambleballs

Splendid. I wonder how much that experiment cost us, in addition to the years of privacy invasion.

Fredd

Let's not celebrate too soon...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-airports.html

FliesWay2Much

That's exactly where the TSA wants to end up. That's why the spin on the story is privacy rather than radiation. of course, no responsible media organization will raise the issue of radiation. if not, the TSA will count on Americans' short attention span and that we will forget that the TSA irradiated us.

See above...The TSA spun this as 100% about privacy.

I don't know exactly how the TSA ended the "relationship" with Rapiscan. That will directly affect how much this will cost us. If this were simply that the TSA decided not to exercise another option year in the contract, there won't be any additional cost (for the contract). If they are terminating for cause and/or convenience, the taxpayers will have to pay termination costs, which could be as high as the remaining price of the contract.

Just off the top of my head, here are the general categories of costs that we taxpayers are fixing to pay:

1. Remaining costs of the Rapiscan contract, whatever they are;
2. Removal of the Cancer Boxes, transportation costs to the warehouse, and facility costs required to fill the holes in airport floors x 174
3. Secure and environmentally-controlled storage costs at warehouses.
4. Removal of all supporting hardware and software X 174 + dismantling and facility repair for all Voyeur Booths.
5. Cost of procuring, installing, checking out, and maintaining 174 new MMW NOSs
6. Of course, there will be "retraining..."

My rough guess is in the tens of millions.

Firewind

I'll be surprised if the public has a short memory about this. It was seared into "everyman's" experience, and "everyman" turns out to be right vs. The Man. Great narrative theme with high production values. Which the media thrives on. It feels to me like we're on the cusp of a scandal. Paging Mr. Chertoff. Anyway, more...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2459257.story

petaluma1

I did - he's a different person.

chollie

WillCAD, you raise an interesting point (and one I am not able to answer myself).

I'm an involuntary medical 'opt-out' - I get the full-body grope every single time I fly because I can't assume and hold the position - in either the BSX or MMW.

If someone 'alarms' the ATR and the problem area is the crotch, buttocks, breasts - do the screeners then still have to call for an assist?

Global_Hi_Flyer

A number of government contracts for devices that have embedded software also carry a separate licensing arrangement for the software. Sometimes that means an annual payment for use, sometimes it's an indefinite license with additional payments for maintenance and upgrades. Depending on how the contract is written, there may be unlimited government rights to the source, which is an entirely different kettle o' fish.

in many of the airports I travel through there are 2 screeners (one male, one female) stationed at the exit of the strip-search machine.

halls120

The rumor running around DC is that TSA was concerned about the levels of radiation the backscatter machines emitted - but they will never admit it.

chollie

When I tell the 'traffic director' that I can't assume and hold the NoS position, I always get told that makes me an 'opt out' - and I am often warned that I will have to wait for an assist and that it may be 'some time' before one is available. When I've dared to ask why someone else standing around can't do it, I've been told that not everyone is trained to do the full-body grope (my words, not TSA's).

Depending on checkpoint layout (view of bags), I have begun saying nothing until I am in the NoS. When the NoS monitor tells me to assume the position, then I explain that I'm not able to. Interestingly, when I do it that way, there's always an available 'assist' right by the NoS who does the full-body grope.

Just coincidence?

(Slightly OT: when I get directed to the NoS and I tell the 'traffic director' that I can't assume the position, I always get the full-body grope, and I always get a full bag search. When I wait until I am in the NoS to announce my limitations, I don't get the bag search.

petaluma1

Too bad some of us older folk won't be around in 20 years or so when the government has to admit that many cases of cancer and deaths among former TSA screeners were caused by these vile machines.

I suppose neither Chertoff or Pistole are losing any sleep over this.

Both need to be prosecuted for crimes against the American people.

Fredd

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist / black helicopter guy but I have little doubt that this is plausible, and the following from the Washington Post piece only reinforces my suspicions:

Boggie Dog

New xray scanners are being bought. The only difference is that the new xray scanners will have privacy software.

Ari

Very distressing, but doesn't address the FOIA issue since the new ones are ATR.

Ari

How much of this do you think has to do with the notice and comment period coming up?

chollie

Actually, I think it's a 'perfect storm' of circumstances.

There's on-going pressure about the question-and-answer comment that has never really gone away, though TSA keeps ignoring the court directives, but it's a nit - TSA doesn't worry about courts.

Rapiscan got caught flat-out lying and falsifying data to make it look like progress was being made on the ATR. Rapiscan wasn't going to be selling many more scanners to airports. The real market going forward is to other customers who don't require the ATR. Rapiscan only 'loses' the small contract for the ATR - which it may, in fact, have never made a good faith effort to fulfill. It will (it says) eat the cost of shifting the BSXs from airports to other government agencies, a small cost for a company its size.

IOW, this is probably actually a good thing for Rapiscan.

AFGE made it clear it wants dosimeters for TSOs working the checkpoint. It even offered to provide the dosimeters at no cost to TSA, but TSA cited a 'regulation' that prohibits TSOs from getting dosimeters from anyone but TSA (great Catch-22, huh?) and TSA refused to fund them. Nevertheless, the fact that the union got involved in the issue probably made a few more TSOs start questioning the safety of the machines.

Put it all together: Rapiscan can't come up (and has no good reason to come up) with ATR and is possibly facing an investigation, AFGE is pushing dosimeters and asking questions, and there's still pressure about the question-and-answer period that TSA hasn't made go away in the court system.

Perfect solution: get rid of the Rapiscan BSX's. Chertoff has already gotten his main payoff, TSA can spin it as feel-good PR - respecting pax privacy, speeding the checkpoint process, no need for question-and-answer, no need for independent testing or TSO dosimeters. And....someone will get a bonus for replacing the BSXs with other scanners, some of which will still be BSXs.

The machines will still be deployed - just in places where there are no unionized employees to lobby for dosimeters and where the folks passing through aren't in a position to complain too much about privacy (prisons, government buildings), so it's still a win for Rapiscan.

This all came together quite quickly - it was just a few short months ago that TSA announced that they would move some of the BSXs from major airports to smaller airports. Suddenly that plan is called off and they're taking the BSXs out of the airports completely, immediately, even if it means WTMD only until they can replace them with MMWs and new BSXx? Something's fishy - the one thing I'm sure of is someone is getting a big payoff out of all this (and it isn't the taxpayer).