TSA plans to replace the walk-through metal detect with MMW
Apr 23, 2009, 1:42 pm
#46
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: washington dc
Programs: ual, aa, hertz, starwood, hilton
Posts: 398
Think you'd be able to find where scanners are on the tsa blog, but no.
It would be a good question for them, if they wouldn't think it a security issue.
A quick search found the following airports having them:
SFO, MIA, ABQ, TUL, SLC, LAS, LAX, DEN, JFK, BWI, DFW,ORD, PHX, DTT, IAD, MSP
International (sorry no specifics)
Britain, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Thailand and the Netherlands
Mind you there might be only one at an entire airport, or a trial was finished and the scanner was moved elsewhere, but its a start.
If anyone wants to do a few MR's, could validate.
It would be a good question for them, if they wouldn't think it a security issue.
A quick search found the following airports having them:
SFO, MIA, ABQ, TUL, SLC, LAS, LAX, DEN, JFK, BWI, DFW,ORD, PHX, DTT, IAD, MSP
International (sorry no specifics)
Britain, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Thailand and the Netherlands
Mind you there might be only one at an entire airport, or a trial was finished and the scanner was moved elsewhere, but its a start.
If anyone wants to do a few MR's, could validate.
Apr 23, 2009, 1:43 pm
#47
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: Nothing - I'm useless!
Posts: 2,441
Think you'd be able to find where scanners are on the tsa blog, but no.
It would be a good question for them, if they wouldn't think it a security issue.
A quick search found the following airports having them:
SFO, MIA, ABQ, TUL, SLC, LAS, LAX, DEN, JFK, BWI, DFW,ORD, PHX, DTT, IAD, MSP
International (sorry no specifics)
Britain, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Thailand and the Netherlands
Mind you there might be only one at an entire airport, or a trial was finished and the scanner was moved elsewhere, but its a start.
If anyone wants to do a few MR's, could validate.
It would be a good question for them, if they wouldn't think it a security issue.
A quick search found the following airports having them:
SFO, MIA, ABQ, TUL, SLC, LAS, LAX, DEN, JFK, BWI, DFW,ORD, PHX, DTT, IAD, MSP
International (sorry no specifics)
Britain, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Thailand and the Netherlands
Mind you there might be only one at an entire airport, or a trial was finished and the scanner was moved elsewhere, but its a start.
If anyone wants to do a few MR's, could validate.
Apr 23, 2009, 2:11 pm
#48
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Are they going to deploy these to every airport? Somehow I doubt it. First they are very costly. Second, most airports are not designed for this type of equipment. CAT II, III, IV airports most likely cannot accommodate them, and they are not within their budget anyway. Some CAT I’s might be able to afford them, but if they are like my airport then they will never get them as the checkpoints are not designed for this type of equipment. We would need to remove a lane completely just to have the thing sit at the checkpoint. Remove a lane? NEVER going to happen.
Many CAT X airports might be able to afford them, but then again we run across the issue of site design. Most airports have been around since long before 2001, and were never designed for a TSA style checkpoint. Even DIA, a fairly new airport, might have some issues redesigning their checkpoints to accommodate the equipment.
SO, take a breath people. You might see one, you might not.
Many CAT X airports might be able to afford them, but then again we run across the issue of site design. Most airports have been around since long before 2001, and were never designed for a TSA style checkpoint. Even DIA, a fairly new airport, might have some issues redesigning their checkpoints to accommodate the equipment.
SO, take a breath people. You might see one, you might not.
Apr 23, 2009, 2:24 pm
#51
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,740
If "security checkpoints" are not identical at every aiport, with some airports using certain screening methods and equipment and other airports using something else, then it makes one wonder about the efficacy of the entire "security screening" process, no?
Apr 23, 2009, 2:28 pm
#52
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,740
I declined being MMW'd; the screeners were reasonably polite about it, but clearly were not happy with having to perform a pat-down. When I told my travel partner to watch my belongings, the pat-down screener got a bit snippy stating "no one will touch your items."
Had I been more quick-minded, I might have responded with "Sir, I think that you are doing that right now."
Apr 23, 2009, 2:54 pm
#53
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: Nothing - I'm useless!
Posts: 2,441
If i recall the signs at TPA properly, they are the same sign that is on the TSA website seen here:
They have small standard/letter paper sized prints of that sign atop stanchion poles in the normal queue and over by the machine they have ones that are "poster" size. The image of the scan is only a few inches tall, even in that enlarged format.
They have small standard/letter paper sized prints of that sign atop stanchion poles in the normal queue and over by the machine they have ones that are "poster" size. The image of the scan is only a few inches tall, even in that enlarged format.
Apr 23, 2009, 3:03 pm
#54
Join Date: Jan 2007
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 507
TSA's list of scanners
Sorry TSA does list them here:
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/mwave.shtm
as being at:
Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Denver International Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Detroit Metro Airport
Indianapolis International Airport
Jacksonville International Airport
McCarran International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport
Miami International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Richmond International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
Salt Lake City International Airport
Tampa International Airport
Tulsa International Airport
I googled TSA and body scanner, should of done imaging.
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/mwave.shtm
as being at:
Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Denver International Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Detroit Metro Airport
Indianapolis International Airport
Jacksonville International Airport
McCarran International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport
Miami International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Richmond International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
Salt Lake City International Airport
Tampa International Airport
Tulsa International Airport
I googled TSA and body scanner, should of done imaging.
Apr 23, 2009, 3:35 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Apr 23, 2009, 4:06 pm
#57
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
My responses to these would be--
TSA: "It's easy."
Me (in a loud voice): "It's also obscene, allows TSA agents to look at your NAKED body, and is a violation of my Constitutional rights."
TSA: "We'll have to PAT YOU DOWN. That will take much longer."
Me: "Make sure you use a male agent. And make sure he changes his gloves with a fresh pair-- out of a box, not his pocket. I've read the articles that talk about TSA agents HAVING SCABIES. Also make sure my carry ons stay in my view AND UNTOUCHED the entire time. I know that TSA agents STEAL from passengers and CANNOT BE TRUSTED."
TSA: "It won't hurt you."
Me: "I'm hurt every time my privacy is needlessly trampled upon and my Constitutional rights are violated. By the way, EXACTLY what tripped the need for this secondary search?"
TSA: "What have you got to hide?"
Me: "Plenty from your perverts who are sitting in another room, probably jacking off to the images of naked people they're seeing."
As you can see, I'm ready and primed for confrontation with these idiots.
TSA: "It's easy."
Me (in a loud voice): "It's also obscene, allows TSA agents to look at your NAKED body, and is a violation of my Constitutional rights."
TSA: "We'll have to PAT YOU DOWN. That will take much longer."
Me: "Make sure you use a male agent. And make sure he changes his gloves with a fresh pair-- out of a box, not his pocket. I've read the articles that talk about TSA agents HAVING SCABIES. Also make sure my carry ons stay in my view AND UNTOUCHED the entire time. I know that TSA agents STEAL from passengers and CANNOT BE TRUSTED."
TSA: "It won't hurt you."
Me: "I'm hurt every time my privacy is needlessly trampled upon and my Constitutional rights are violated. By the way, EXACTLY what tripped the need for this secondary search?"
TSA: "What have you got to hide?"
Me: "Plenty from your perverts who are sitting in another room, probably jacking off to the images of naked people they're seeing."
As you can see, I'm ready and primed for confrontation with these idiots.
IMO, the only way to fight this is in court. I don't think there has been any ruling on the reasonableness of airport searches, other than X-ray of bags and WTMDs.
Apr 23, 2009, 6:22 pm
#58
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,766
there's nothing to hide. Right? Maybe USA Today could do a story on this without any input from the TSA......photos of the alleged signage and a reporter stopping pax in the "sterile" area who have gone through the machine to ask them if they know what happened and showing them a large sized picture of the strip search.
Apr 24, 2009, 7:33 am
#59
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8
The child porn angle is a good idea, but unfortunatley it wouldn't fly too far (no pun intended). You may get an Airport LEO to take a report, or even pull the screener inside for a chat, but it wouldn't go anywhere.
http://troopers.state.ny.us/Criminal...inst_Children/
Most other states and SCOTUS has also made similar ruilings to this extent,(ie. that album cover of the kid in the pool that Rolling Stone did a follow-up on when he turned 17 recently) although none involving when the photograph was taken under "color of authority" (TSA).
I would think a better avenue would be a cut and dried 4th ammendment approach. SCOTUS, when addressing issues specifically enumerated in the constitution has generally taken a strict approach. The government must have a compelling interest, and the resulting search be done in the narrowest manner possible. see Arizona v. Grant(limiting searches of vehicles incident to arrest to instances involving unsecured arrestees and reasonable suspicion that evidence relating to the crime of arrest is found). It is totally possible SCOTUS will rule that since less invasive procedures work, that to attempt more invasive ones would be unreasonable.
NOTE: I am not an LEO or an attorney, although I hope to be an LEO after my degree.
Keep in mind that since the law is very specific about sexual conduct or "lewd exhibition," images that simply contain nudity ("nature" pictures) are not considered child pornography in New York State. Also note that the age of a child is defined in New York State less than 16 (or 17) years of age
Most other states and SCOTUS has also made similar ruilings to this extent,(ie. that album cover of the kid in the pool that Rolling Stone did a follow-up on when he turned 17 recently) although none involving when the photograph was taken under "color of authority" (TSA).
I would think a better avenue would be a cut and dried 4th ammendment approach. SCOTUS, when addressing issues specifically enumerated in the constitution has generally taken a strict approach. The government must have a compelling interest, and the resulting search be done in the narrowest manner possible. see Arizona v. Grant(limiting searches of vehicles incident to arrest to instances involving unsecured arrestees and reasonable suspicion that evidence relating to the crime of arrest is found). It is totally possible SCOTUS will rule that since less invasive procedures work, that to attempt more invasive ones would be unreasonable.
NOTE: I am not an LEO or an attorney, although I hope to be an LEO after my degree.
Last edited by vc8; Apr 24, 2009 at 7:45 am