PV: Screening before the checkpoint is back in style
 

Poster Boy is back, misusing "hopefully", headlining a puppy post with "See SPO Screen..." and giving us these gems:
As Dilbert said, "Sir, when I need a no-brainer I know I can always count on you."
"Relatively" well informed? So, iPod-sized signs again?
Please let Paul know what you think. Awesome, dude? :rolleyes:

Well, since I work at BOS, and at least for the moment, I've only seen the SPO in my terminal. The majority are yes, iPod sized. However... there is a big one located right next to the screening station saying that screening is being conducted. I'll take a picture of the layout for you all.

I think it's awesome. It does close a potential security risk, ie suicide bombers setting themselves off in a ticket queue.

This is an illegal search that violates the 4th amendment under Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)..

Same should apply for a person as well for anything that's not in public view.

Not that TSA really cares what the law is that they're violating the 4th amendment, but it's good to see that there's precedent for smacking them down should anyone be harassed by this.

Too bad it's unconstitutional. :)

See the post I just made.

Application of this argument to its logical conclusion would suggest that anyone can be searched anywhere. How is this constitutional?

As I understand, we have to submit to administrative search in order to board an aircraft. Why should a person who is meeting an arriving passenger be subjected to a search? Please cite a legal precedent that allows it.

Just how does it close that imaginary security risk?

This is great news that Paul is reporting at PV! Go see for yourself!

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/see-...creen-spo.html


If you go look for yourself, the first thing you will realize is that Blogdad Bob's suggestion discouraging photography of monitors has gone by the boards. Paul has posted a great big photo of this device's screen monitor. That's good news!

You will want to say "thanks" for another reason as well for Paul having posted that "example of the image an operator would see." Having done this, I am sure nothing will stop Paul from posting a full-size, accurate photo of "what an operator would see" using the full-body image Virtual Strip Search MMW's currently in operation in some airports.

All we have seen so far are those tiny, grainy i-pod size photos. We'd like to see what the TSA in the back room actually sees on his or her screen, just as Paul has done today on PV for the SPO-7 screen monitor. Thanks to Paul, we must surely now be on our way to getting some good information about what pax who submit to the Full-Body MMW are really subjecting themselves to.

Here is some additional information about this technology. Familiarize yourselves with it, there is no possible way that this can invade anyone's privacy.

http://www.planningsystemsinc.com/do...PO_jan23PM.PDF

Read the SCOTUS decison Ron, and also the decisions by the lower courts leading up to it. They made the argument that they were monitoring heat eminations from the house and based probable cause for a search based on unusual heat eminations. Also that such eminations coming out of house were public and not considered private.

Lower courts agreed and said that was constitutional. SCOTUS didn't buy it and rightfully overturned it. So apparently, it DOES violate people's rights.

TSA, by its own admission, said it's scanning for energy emitted from devices carried by people. This includes stuff under clothing and in bags. It's the EXACT SAME THING and TSA is making the exact same arguments that SCOTUS rejected. The only real difference is it's using a slightly different technology instead of infrared.

Even if people are in public, like a "house" was, it's still a search to see objects that are under clothing, in bags, etc. You know, things that are private. SCOTUS found that search to violate the Fourth Amendment.

I highly doubt SCOTUS would up hold TSA's actions if/when this goes to court based on previous precedent I cited earlier. TSA's making the exact same arguments that were made in Kyllo. You'd think a lawyer like Francine would read applicable case law BEFORE violating people's Fourth Amendment rights.

Maybe Google wasn't loading for her that day.

+1 ^

It CLOSES that risk? How? Once again, do you guys have ANYONE in your organisation that can think like a terrorist?

You guys just don't seem to get it. I'm a senior manager at a global corporation, working with a bunch of other people -- legal, commercial, engineering, marketing etc. Most of what you see in "Dilbert" looks pretty familiar to us -- we have our share of incompetence, hubris, mediocrity and simple pig-headedness. Nontheless, we somehow manage the operational, technical, and legal challenges needed to launch products and services and in so doing, make money for our shareholders.

Now imagine for a moment that the legality/morality of terror is irrelevant, and me and my colleagues are given a new assignment -- find a way to sow as much terror and destruction throughout the world as possible. We have the same budgets, the same skills, the same resources as at present.

Do you have ANY idea how much EASIER it would be to launch two terror attacks/month, each killing a minimum of 100 people, every month for the next 12 months, then it would be to continue doing our current jobs? Running your typical McDonalds -- hiring workers, managing workers, buying supplies, keeping the place cleaned, keeping the place secure, maintaining the equipment, dealing with the health authorities, etc., ALL of that is lot more complex than running a terror organisation. All this TSA nonsense doesn't make any real difference. People standing in a ticket queue at an airport is only one of dozens of potential targets. I could think up two dozen more while I take my shower tomorrow morning. 99% of us have jobs that are more challenging than that of your typical "international terrorist." Only an idiot would find such work difficult, and only a real idiot would think anything the TSA has done (shampoo war? shoe removal? those are a couple of things that might have caused terrorists concern -- for about 10 minutes) has done anything to make it any more challenging.

Sounds like a great device to stop people from bringing their own popcorn to the cinema.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Unfortunately, 9/11 made us exceptionally myopic in terms of security. We focused so much on airports, just about everything else gets a pure pittance of engaged security. You are correct that one could spend 10 minutes to come up with a list of targets in any large city that doesn't have anything to do with aviation.

Perhaps someday we will focus on real security particularly in other areas apart from airports, but my guess is it will take an incredibly tragic incident for that to happen.

It sure is "awesome." I think TSOs should be able to enter my home after I print my boarding pass and search everything in case it can be used as an explosive and packed in my bag. That would close a security risk.

Further, I think they should be able to track my purchases and, when I have bought ammunition, or knives, or any explosive of any kind within 7 days of a flight, be able to search my bags simply because of that. It would close another security risk.

If I have used charcoal lighter fluid within 4 days of a flight, then TSOs should have the right to search my body cavities. That closes another security risk.

:rolleyes:

It's very short-sighted that they only start worrying about us at "curbside." They should also send someone to drive you (very carefully!) to the airport and carry your bags for you (so you don't risk a back strain). Abundance of caution and all that. [/sarcasm]

Right after 9/11 you couldn't even get to curbside before undergoing a check - I remember having to pop my trunk to get into TPA. They had turned the little machines that distribute parking passes into a security checkpoint.

Certainly don't want that back. Going to the airport was like entering a war zone.

Umm, brandinius2 and I were being sarcastic, playing off the claim in the TSA blog that they feel responsible for us from "curbside to cockpit". IMO, screening should be done only at the checkpoint, ideally by a private company that is accountable for its policies, in a polite, efficient and effective manner. (Hey, I can dream, right?)

But what's the deal with "curbside to cockpit"? Did I miss the memo about pax being allowed on the flightdeck again? ;)

First, let me make it 100% clear that I do not support the use of SPO.

However, a question that arises to me is why, if you can have systems that do not generate nude images of people outside the checkpoint, the virtual strip-search MMW machines are being introduced within the checkpoint. Either the passive system is no good and does not detect what it should (and therefore should not be used) or it is good, and can be used without privacy concerns within the checkpoint.

Anyone have a valid explanation???

Apart from the fact that with TSA there's no rhyme or reason? ;)

You're absolutely right. I wrote about this in an earlier thread. The output from the sensor doesn't need to be turned into an image; it can be processed to just give an indication of whether anything unusual is found (a set of "bright" pixels against a background of "dark".) My guess is that different companies have built the two systems and chosen to implement different outputs. But it's only a guess.

Yes.

SPO-7 Passive MMV is made by a company called QinetiQ.

The checkpoint MMV/Whole body imager is made by military/homeland security-industrial complex favorite L3 Communications.

Sorry but I have to repeat the logical (and therefore unanswerable) question: Why are they buying these full body imagers, if they do have a choice that does pretty much the same without generating a nude image?

In a word, reliability.

With the walk through MMW you have a controlled environment that is tuned to allow the sensor to see through clothing.

With the passive MMW it relies on ambient radiation. Because the ambient radiation varies by location the reliability of the machine is lower.

No it isn't.

Kyllo dealt with:

1. A search of a home, one's castle: "“At the very core” of the Fourth Amendment “stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961)."
2. A search that can show intimate detail: "The Agema Thermovision 210 might disclose, for example, at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath—a detail that many would consider 'intimate' . . ." (This is Scalia being cute-- he's really saying that the themal image can tell when a couple is having sex-- and in what position(s))
3. A search the target didn't know about.

None of those three apply to this new toy.

Sorry, but I don't accept exchanging reliability for indecent exposure. Also, both systems are unreliable, because they cannot detect anything within body cavities. These things are a total fail.

Don't give them ideas. BOSS Chair. We used these when I worked in corrections. We found a 12" hacksaw blade one time. Don't ask, it looked very uncomfortable.

I should add, according to our local newsletter, the pilot was authorized by Napolitano herself.

If a thermo imager showing "intimate details" of the time a person takes a bath is protected how much more are the intimate details of what I have in my pants protected?

If you notice the 4th Amendment makes no difference between persons, papers, houses or effects in the amount of protection each is provided. The Supreme Court's ruling in Kyllo did not differentiate between persons, papers, houses or effects in the amount of 4th Amendment protection each is afforded.

Your whole argument that Kyllo ruling hinged on the "home is a castle" thought process is wrong. Kyllo ruling hinged on the fact that using technology to detect legal as well as illegal activity where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without a warrant, is unconstitutional. The fact that the area being searched was a home is irrelevant.

In ILLINOIS v. CABALLES the justices affirmed the Kyllo ruling goes well beyond the confines the "castle".

A car is not a house, but the Justices felt the need to explain why ILLINOIS v. CABALLES did not conflict with Kyllo. If Kyllo dealt with strictly a home search, as you insist, the Justices would have had no need to explain.

I would hope that you will agree that I have an expectation of privacy when it comes to what i have in my pants.

As you see in Katz, the 4th Amendment protects people, not places. Therefore the Kyllo ruling can not protect just "castles".

The posting of the signs is meaningless and does not dilute the Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment. Contrary to your contentions, the blind, stupid or illiterate have the same Constitutional protections as the literate, sighted and intelligent.

We have not even touched on the fact that the TSA is illegally acting outside their administrative search boundaries.

I am sorry your argument to this point fails miserably.

BTW Unless you read something I didn't, Scalia was not implying sex with the use of the word "intimate".

I look forward to your counter argument.

Nappy is just trying to piss off everybody this month. Damn menopause.

No argument from me.

Interesting point: how does the TSA get around the claim that "signage" is posted for all to see when it comes to those who are legally blind? Are they put into the MMW with absolutely NO knowledge of what is happening and now way of obtaining that know or is the machine explained to them?

Of course, if Francine gave Napolitano her opinion of the legality of this type of screening, we can't put much faith in that, now can we?

I don't know. I would assume that a blind person would have someone guide them through the airport.

Hopefully one of our friendly TSOs can give us the scoop.

Nappy has no excuse, she is a lawyer too.

Sorry to interrupt the interesting legal discussion with the technology again.

There are two separate aspects of the two scanners: (a) how the sensing is done (passive/active) and (b) what to do with the data. Trollkiller, your point is about (a) and is right - just as a flash photo is more reliable than relying on ambient light.

But the privacy issue comes in at part (b). Both scanners produce (at a basic level) a series of numbers corresponding to pixels in rows and columns. It's possible to reassemble those numbers to create a picture (as the active scanner does, or as your computer does when you open a digital image file) which is viewed by a human to see if something stands out, or to analyse those numbers without creating the image by looking for anomalies (for example, pixels 30 to 89 in rows 18 to 60 are brighter than the pixels around them, suggesting something in that part of the view field.) The passive scanner does something like that, but it's independent of whether the scanner is active/passive.

It's a technology decision which trades off whether you trust a human to find the "bright spot" better than the computer does against the privacy issue. The two manufacturers seem to have taken different approaches.

A hybrid would be possible; the controlled source environment of the active scanner with the non-invasive display format of the passive system. But that would require cooperation between the two companies, time and money. Don't hold your breath.:rolleyes:

TSA doesn't want to be seen as being soft on disabled terrorists....:(:(

Kudos to RadioGirl for noticing! :)

From what I understand of the technology, it doesn't really see through clothing, does it? Looking through the thread I couldn't find any photos that showed anything like what the MMW machines show. It looked much more like a glorified video camera (junk science?) to me. If I'm wrong in my take on the technology, then my 4th amd. view might change.

As far as "intimate", I agree, he did not mean sex. But his analogy (lady of the house, sauna, bath)" was, in my opinion, his being cute and trying trigger in the reader's mind other situations where people do things in the house while naked. I did not mean to imply that his use of the word "intimate" is what sent my mind to the gutter-- or maybe that's the problem in the first place?

RadioGirl,

Thank you for that last post. Perfectly logical and crystal clear.

Any chance we can explain that to the TSA folks? I would tend to support technology that avoided groping IF it did not generate an image (pending cost-effectiveness analysis, etc, of course, and not as primary screening). But somehow I have the feeling some people within the TSA liker the idea of generating nude images and watching them secretly, not for the indecent exposure, but to show other people that they can do what they want in the name of "security"...

emphasis mine: please don't use the tsa and phrases like ""perfectly logical" and "crystal clear" in the same sentence while i'm eating....;)

now as to your "feeling" that some people at the tsa will be secretly viewing the images in, shall we say, not a proper manner".....give it time to come out and be made public, just give it time. (and poof, there goes the millimeter wave machine from service as yet another fine example of the tsa wasting (oops, my bad, i meant spending) money on a process which they thoroughly didn't perfect even tho they had the resources to do so)