Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:07 pm
#122
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Heard recently that very tall people stick out over the imaging area and that their head, arms, hands, and shoulders don't get processed. Sounds like another fail for TSA if this is accurate.
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:10 pm
#123
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,780
Of course, it's not likely that I'd be going in the direction of a guilty verdict with TSA in any way involved in the first place. There are just too many variables there- poor training, some screeners being intellectually challenged, some screeners being morally challenged... There's simply no way to determine the bad apples and rotten apples from the handful of decent ones. That would create holes large enough to drive semi trucks through, as far as I'm concerned.
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:10 pm
#124
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
I'd feel more comfortable if TSA just handed over one of their Pedophile Cancer Imagers as configured at airports to some independent third party who could either confirm or deny their ability to print, store, and/or transmit images as advertised by the TSA.
The independent third party could then pass the machine over to doctors and scientists for testing to verify radiation dosage information. A simple chain of custody could be kept at all times, allowing only cleared people to access the machine, should that become a concern of the paranoid in the agency.
Doing this would go a long way to clearing many valid concerns about this equipment. How about it, Bob? Does the TSA have the guts to turn over one of their Perv-O-Matics for some independent analysis?
The independent third party could then pass the machine over to doctors and scientists for testing to verify radiation dosage information. A simple chain of custody could be kept at all times, allowing only cleared people to access the machine, should that become a concern of the paranoid in the agency.
Doing this would go a long way to clearing many valid concerns about this equipment. How about it, Bob? Does the TSA have the guts to turn over one of their Perv-O-Matics for some independent analysis?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Aug 5, 2010 at 1:31 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:12 pm
#125
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,780
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:19 pm
#126
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
That's very hard to believe given this excerpt from the cNet / Privacy Inc article linked to above:
"A 70-page document showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as 'sensitive security information,' says that in some modes the scanner must 'allow exporting of image data in real time' and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will 'protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.')"
Bolding is mine.
It makes no sense to have a surveillance device that generates evidence of criminal behavior but cannot store it for reference by prosecutors.
This article, currently being bannered atop the Drudge Report and therefore read by millions, shows the federal government has been lying.
"A 70-page document showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as 'sensitive security information,' says that in some modes the scanner must 'allow exporting of image data in real time' and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will 'protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.')"
Bolding is mine.
It makes no sense to have a surveillance device that generates evidence of criminal behavior but cannot store it for reference by prosecutors.
This article, currently being bannered atop the Drudge Report and therefore read by millions, shows the federal government has been lying.
So this means the image can be transmitted over the network to another storage device?
So when you say the machine cannot print the image that is true. But whats to stop the image being printed somewhere else?
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:21 pm
#127
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,132
60? Ha, the number would be a single digit.
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:27 pm
#128
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
But seeing isn't really the problem, is it? If such a prosthetic is seen by the nice chap in the private room, he can't tell if it is in fact an implant or, say, a penis bomb. So the implant will now have to be "cleared" (by mechanisms you must know about and which are being kept secret from us). How would you like to have your implant inspected?
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:46 pm
#129
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Welcome to the TSA and its mission of securing US airports for TSA sex perverts.
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:55 pm
#130
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,725
TSA has not and will not store images.
All imaging technology machines are delivered to airports for operational use without the capability to store, print or transmit images. There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into a mode to retain images.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
All imaging technology machines are delivered to airports for operational use without the capability to store, print or transmit images. There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into a mode to retain images.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Anyone? Bueller?
Aug 4, 2010 | 4:56 pm
#131
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
Originally Posted by Bob at the TSA Blog, Feb 3 2010
These pictures were provided to TSA by the vendor. I have never claimed they are the exact size and resolution that our officers see. I have provided video examples showing what our officers see. I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release. I'm still looking into being able to get that info for you, but I can't promise anything.
Aug 4, 2010 | 5:05 pm
#133
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
But seeing isn't really the problem, is it? If such a prosthetic is seen by the nice chap in the private room, he can't tell if it is in fact an implant or, say, a penis bomb. So the implant will now have to be "cleared" (by mechanisms you must know about and which are being kept secret from us). How would you like to have your implant inspected?
Aug 4, 2010 | 5:07 pm
#135
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
Wouldn't you think that there are more sexual perverts in the TSA than there are terrorists at US airports? Yet the TSA doesn't worry about sex perverts in the TSA anywhere as much as the TSA worries about mythical terrorists at US airports.
Welcome to the TSA and its mission of securing US airports for TSA sex perverts.
Welcome to the TSA and its mission of securing US airports for TSA sex perverts.