# Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

*Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws on Friday January 08, @01:33AM*

 										gandhi_2 writes _"The Guardian has a story about an ongoing legal battle over the use of full body scanners in the UK. The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child....which a full body scanner does." - Slashdot
_


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

Hmm.... now that's a quandary.  What say we bet on them hurrying up and writing an exemption in to law, a poorly written and ill thought one that will be abused?  What do you think the chances are that in the near future some governement screener type will be busted as a kiddie-perv?


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2010)

When I had to work my "survival job" for the bomb detection company, our technology utilized a modified CT scan to detect threats in baggage without using the backscatter methods our competition used that make a person look naked. At the time, the principal engineers were diligently trying to adapt a design to be used on people when the backscatter machines were first tested, 2002 or 2003...I forget exactly when.

When I heard that the first commercial airport where our competition tested the backscatter machines on was Orlando, I just about blew a gasket.  If you have a machine that makes people look naked, why on earth are you  testing it out at an airport that has more YOUNG CHILDREN than any other?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

Because, just like it's the TSA's right to pull your shirt up and squeeze your breasts in public to make sure they aren't bombs, it's their right to make sure that little Tommy's really tugging on his penis, not pulling a discretely concealed pin out of a butt grenade.


----------



## MJS (Jan 8, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws on Friday January 08, @01:33AM*
> 
> gandhi_2 writes _"The Guardian has a story about an ongoing legal battle over the use of full body scanners in the UK. The Protection of Children Act 1978, includes provisions in which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child....which a full body scanner does." - Slashdot_


 
Sigh...what people won't think of next.  I mean, this is no more child porn than it would be adult porn, when an adult walks thru the machine.  Once again, damned if you do, damned if you dont.  Are the imagines stored in a computer somehow, after the person walks thru?  If they are, and the screener decides to get off on the shots later on, well, sure, that could be an issue, but really....have the screeners, people *****.  Dont have them and something happens, people *****.  Gotta love it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2010)

The problem is that this is the equivalent of a strip search.  It's a huge violation of privacy and an act of submission.  Think of all the despots that used nakedness to demoralize their citizens...


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 8, 2010)

Is there a watchdog group for the TSA?

Is there a protest group against the TSA?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 8, 2010)

This is insane.

a) airport security don't need all this crap (as proven by the iraelis who seem to get by without) and it doesn't even work if they put stuff in their carry on. or any other of a dozen scenarios.
b) anyone thinking he needs to see pics of my daughters naked will eat his dinner through a straw.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 8, 2010)

Nolerama said:


> Is there a watchdog group for the TSA?
> 
> Is there a protest group against the TSA?


:lfao:  .... no   :shrug:


----------



## chaos1551 (Jan 8, 2010)

Again, moderate security and effective intelligence will eliminate the need for such intrusive devices.  The body scanner seems somehow lazy to me.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 8, 2010)

"Uncle Andy, where were you the day the airline industry went belly up?"

"Well, Nate, I was on my way making my final move down here to TX to live near you and your mom and dad, I was about the 2nd day into my 2 day drive down when I heard....."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

Interesting how much detail they can pick up with this......
http://www.infowars.com/inverted-body-scanner-image-shows-naked-body-in-full-living-color/

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/120951


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2010)

MJS said:


> Are the imagines stored in a computer somehow, after the person walks thru?



Absolutely.  EDS systems are simply modified biomedical devices.  They are controlled by a computer that runs Windows XP, just like the computers that most of us are probably using now. The hard drive stores the threat detection algorithms used to determine if threats are present as well to stored composite images. There are network ports to put the system on a public or private network, communication ports to hook up a printer and video outputs to hook up a monitor.  

These monitors are generally away from the general public, but they are not obscured from view.  Depending on crowds in the airport and the real estate available for security, the public may or may not be in a position where they have a relatively easy view of the monitors, which means a person may or may not be in a position where they can capture an image (such as a photograph) from a camera, video recorder, cell phone camera, etc. 

Since CT scans don't incorporate backscatter detection, they do not produce the "naked" imagery that the backscatter machines do.  They can also detect a wider variety of threats than the backscatter images.

However,  I think it is simpler (and probably cheaper) to  put a human through a backscatter scan so currently the CT scans are relegated to  baggage/cargo screens.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

> *Will everybody be scanned, or only certain individuals? *
> 
> "This screening option is completely voluntary to all passengers."
> 
> ...



http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/articles/faq-body-scanners
As of Jan 6th 2010

Dear TSA Screener Brown Shirt Goon, 
  Please warm your hands before you do the reach around. Cuz you ain't scanning me.  I'm sure the Thomas Jefferson image, and list of the Bill of Rights on my tee shirt will give you all the "probable cause" to "select" me for "Special Treatment" as will my answer of "don't/nothing/fun" if you ask me who I work for, how much I make, and reason for flying. We know that any American citizen who believes he has any rights and dares mention it is probably a terrorist and you , like the guards at certain camps are just "doing your job". Perhaps you can indicate where your "not for public release, but all over the internet Top Sekret documents say it's any of your business? No, then to quote the late and great George Carlin I say unto you, blow me!
Sincerely, 
Someone who still thinks we have rights in this country and won't submit to you.


----------



## d1jinx (Jan 8, 2010)

I'm not gonna wipe that day... hope they see that!:erg:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

But Carol, the TSA answered that:


*Do they save the scanned images? *

"There is no storage capability. No cameras, cellular telephones, or any device capable of capturing an image is permitted in the remotely-located resolution room. Use of such a device is a terminable offense."

Now, they wouldn't lie now would they? I mean, there have been no cases of abuse by them to date, so why should we worry?  /sarcasm


----------



## d1jinx (Jan 8, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/articles/faq-body-scanners
> As of Jan 6th 2010
> 
> Dear TSA Screener Brown Shirt Goon,
> ...


 
That is of course you dont have a strong smell of B.O., a beard, and wrap a towel around your head..... then we wont dare ask you to do anything because that would be racial profiling and in this super sensitive era, we wont dare stereotype the "types" of people who are creating all the problem in the first place and actually do something about it.... no lets keep pussyfooting around and penalize the rest of the country the way we do in every other aspect of rules and laws.  

PROTECT THE CRIMINAL.... screw the innocent.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

I'll be traveling dressed like old "Ben" Kenobi....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 8, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> This is insane.
> 
> a) airport security don't need all this crap (as proven by the iraelis who seem to get by without) and it doesn't even work if they put stuff in their carry on. or any other of a dozen scenarios.
> b) anyone thinking he needs to see pics of my daughters naked will eat his dinner through a straw.


 
I read an articel today and still looking for it again, but here are a couple more for general content:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582014,00.html

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/...ation_and_world/doc4b4659f84dc4b557912347.txt


Now the articel I read though talked about the PROFILING that is done by the Israeli's. Jewis Israeli's get through faster. All others are targeted more and spend more time and also get every article of clothing unpacked and investigated. All liquids are checked and rechecked. 

The point of the article was that it would not be good for time and delay's would become even greater. The execution would be much more difficult given the number fo airports over 400 large airports in US verus a dozen or so from Israel. (* their numbers *) 

Many people would complain it would nto be PC or would be a violation of thier civil rights here in the USA.

That being said, as I get profiled all the time, I think they should just admit it and move on and make everyone suffer. This way it would either stop completely or it would become accepted. 

Also the Israeli's do not take prisoners so to say when they take people. There are reprisals even if they are not sanctioned officaly. Personally, I have no proof, but I really understand this idea. If you do not like me and you come to me and try to kill,hurt me and mine, then I will make sure you do not get a second chance. 

But the other half of me wonders about all that has already been taken away of the US Constitution and wonders if that is not the end and the loss of it completely?

But that is a different topic. Sorry.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

Direct from the TSA


> *What are my Options?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But Carol, the TSA answered that:
> 
> 
> *Do they save the scanned images? *
> ...




I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll be serious for a moment. 

Algorithm detection (which is used for more than just threat detection) can be an ugly business.  If the algorithm is too loose, that can lead to a false match.  If the algorithm is too tight, this can miss a legitimate match.  Detection algorithms are never static, they are always being improved by humans. Saving usage data makes for better algorithms, because real life isn't always like the lab. 

Most of the backscatter devices are built by a Mass. based company called American Science and Engineering, which is commonly referred to as ASE or AS&E.  Their most popular family of devices is called the "Backscatter Z".  

This particular datasheet is for the cargo scanner, but I suspect there is little variation other the physical platforms (conveyor belt, etc) that transports the subjects through the scanner.    Decide for yourself what capabilities these machines have.

http://goldenepochlimited.com/ZPORTAL_022006_g.pdf



> ASE Inspection Features:
> 
> Mark and Annotate: Attaches pointers and comment fields to images
> 
> ...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 8, 2010)

But how are they gonna afford all this technology to install all these scanners when everyone stops flying and the industry bottoms out?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2010)

Carol,
  Thanks.  Sounds like confirmation that they are lying to me.

Andy,
  The Fed will print lots of paper, which will be routed to them by the Platinum-Parachutes in the Senate and House saving them, just like they saved all those other failing industries.


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> But how are they gonna afford all this technology to install all these scanners when everyone stops flying and the industry bottoms out?



They can't.  Both the CT scanners and the backscatter scanners have been available for deployment since 2003. Its now 2010, and penetration is still limited.

It is not the feds who directly pay for these scanners, it is the airports.  Sometimes the feds give grant money to the airport, but I suspect if one looks at airport-specific trade mags such as Jane's Airport Review, one will find accounts at how fed money is not enough.

Airports make money by charging gate fees or gate rent to the airlines that land at their gates.  The higher an airport's operating expense is, the higher the gate fee.  The higher the gate fee, the higher the airline's costs are for that route.  The higher the cost of the route...the higher the cost of the ticket.

One way or another, its all of us that pay for them.


----------



## Tames D (Jan 8, 2010)

Yes, in case you were wondering, We have lost the war on terrorism. Game over.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 8, 2010)

The easiest times Ive ever had with customs anywhere in the world was in, of all places, Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ive flown in there three times, including during the troubles, and I got through so fast and easy, I thought they had made a mistake.

I guess the Brits have got the counter terrorism down a bit better then we North Americans.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 9, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But Carol, the TSA answered that:
> 
> 
> *Do they save the scanned images? *
> ...



Being a skilled software engineer and having worked on many imaging project including governmental ones, I find it unlikely in the extreme that they will not have an option for saving images.

First of all, there is a fat chance those images will be stored in temporary image files during processing. And then there is possibly an option to save images for debugging. Perhaps not on the user interface, but maybe via a config option somewhere. And lastly, there will maybe be an option to save images to prove probable cause, or something similarly CYA.

It doesn't even matter though, because any window environment (be it Windows, or X windows, or whatever it is called on Mac) has options to save screenshots. So no matter how well the software itself will be audited (if at all) anyone with admin access to those machines (the administrators at the very least) wil be able to circumvent it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 9, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> The problem is that this is the equivalent of a strip search. It's a huge violation of privacy and an act of submission. Think of all the despots that used nakedness to demoralize their citizens...


 
While it may be the equivalent, it is not the same.  IMO, I think that much like anything else, you get these watchdog groups, who've got nothing better to do with their time, than nitpick about stupid ****.  

Once again, damned if ya do, damned if ya dont.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> While it may be the equivalent, it is not the same.  IMO, I think that much like anything else, you get these watchdog groups, who've got nothing better to do with their time, than nitpick about stupid ****.



Did you look at the pics in the link bob posted?  if thats not Full-frontal nudity shots taken by these machines, I dont know what is. 

As far as the "No way to save images" ********... Really?  So what evidence will you show in court when you take down Saddam Al Laden and he claims you targeted him because of racial profiling and not because the machine saw his bomb?


----------



## MJS (Jan 9, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Did you look at the pics in the link bob posted? if thats not Full-frontal nudity shots taken by these machines, I dont know what is.


 
Hmm...I may be wrong, but I'm gonna assume for a moment that you've never been a part of a strip search.  When I worked for the DOC, we often did strip searches of the inmates.  This consisted of them obviously getting undressed, had them lift their nuts as well as squat and cough.  Is that camera detecting whether or not someone shoved something up their ***?  Hey, if a drug dealer is willing to shove something up their *** or vagina, whats to stop a terrorist?  

So, if things like this offend you, what do YOU suggest?  Its easy to sit and ***** about every little thing that the airports have to do, every time some ******* causes trouble, but I never hear any suggestions.  Random pat downs?  Ok, but are people gonna ***** about that, about how much of their valuable time is being wasted?  



> As far as the "No way to save images" ********... Really? So what evidence will you show in court when you take down Saddam Al Laden and he claims you targeted him because of racial profiling and not because the machine saw his bomb?


 
Umm...just like you'd have the drugs that the dealer had, you'd obviously have the bomb or whatever other device he was using.  As for whether or not stuff is saved...well John, I'm not a computer expert, so I was asking a simple question.  No harm in that, is there?  

So, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that these random searches, these machines that can see thru clothing, the body wands, etc. offend you, they're violating your 'civil rights' etc.  So please share with us, what you would suggest.  What do you feel is the best, most effective, least intrusive way to screen passengers?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 9, 2010)

I just thought of some things.

Two premises.

First premise, (One I&#8217;ve mentioned before), terrorists don&#8217;t care about the West, democracy etc, it means nothing to them, except as a means to an end. That end is gaining power in their home countries. By elected means the radicals can barely gain 20% of the vote in most countries, so they need an outside enemy to attack them, martyr them, kill women and children. That will gain them popularity in their home countries, and hopefully power, but its not working quite right. They still can&#8217;t gain much above the 20% mark.

The power base of terrorists are the uneducated masses, the middle and upper classes have too much to lose and are much too smart to believe in this nonsense to participate. The lower class has menial jobs, or subsistent farming as a means to survival. So the terror networks try to cause economic chaos and get rid of those jobs, but the economic problems are the fault of the west. Hence more recruits.

So as a terrorist you want economic chaos, and you want western military strikes in your country.

Now working on premise number two, terrorists want to gain control of aircraft as weapons, crashing them into buildings and perhaps sports stadiums tec, to cause major disruption and maximum damage. 

If you&#8217;re a terrorist, with all the security around passenger planes these past few years, why would you even attempt at gaining control of one? Sacrificial lambs. We can all think of better ways to kill masses of people, it&#8217;s not that hard. A simple hand grenade at a sporting event or at the mall during Christmas will kill dozens, cause economic problems and retaliatory strikes. 

If I&#8217;m a serious terrorist I&#8217;m ignoring passenger planes, except to throw the odd &#8220;loser&#8221; at them, because the west will then focus their attention there, and spend billions to try and protect its citizens. Air travel is responsible for tens of billions to all our GDP&#8217;s. Instead I&#8217;m focusing on the less secure cargo air travel. 1/3 of all flights out of Toronto are cargo flights, I&#8217;m assuming most major airports are similar in number. Put some terrorists in a cargo container on a domestic flight, pop out and take over the plane near a major city, and do the damage. 

I think we are spending money foolishly. It&#8217;s more about making the passengers feel safe to travel then anything else.

It is intelligence, covert operations and negotiations that have always won terrorist campaigns. This one will be no different. 

Just thinking out loud on a quiet Saturday morning folks&#8230;.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 9, 2010)

Tee shirt I'll be wearing when I fly:

"Security Theater - Not as funny as Vaudeville, but just as effective."

The problem with the whole system is, it's ineffective, it's inefficient and it's invasive. Any nut can screw up an airport for days just by walking through the out door.  And they have.  

Guy gets explosives on a plane, despite being turned in by family, being on a no fly and a watch list.  Yet grandma has to take her shoes off and have her **** felt up to prove those things by her knees aren't gel bombs.  Soon grandpa will have to be turned into a muppet as some TSA shoves a hand up his ***, or we'll have to undergo an MRI prior to boarding just because some nut shoved C4 up his own ***.

And we won't be any safer.   

If I want to bring a plane down, I simply sit at the end of a runway with an RPG and frag it.
If I want to shut down the airport, I send a suicide bomber in in December and blow right at the inspection point.

If I want to screw up the entire country, I let them worry about the above, spin their wheels, and compromise themselves in terror of what I might do, while I sit back and enjoy a cold beverage in my cave.

Which option is working against us now?

Yeah.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> Hmm...I may be wrong, but I'm gonna assume for a moment that you've never been a part of a strip search.  When I worked for the DOC, we often did strip searches of the inmates.  This consisted of them obviously getting undressed, had them lift their nuts as well as squat and cough.  Is that camera detecting whether or not someone shoved something up their ***?  Hey, if a drug dealer is willing to shove something up their *** or vagina, whats to stop a terrorist?



Not much, so this scan is pretty worthless then... dog-and-pony show antics.



MJS said:


> So, if things like this offend you, what do YOU suggest?  Its easy to sit and ***** about every little thing that the airports have to do, every time some ******* causes trouble, but I never hear any suggestions.  Random pat downs?  Ok, but are people gonna ***** about that, about how much of their valuable time is being wasted?



Its hard to say, some of what *I* deem effective someone else may call Racist, or Profiling, or what have you... hey you can't please everyone... but how about instead of making a machine that takes Nudie-pics but has limited value at detection, we FIND a solution that has real detection value?  Sounds like Carol was onto something that did the same thing without the Pron aspects... why cant that be used?




MJS said:


> Umm...just like you'd have the drugs that the dealer had, you'd obviously have the bomb or whatever other device he was using.  As for whether or not stuff is saved...well John, I'm not a computer expert, so I was asking a simple question.  No harm in that, is there?
> 
> So, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that these random searches, these machines that can see thru clothing, the body wands, etc. offend you, they're violating your 'civil rights' etc.  So please share with us, what you would suggest.  What do you feel is the best, most effective, least intrusive way to screen passengers?



This part of my comment wasn't directed at you in general but as a statement twords the idea that they wont/cant save images... and I'd wonder why they wouldn't have a mechanism in place save the evidence that created the probable cause for the search in the first place... and for me to believe they wouldn't would be like me believing the Magical Leopluradon would lead the way to candy mountain.  Then I would lose my Kidney.


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 9, 2010)

What about doing this the next time you fly the "friendly" skies.

Mine would say "Thanks for being underqualified"

I skimmed through the blog, and the author sounds like a reactive child, with a forever-bruised ego; the kind of kid that always wants to say his dad can beat up your dad.

Apparently, one of those plates will result in your bag being checked. This is what happens.



> 1) You could be cited for interfering with the screening process by deliberately causing a distraction.



Lots of things distract TSA screeners. Like bright colors, soda fizzies, and Play Doh.



> 2) If there is a prohibited item concealed underneath the plate, you will be cited for artful concealment of a prohibited item.



This is the loophole they'll use to strip-search anyone that pulls this stunt off: "Man, I think that bottle of water you accidentally brought in your bag is dangerous. Better drop trou so I can make sure you're not hiding another water bottle up there."



> 3) If the message on the plate could be interpreted as a threat, you could be responsible for the closing of a checkpoint, not to mention the inconvenience youve just caused your fellow travelers.



Anything could be considered a threat. Another loophole. The inconvenience I'm causing fellow travelers? Who cares? We are ALL being inconvenienced with TSA, and the impact it's had on the American perception of themselves and their government. It's security theater at best; scarecrow tactics. Plastic sherrifs with teeth and rubber gloves.



> 4) Whoever is in line behind you will now have to wait even longer to get through the screening process."



Wah. This mentality says "Do you really want the other sheep to get all riled up like that? No, I didn't think so. Be a good little sheep and drink the Kool-Aid and bend over while I cavity search you."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 9, 2010)

They hassle real cops, government agents and Secret Service folks. I don't think the TSA goon squad cares about Joe-Citizen.


----------



## MJS (Jan 9, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Not much, so this scan is pretty worthless then... dog-and-pony show antics.


 
Like I always say, damned if you do, damned if you dont.  For every measure the TSA takes, there is a negative measure.  I simply stated that I dont feel that its violating child porn, unless someone is taking the images and getting off on them.  Of course, I'm sure theres some law for adults that its violating too.  

Who knows, maybe they should place a bomb sniffing dog near all the screening areas.  If the dog hits on someone, that person is detained.





> Its hard to say, some of what *I* deem effective someone else may call Racist, or Profiling, or what have you... hey you can't please everyone... but how about instead of making a machine that takes Nudie-pics but has limited value at detection, we FIND a solution that has real detection value? Sounds like Carol was onto something that did the same thing without the Pron aspects... why cant that be used?


 
If there is something like that, then it should be used.  






> This part of my comment wasn't directed at you in general but as a statement twords the idea that they wont/cant save images... and I'd wonder why they wouldn't have a mechanism in place save the evidence that created the probable cause for the search in the first place... and for me to believe they wouldn't would be like me believing the Magical Leopluradon would lead the way to candy mountain. Then I would lose my Kidney.


 
Perhaps, much like the black boxes in airplanes and dash-cams in police cars, which can only be accessed by certain people, some sort of set up like that can be used.  While access to someone would still be available, it would be limited.  Access the images only if there is an issue.  Otherwise, after 30days, the images are erased.  

Just tossing out ideas.  But, again, if there was some machine that was less intrusive, then it should be used.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> Just tossing out ideas.  But, again, if there was some machine that was less intrusive, then it should be used.



It sounds to me, in this case, and Carol can correct me if Im wrong... it was an issue of who got to the starting line first, and got the  TSA's approval.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> Umm...just like you'd have the drugs that the dealer had, you'd obviously have the bomb or whatever other device he was using. As for whether or not stuff is saved...well John, I'm not a computer expert, so I was asking a simple question. No harm in that, is there?


 
No, sir, unfortunately your line of reasoning here is incorrect.  When an officer searches a subject and finds drugs on them, they must first have probable cause to search.  Now, remember, we're talking about searches of people, not luggage.  The rules are different.

In that case, the officer has to articulate his probable cause for the search in the first place.  If a TSA officer say that they saw something on a person's body as a result of this scanner, then the question will be what did he see, *and prove it*.  How can he prove it if he doesn't have a captured image of what he saw?  People are inherentily distrutful of law enforcement these days, so when a person of a particular ethnicity walks through with an explosive devise, they will just claim racism.  And with the fact that easily captured *evidence* no longer exists, it will give "truth" to that claim.



> So, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that these random searches, these machines that can see thru clothing, the body wands, etc. offend you, they're violating your 'civil rights' etc. So please share with us, what you would suggest. What do you feel is the best, most effective, least intrusive way to screen passengers?


 
Profiling.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> Who knows, maybe they should place a *bomb sniffing dog* near all the screening areas. If the dog hits on someone, that person is detained.


 
I brought this up in another thread. Dogs can be trained to hit on multiple stimuli (drugs, explosives, prohibited liquids, guns, FEAR) and are more sensitive than the TSA screener's vision as it scans a backscatter image. It really isn't clear to me why we aren't using more dogs.


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I brought this up in another thread. Dogs can be trained to hit on multiple stimuli (drugs, explosives, prohibited liquids, guns, FEAR) and are more sensitive than the TSA screener's vision as it scans a backscatter image. It really isn't clear to me why we aren't using more dogs.



People of the Muslim faith would have a sharp objection:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/c...o-bomb-sniffing-dogs-on-buses-and-trains.html

Dogs aren't perfect:

http://www.times.com/aponline/2010/01/06/us/AP-US-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs.html

The CT scans offer more effective threat detection, because they can find threats that a TSA officer's eyes can't find: fine wires, radioactive materials, recognizing if a metal is lead, recognizing if a liquid is an explosive vs. a permitted solution (contact lens fluids, cough medicine, etc).

However, regardless of what threat detection system is used, total effectiveness depends on 100.00 percent use in airports around the world.  The guy apprehended in Detroit with explosives in his pants did not boar a plane at an American airport.  The 9/11 hijackers cleared security at a tiny commuter field (Portland Jetport), not in Boston.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 9, 2010)

Carol said:


> People of the Muslim faith would have a sharp objection:
> 
> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/c...o-bomb-sniffing-dogs-on-buses-and-trains.html
> 
> .


 
I have a sharp objection to having nude images of my body available for viewing by TSA employees. I don't see why their objections should be more valid than mine.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 9, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I have a sharp objection to having nude images of my body available for viewing by TSA employees. I don't see why their objections should be more valid than mine.


 
You have just expressed one of the root causes of this entire debate....


----------



## Carol (Jan 9, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I have a sharp objection to having nude images of my body available for viewing by TSA employees. I don't see why their objections should be more valid than mine.



The CT scans don't show the human body as naked, either.  But for whatever reason (cost, etc) they are only used on baggage/cargo.

Something that I find ironic is that many of the "demo" images of a backscatter scan show the subject with a device (firearm, etc) that an ordinary metal detector would have easily picked up.


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, sir, unfortunately your line of reasoning here is incorrect. When an officer searches a subject and finds drugs on them, they must first have probable cause to search. Now, remember, we're talking about searches of people, not luggage. The rules are different.
> 
> In that case, the officer has to articulate his probable cause for the search in the first place. If a TSA officer say that they saw something on a person's body as a result of this scanner, then the question will be what did he see, *and prove it*. How can he prove it if he doesn't have a captured image of what he saw? People are inherentily distrutful of law enforcement these days, so when a person of a particular ethnicity walks through with an explosive devise, they will just claim racism. And with the fact that easily captured *evidence* no longer exists, it will give "truth" to that claim.


 
Cop pulls a car over for speeding.  Upon reaching the car he smells weed and sees things in the car leading him to believe that there're drugs in the car.  He now has the right to search the car and the people correct?  

Person walks thru the scanner, and TSA worker sees something odd strapped around the waist of the person walking thru.  He now has enough probable cause to search then person, correct? 

I recall the day my wife and I were flying home from our honeymoon.  Had all of our carry on stuff packed nice and neat.  However, they saw something 'odd shaped' in my carry on bag, pulled me to the side, made me unpack everything in the bag...only to discover the 'odd shaped' object, was a coffee mug.  Now, I literally had to toss everything back in, and we know how that goes, and run to the gate to catch the next flight.  My point...they saw something and there was their cause to stop me.  Seems like it doesnt have to be picture perfect clarity, as long as it catches their eye.  *shrugs*

The point of what I was saying before, came up during the question of whether or not images are saved, and if they're not, what proof does the TSA worker have.  I was simply saying that much like the evidence of the drugs in the car, that is your proof.  If someone walks thru and they do in fact have a bomb, there is your proof, later on, in court.





> Profiling.


 
During a DUI checkpoint, they stop random cars, dont they?  Say every 5th car unless there is something obvious, such as a headlight thats out, or someone clearly not wearing a seatbelt, so even if that car was the 3rd one, they're still getting pulled over.  

If the 5th car is driven by a black male, how is that profiling?  He just happened to be the 5th car, no?  So, if the cop is black and Im in the 5th car, can I cry discrimination too?  

If a name on this supposed list they have, comes up, that person is stopped.  Who cares what race they are, if they're flagged, they're flagged.  Should every Arab get stopped?  Of course not.  Perhaps the screeners, should be better trained or if they can't be, hire someone who is capable of reading people better.  You can't tell me that being able to read people is a bad quality to have.  I'm sure if a LEO stopped a car, and the person is acting odd, nervous, not giving straight answers, etc., that the cop wont be raising flags.


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I brought this up in another thread. Dogs can be trained to hit on multiple stimuli (drugs, explosives, prohibited liquids, guns, FEAR) and are more sensitive than the TSA screener's vision as it scans a backscatter image. It really isn't clear to me why we aren't using more dogs.


 
The last cruise I took, there was a guy with a yellow lab, standing at the entrance near the screening area.  Every time you get off or come on the ship, you are screened in some fashion.  Seems like the cruise lines are doing it, why not the airlines?  Hmm....

It was funny though...after the Christmas day incident, what did I see in the paper?  A dog sniffing luggage.  Go figure.


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

Carol said:


> People of the Muslim faith would have a sharp objection:
> 
> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/c...o-bomb-sniffing-dogs-on-buses-and-trains.html
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps both the dogs and the CT scan should be used.  As far as the 9-11 hijackers go...IMO, anyone who is flying, I dont care if its a major airport or a mom and pop one, everyone should get checked the same way.  Yes, I'm sure the smaller ones will cry about cost.  Well, just like we give away free services to those that claim they're needy, when in fact some really are not, we can give away services to the smaller airports.


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You have just expressed one of the root causes of this entire debate....


 
cough cough race card cough cough. LOL.

Seriously though, I agree with Jenny.  If they're gonna do it to everyone else, then the Arabs should be no exception.  Yeah, yeah, I understand their religion and all that good stuff, but if you're gonna fly, then you need to understand the rules.  It'd be no different than if I were to travel to another country.  While I'm there, I have to obide by their laws, not the laws in the USA.  

I know, I'm probably doing some wishful thinking here, but just saying.  Something needs to be done.  No matter whats done, nobody will ever be happy.  People either need to deal and suck it up, or simply dont fly.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 10, 2010)

MJS said:


> So, if things like this offend you, what do YOU suggest?  Its easy to sit and ***** about every little thing that the airports have to do, every time some ******* causes trouble, but I never hear any suggestions.  Random pat downs?  Ok, but are people gonna ***** about that, about how much of their valuable time is being wasted?
> ?



How about realizing that you can never be perfectly safe. I realize this is hard for Americans come to terms with, but you will never be 100% secure. Flying is about the safest thing in the world even despite the nutters.

Food poisoning and traffic accidents are much more dangerous and claim tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet noone seems to care much or demand ridiculously strict security measures or draconian safety laws?

Why don't those problems get multibillion dollar funding? Imo they are much more of a problem than a nigerian nutter with a whoopy cushion in his underpants.

As for suggestions: How about using the Israeli threat analysis and screening methods as an example?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 10, 2010)

MJS said:


> Perhaps both the dogs and the CT scan should be used.  As far as the 9-11 hijackers go...IMO, anyone who is flying, I dont care if its a major airport or a mom and pop one, everyone should get checked the same way.  Yes, I'm sure the smaller ones will cry about cost.  Well, just like we give away free services to those that claim they're needy, when in fact some really are not, we can give away services to the smaller airports.



Or we can come to terms with the fact that this is an extremely marginal problem and not spend billions on it, and instead make the roads safer and save thousands of lives per year that way.

My wife drove a car in Boston a month or 2 ago while it was raining, and the condition of the roads was truly abysmal. It was really dangerous. And when she asked her US colleagues, she was told that in such weather, there are always several accidents. Yet noone bothered to improve the roads. Probably because an insane budget is spent on making the safest transportation method in the world even safer. Apparently 1 incident per 3700 flight years is not safe enough.


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Food poisoning and traffic accidents are much more dangerous and claim tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet noone seems to care much or demand ridiculously strict security measures or draconian safety laws?
> 
> Why don't those problems get multibillion dollar funding??



They do, in this country.  See the annual budgets for the  USDA, USFDA, and USDOT for more details. Also note that their budgets just address federal funding, and does not account for state and municipal spending.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

I read somewhere that Congress has refused these as "too invasive to their privacy".  Can't find the link at the moment though.  Note, the privacy only applied to Congress, not visitors.


----------



## Carol (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I read somewhere that Congress has refused these as "too invasive to their privacy".  Can't find the link at the moment though.  Note, the privacy only applied to Congress, not visitors.



Of course.  Congress often exempts themselves from their own laws.


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> How about realizing that you can never be perfectly safe. I realize this is hard for Americans come to terms with, but you will never be 100% secure. Flying is about the safest thing in the world even despite the nutters.
> 
> Food poisoning and traffic accidents are much more dangerous and claim tens of thousands of lives every year. Yet noone seems to care much or demand ridiculously strict security measures or draconian safety laws?
> 
> Why don't those problems get multibillion dollar funding? Imo they are much more of a problem than a nigerian nutter with a whoopy cushion in his underpants.


 
I fully understand that we'll never be 100% safe, but we shouldn't wait until something happens, and then act.  Security should be 100% or as close to it, all the time.



> As for suggestions: How about using the Israeli threat analysis and screening methods as an example?


 
Could you explain what this entails?


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

Interesting article in my paper today.  Talked about the pros/cons to the body scanners, the ACLU got involved, gee, theres a shocker, and it even mentions the use of dogs.  While there was an article about the failure of dogs, I wouldn't base their effectiveness of them, on that article, as it'd be akin to watching youtube and judging an art off of that.  For every negative article, there are ones that show their effectiveness:

http://www.canada.com/life/Bomb+sniffing+dogs+part+Afghan+military+team/2367240/story.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-550-Pet-Examiner~y2008m9d10-Bomb-sniffing-dogs-keep-America-safe-since-911

Will they be 100%?  Probably not, just like none of us are 100% with things that we do.  However, there are dogs that are used for arson cases, drug dogs, dogs that can detect when someone is going to have a seizure, dogs that lead the blind.

I guess the point is...seeing that everyone has themselves in a knot over this, maybe the dog is less intrusive.  So you get sniffed...big deal.  At least you dont have to worry about the TSA screener seeing your chest. LOL.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Too much reliance on gadgets, hey can't take the place of a well trained human being with a well trained dog along side. A copper's nose will beat a machine any day. Peoplewatching is the best way to spot things that aren't right whether it's terrrorism or drug smuggling. Body language and mannerisms will tell you more than a machine ever will. Ask any customs officer anywhere in the world, they'll spot a smuggler before any machine does. People have become used to 'drug' sniffer dogs and everyone understands their job, they may not realise thought that the dog is also sniffing for explosives.
Save the money and grief that the body scanners will cause especially when they break down instead employ more watchers, preferably chatty people who like making conversation with strangers.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

Fear has come to govern every aspect of our lives it seems... 

It gets people elected to office...

It convinces people to give up their rights and freedom...

We've become a nation of frightened little wusses. 

There's risk all around us, even from things as simple as sunshine. Sunshine? Yeah sunshine... what do you think the primary cause of the most deadly cancer on the planet is? Melanoma... skin cancer.

So... how long before simply going outside is made illegal? 

Sound ridiculous? To me it's no more ridiculous than allowing unwarrented (pun intended) wire taps or accepting full body scanners of the type currently being considered.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 10, 2010)

MJS said:


> I fully understand that we'll never be 100% safe, but we shouldn't wait until something happens, and then act. Security should be 100% or as close to it, all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain what this entails?


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255268&postcount=5


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255268&postcount=5


 
Thanks!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1255268&postcount=5


 

Thats the way we work too. I spend a lot of time chatting, though that's not a hardship for me lol!


The trick to coping with threats is to believe firmly that you will not change your life to accomodate those who would scare you into barricading yourself between the walls. Many people have mentioned the Blitz spirit here during the war and how it comes out everytime we have a bomb go off ( London has had 40 attacks since 1970), you have to become vigilent but normal! 
Everyone watches out for packages, parcels, bags etc left unattended but makes it part of normal life to become more aware. At stations, airports, bus stations etc again become more aware of your fellow passengers and don't be afraid to pass on any worries you have to the police who must also take things in their stride. Keep calm, keep aware and keep the spirit of resistance to terrorists up. It's the only way to stay normal but safe. The mantra is 'normal life'., oh and a very good sense of humour. I think you're just not used to looking on the bright side of life lol! 

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/blitz.asp


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 10, 2010)

MJS said:


> Cop pulls a car over for speeding. Upon reaching the car he smells weed and sees things in the car leading him to believe that there're drugs in the car. He now has the right to search the car and the people correct?


 
Yes, but there isn't an image available to tell him that there are drugs in the car.  The cop is using his own sense of smell, which he can bring to court and be tested for it's accuracy.  Now, do people do that, not anymore.  That's because the courts have ruled that the cop can search based on his training and experience.  Most cops have smelled marijuana, and therefore it is readibly noticed when smelled.  This is a totally separate issue.

This issue revolves around the use of a scanning device.  Even the courts have noted when using binoculars, infrared sensors, and thermo-imaging devices that if the officer could not have been able to tell what was occurring with his normal senses, then the evidence would be inadmissable in court.  

As en example in Kyllo (Kullo (2001) 533 U.S. 27), the USSC ruled that the warrantless use of a thermal imaging device upon a private residence does indeed constitute an unreasonable, and therefore illegal "search".  How much more so on a person (which is held more inviolable by the courts), and something that literally invades their personal space?

Now, will this hold true in an airport setting, especially considering that magnetometers are already used?  Who knows, but I'm sure the courts will hear about it one of these days.  




> Person walks thru the scanner, and TSA worker sees something odd strapped around the waist of the person walking thru. He now has enough probable cause to search then person, correct?


 
But that's just it.  He doesn't *see *something odd.  A computer is telling him that something is odd.  That is a different story (see above).




> The point of what I was saying before, came up during the question of whether or not images are saved, and if they're not, what proof does the TSA worker have. I was simply saying that much like the evidence of the drugs in the car, that is your proof. If someone walks thru and they do in fact have a bomb, there is your proof, later on, in court.


 
You don't need proof to provide the probable cause to search, only sufficient enough evidence to show that a reasonable police officer with the appropriate training and experience would be allowed to search.  But remember, his knowledge, training, and experience will all be tested in court.  If need be, they can also test his sense of smell.  In what way will they be able to "test" this scanner, especially if no proof of the existence of what was actually seen will be available. 




> During a DUI checkpoint, they stop random cars, dont they? Say every 5th car unless there is something obvious, such as a headlight thats out, or someone clearly not wearing a seatbelt, so even if that car was the 3rd one, they're still getting pulled over.
> 
> If the 5th car is driven by a black male, how is that profiling? He just happened to be the 5th car, no? So, if the cop is black and Im in the 5th car, can I cry discrimination too?


 
But remember, everything can be challenged in court.  That person can claim racial profiling.  Now, if the cops decided to pull over, say, every third car, but now all of a sudden their pulling out cars "at random" for traffic violations, there goes your we only stop every third car profile.  So, even if the black driver who gets stopped wasn't the "third" one, but gets pulled over for a specific violation, he can then say, you only stopped me because I'm black.  And even if he was the "third" one, if say the car before him got pulled over due to a headlight, then he can challenge that in court.  

Once again, no on believes the cops anymore, so the case gets thrown out.  Maybe...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

How the Israelis handle airport security

*STORY HIGHLIGHTS*


U.S. authorities have stepped up airport screening after failed Christmas Day attack
Consultant Isaac Yeffet says Israel safeguards planes by interviewing all passengers
He says well-trained agents can detect attackers and prevent incidents
Yeffet: Security people need to be constantly tested -- and fired if they fail



> *CNN:* What do you think of using full body scanners?
> *Yeffet:* I am against it, this is once again patch on top of patch. Look what happened, Richard Reid, the shoebomber, hid the explosives in his shoes. The result -- all of us have to take off our shoes when we come to the airport. The Nigerian guy hid his explosives in his underwear. The result -- everyone now will be seen naked. Is this the security system that we want?
> We have millions of Muslims in this country. I am not Muslim, but I am very familiar with the tradition, I respect the tradition. Women who walk on the street cover their body from head to toe. Can you imagine the reaction of the husband? Excuse me, wait on the side, we want to see your wife's body naked?... This is not an answer.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 11, 2010)

From that article



> "Stop relying only on technology," Yeffet told CNN. "Technology can help the qualified, *well-trained human being* but cannot replace him."


 
Emphasis mine. I have yet to be impressed by the training of screeners at NA airports. They look bored. They don't seem to care. I always have wires in my laptop bag. I have an Eoioen in there as well. It;s never been questioned.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Yes, but there isn't an image available to tell him that there are drugs in the car. The cop is using his own sense of smell, which he can bring to court and be tested for it's accuracy. Now, do people do that, not anymore. That's because the courts have ruled that the cop can search based on his training and experience. Most cops have smelled marijuana, and therefore it is readibly noticed when smelled. This is a totally separate issue.
> 
> This issue revolves around the use of a scanning device. Even the courts have noted when using binoculars, infrared sensors, and thermo-imaging devices that if the officer could not have been able to tell what was occurring with his normal senses, then the evidence would be inadmissable in court.
> 
> ...


 
What sparked this, was whether or not images would be saved on the computer somehow.  Cryo stated that if images were not saved, then what proof of a bomb would there be, and I commented the bomb itself.  If the scanners are that big of a deal, then lets find other options.  I'm all for suggestions.  So far, the only good one I heard is the use of a dog.





> But that's just it. He doesn't *see *something odd. A computer is telling him that something is odd. That is a different story (see above).


 
Then perhaps what they need is better training.  I like that like that was posted by CanukMa.  IMO, alot of being good at detecting the BS, is being able to read people.  






> You don't need proof to provide the probable cause to search, only sufficient enough evidence to show that a reasonable police officer with the appropriate training and experience would be allowed to search. But remember, his knowledge, training, and experience will all be tested in court. If need be, they can also test his sense of smell. In what way will they be able to "test" this scanner, especially if no proof of the existence of what was actually seen will be available.


 
ok.






> But remember, everything can be challenged in court. That person can claim racial profiling. Now, if the cops decided to pull over, say, every third car, but now all of a sudden their pulling out cars "at random" for traffic violations, there goes your we only stop every third car profile. So, even if the black driver who gets stopped wasn't the "third" one, but gets pulled over for a specific violation, he can then say, you only stopped me because I'm black. And even if he was the "third" one, if say the car before him got pulled over due to a headlight, then he can challenge that in court.
> 
> Once again, no on believes the cops anymore, so the case gets thrown out. Maybe...


 
True, and this is probably why alot of things get tossed out.  But, in the example I used, it wasn't that they were just picking out the car with the black guy, but instead a car that was in violation.  I'm sure that it was every 5th car, but the 4th car, was swerving so badly, that it was apparent the driver was under the influence of something, and they let it go...man, imagine the aftermath of that. LOL.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How the Israelis handle airport security
> 
> *STORY HIGHLIGHTS*
> 
> ...


 
some tihngs that I liked from that link.

*



			Yeffet:
		
Click to expand...

*


> It's mandatory that every passenger -- I don't care his religion or whatever he is -- every passenger has to be interviewed by security people who are qualified and well-trained, and are being tested all year long. I trained my guys and educated them, that every flight, for them, is the first flight. That every passenger is the first passenger. The fact that you had [safe flights] yesterday and last month means nothing. We are looking for the one who is coming to blow up our aircraft. If you do not look at each passenger, something is wrong with your system.


 
Gee, I said something similar before....people who're well trained and qualified.  If these rent-a-cop TSA jokers are not qualified, if people are crying about the scanners, than God Dammit, HIRE SOMEONE WHO IS QUALIFIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*



			Yeffett:
		
Click to expand...

*


> We must look at the qualifications of the candidate for security jobs. He must be educated. He must speak two languages. He must be trained for a long time, in classrooms. He must receive on-the-job training with a supervisor for weeks to make sure that the guy understands how to approach a passenger, how to convince him to cooperate with him, because the passenger is taking the flight and we are on the ground. The passengers have to understand that the security is doing it for their benefit.
> We are constantly in touch with the Israeli intelligence to find out if there are any suspicious passengers among hundreds of passengers coming to take the flight -- by getting the list of passengers for each flight and comparing it with the suspicious list that we have. If one of the passengers is on the list, then we are waiting for him, he will not surprise us.
> During the year, we did thousands of tests of our security guys around the world. It cost money, but once you save lives, it's worth all the money that the government gave us to have the right security system.
> I used to send a male or female that we trusted. We used to give them tickets and send them to an airport to take a flight to Tel Aviv. We concealed whatever we could in their luggage. Everything was fake, and we wanted to find out if the security people would stop this passenger or not.
> If there was any failure, the security people immediately were fired, and we called in all the security people to tell people why they failed, what happened step by step. I wanted everyone to learn from any failure. And if they were very successful, I wanted everyone to know why.


 
AMEN!  Fire their *** and get people that can do the job!  1 mistake can mean the difference between safety and a huge **** up!

*



			Yeffet:
		
Click to expand...

*


> When you come to the check-in, normally you wait on line. While you wait on line, I want you to be with your luggage. You have to meet with me, the security guy. We tell you who we are. We ask for your passport, we ask for your ticket. We check your passport. We want to find which countries you visited. We start to ask questions, and based on your answers and the way you behave, we come to a conclusion about whether you are bona fide or not. That's what should happen.
> *CNN:* Every passenger should be interviewed, on all flights?
> *Yeffet:* Yes, 100 percent...
> I want to interview you. It won't take too long if you're bona fide. We never had a delay.
> ...


 
And this is only going to happen with qualified people.  Its good to see this happening.

What makes me laugh though, is I'm sure people will still ***** and cry like ****ing babies if this were to happen.  "Waahhhhhh...Wahhhh..its taking them too long for them to talk to me."  "Waahhhh...wahhhhh....I dont like their line of questioning." 

Waahhh...wahhhh.....   how about this....Shut the **** up and deal with it or dont fly!!!!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2010)

Security can be too clever. If 'everything' is shown on these scanners potential bombers will find different places to hide them, they'll become even more sly but by using people instead they will carry on using the tried and tested methids of concealment and we will catch them. We don't need for things to be made harder. As I said people should calm down, not over react and play it cool.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 11, 2010)

MJS said:


> I dont like their line of questioning."


 

Actually their line of questioning is quite random. It's not the questoins that matter, it's how you react answering them. 

I used to fly a lot. Back when they still asked if you packed your luggage yourself, It was the same questions, in the same order. Did you pack your luggage? did anybody ask you to carry something? did you leave your luggage unattended?
I used to just walk up to the desk and before any queation was asked simply say:  yes, no, no and smile. The smarter agents got it.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 11, 2010)

You stop that crazy talk Irene. What's next? Suggesting we'll be allowed to carry such obvious lethal weapons like nailclippers?

Although I have to give credit here it is due: When I got back from tech-ed in november, I discovered in the security line at Tegel airport in Berlin to my horror that I had forgotten to pack my swiss army knife in my checked luggage. I've been carrying that knife for 20 years now. It's more of a multi-tool than a knife, but still I thought I'd lose it for sure.

The polite but stern lady at the X ray asked me to hand it over and I had already silently said goodbye to this trusted friend. She looked at it, looked at me, and said 'hmmm. I see' and gave it back. I was stunned and grateful a this unexpected show of common sense. Somehow, she must have understood that this work weary person was unlikely to hijack his planeride home with the 2" blade in his multitool


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You stop that crazy talk Irene. What's next? Suggesting we'll be allowed to carry such obvious lethal weapons like nailclippers?
> 
> Although I have to give credit here it is due: When I got back from tech-ed in november, I discovered in the security line to my horror that I had forgotten to pack my swiss army knife in my checked luggage. I've been carrying that knife for 20 years now. It's more of a multi-tool than a knife, but still I thought I'd lose it for sure.
> 
> The polite but stern lady at the X ray asked me to hand it over and I had already silently said goodbye to this trusted friend. She looked at it, looked at me, and said 'hmmm. I see' and gave it back.



Something I've seen in at least one large airport is a "ship it home" service.  If you get caught in the security line with contraband, the service will pack it up and ship it to a given address (for a fee, of course).  Seems like a great idea to me, but not one that is widespread.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Actually their line of questioning is quite random. It's not the questoins that matter, it's how you react answering them.
> 
> I used to fly a lot. Back when they still asked if you packed your luggage yourself, It was the same questions, in the same order. Did you pack your luggage? did anybody ask you to carry something? did you leave your luggage unattended?
> I used to just walk up to the desk and before any queation was asked simply say: yes, no, no and smile. The smarter agents got it.


 
Thats correct.  I was just trying to think, for a moment, like the typical airline passenger, who doesnt have the 'time' to be bothered with these types of questions. LOL!  

But you're right, 100% correct.  Ask the questions, worded properly, and go off the replies.  Kinda like that show that I watch, Lie To Me.  Guy would ask questions, and would basically watch body language, facial expressions, eye movement, etc. to determine if the person was lying or not.  Good show.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 11, 2010)

You walk up to somebody in the line and just ask them what they had for lunch. It's all in the ability to be able to read people's reactions to a question they have not rehearsed. 

It's not rocket science. Customs agents do it all the time.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> You walk up to somebody in the line and just ask them what they had for lunch. It's all in the ability to be able to read people's reactions to a question they have not rehearsed.
> 
> It's not rocket science. Customs agents do it all the time.


 

Absultely, havae a smile on your face, talk pleantries, act if if you are putting them at their ease. If they are genuine they will be at their ease, if not there will be tells. You also have to make sure they aren't just terrified of flying though!

On the subject of knives people make a big fuss about the size knives but frankly more than an inch of blade is a waste. which is why a fuss is made of small knives and nail clippers. I know how to end your life with nail clippers, have a think, can you use them too? I bet you can.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> On the subject of knives people make a big fuss about the size knives but frankly more than an inch of blade is a waste. which is why a fuss is made of small knives and nail clippers. I know how to end your life with nail clippers, have a think, can you use them too? I bet you can.



BUT... a small weapon provides less of a psychological advantage, and I think you would find more people ready to take you on if you were waving your nail clippers about than if you had, say, a sword... yes?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

All passengers should be required to carry a 2 1/2 hand sword on flights. 
Also, must fly nude, in blue body paint.  LOL!


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2010)

An armed manifest is a polite manifest?  :lol2:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> On the subject of knives people make a big fuss about the size knives but frankly more than an inch of blade is a waste. which is why a fuss is made of small knives and nail clippers. I know how to end your life with nail clippers, have a think, can you use them too? I bet you can.



Ye Irene, but I can far more effectively end your life with a sharpened pencil. There are so many things in my laptop carry bag with which I can kill someone that it becomes rather pointless to target perfectly normal things like little multi tools or nailclippers. For fun, I just spent a couple of minutes enumerating them.

Apart from said knife, my laptop bag contains
- thin titanium pen that would go through a sternum, temple, eye, throat, etc.
- pencil. see previous point
- several computer memory modules (not the usb kind but the internal printed circuit board design). it has sharp corners and serrations, and will do significant damage while slashing.
- a strong USB cable of approx 3 feet to be used as a garrotte.
- a belt with metal clasps on both ends.
- 3 push pins with pointy ends of about half an inch.
- a small screwdriver that can be used for stabbing and tearing.
- a USB stick with a thick back end which would fit my fist comfortable. if the USB connector sticks out between my middle and ringfinger, it would make a fairly effective boxing iron, or at least hurt like hell and do damage to soft tissue.
- several small objects with sharp corners.

That is just my laptop bag. Mind you, I did not choose those things for their use as a weapon, this is just what is usually in it. I have taken it with me on numerous flights without so much as a second look. And on several flights it also had things like small scissors with did not show up on the xray due to the angle.

If I wanted to and spent some time thinking, and possibly had a bit of money to have some things custom made, I bet I could come up with much more lethal and dangerous things that still looked harmless enough to pass without so much as a second glance.

So I hope you can see that my small knife would not make a significant difference to my on-board arsenal. While such a small thing might be used as a weapon, it would not deter people from jumping me and beating me senseless.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> First of all, there is a fat chance those images will be stored in temporary image files during processing. And then there is possibly an option to save images for debugging. Perhaps not on the user interface, but maybe via a config option somewhere. And lastly, there will maybe be an option to save images to prove probable cause, or something similarly CYA.



He shoots! He scores!
I knew I was right. And it didn't even take long for this to find out.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/

*In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.'*

*"There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode," the official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.*

Right. I wonder how long it would take me to figure it out.


*The TSA officer viewing the image cannot see the actual passenger. No cameras, cell phones or other devices capable of capturing an image are allowed in the room where the image is displayed, according to the TSA.*

Right. And with cameras being able to fit almost in a pinhead these days, they make sure of this by... how? Full body cavity search of all the operators upon arrival and leaving?

*The agency adds that images are deleted from the system after the operator reviews them. And employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal.*

Yeah this worked SO well with the Blackwater guys.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 12, 2010)

Well, as long as each TSA employee is screened when they arrive at work each day...wait, TSA is exempt?  Oh bother.


----------



## MJS (Jan 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, as long as each TSA employee is screened when they arrive at work each day...wait, TSA is exempt? Oh bother.


 
Exactly!  And who exactly are the people who're stealing from unlocked luggage?  Oh yeah, the TSA and airport baggage handlers.  Go figure. LOL!  I'd be willing to bet that if you ran half those guys, they'd have a rap sheet longer than my arm.


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2010)

MJS said:


> Exactly!  And who exactly are the people who're stealing from unlocked luggage?  Oh yeah, the TSA and airport baggage handlers.  Go figure. LOL!  I'd be willing to bet that if you ran half those guys, they'd have a rap sheet longer than my arm.



Hard to say.  DHS tends to do a lot of pre-screening before hire, and there is usually high demand for federal jobs in any economy.

There tend to be a lot more issues with theft in low income jobs than there are in mid/income jobs, and DHS doesn't pay very well.  And yes, I think that also means that there is a risk of nekkid passenger scans being filtered through the black market by fed EEs desperate for cash.


----------



## MJS (Jan 12, 2010)

Carol said:


> Hard to say. DHS tends to do a lot of pre-screening before hire, and there is usually high demand for federal jobs in any economy.
> 
> There tend to be a lot more issues with theft in low income jobs than there are in mid/income jobs, and DHS doesn't pay very well. And yes, I think that also means that there is a risk of nekkid passenger scans being filtered through the black market by fed EEs desperate for cash.


 
I dont know what the pay scale for the TSA screeners or baggage handlers is, but if I had to guess, I'd say it isn't that high. I doubt its somewhere in the $20+ range. But wait, here's what a quick search found.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070628052840AACQhPO

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_airport_baggage_workers_make

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-a-baggage-handler-make-at-delta-airlines

Then theres this:
http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.a...ler=basic.aspx&ss=0&AVSDM=2010-01-09+14:31:00

http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/pay_scales.shtm

http://jobsearch.usajobs.gov/Channe...er=basic.aspx&ss=0&pg=1&q=tsa baggage handler

So, who was or is responsible for the baggage thefts that happen?  Are they DHS or TSA employees?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2010)

Wired magazine is saying that the TSA outright lied about how 'revealing' the scanners are.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/airport-scanners/



> *Airport Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What?  Our government lying to us?  Never happens!:shrug:


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 13, 2010)

Carol said:


> And yes, I think that also means that there is a risk of nekkid passenger scans being filtered through the black market by fed EEs desperate for cash.


 
I see a new type of porn being born.


----------



## Carol (Jan 13, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I see a new type of porn being born.



I could see backscatter scans of famous people being bought up by the tabloids...at least, if there are any famous people that still fly commercial. 

A website putting up backscatter scans of minor teens seems creepy though.   Minors are not required to show ID when they fly so TSA will know instantly who is underage.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 13, 2010)

That is so gross, Carol. So very, very gross. LOL!


----------



## Carol (Jan 13, 2010)

I'm not gross, just analytical.


----------



## MJS (Feb 28, 2010)

Thought I'd bump this back up for discussion, seeing that some scanners are already being put into place.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35546805/ns/travel-news/



> WASHINGTON - The first of 150 full-body scanners planned for U.S. airports will be installed in Boston next week, officials said.
> The plan is to install three machines at Logan International Airport, according to a homeland security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement has not yet been made. In the coming two weeks, officials plan to install another machine at Chicago's O'Hare International.
> The rest of the 150 machines that were bought with $25 million from President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan are expected to be installed in airports by the end of June, another homeland security official, spokeswoman Amy Kudwa, said.


----------

