Wednesday, January 27, 2010

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

What’s wrong with this picture? Put quite simply, it’s a fake. The picture (minus the black boxes) has been gaining popularity ever since it was used on several popular web pages and blogs.

The TSA Office of Information Technology (OIT) was able to determine that the original images used to make these pictures were taken from a stock photo website and doctored to mimic Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) images. The doctored images are nothing more than full frontal photos (hence the black boxes) with the colors inverted. The image of the gun and belt were superimposed. This can be done with any basic image editing software.

It’s obvious that the woman shown on the left is not the woman in the doctored photos on the right. Notice that the bracelet on the right wrist in the clothed image does not appear in the doctored images. Her arms and legs are also in different positions in the clothed photo. It can be argued that maybe the photo was taken before she entered an AIT machine. Even so, just like X-ray images, hair does not show up in authentic AIT images and faces are blurred with a privacy algorithm.

Please take a look at this blog post to see larger versions of the images below and video of what AIT images actually look like.




Thanks,

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

136 comments:

Mr. Gel-pack said...

Also take a look at the zoom-in portions of this video--TSA can view a whole lot more detail than TSA indicates with its reluctant postings of little pictures.

Chris Boyce said...

So, Bob, this means we should believe you and line up in front of the nude-o-scope like a bunch of lemmings?

You've got to do better than regurgitate something which has been on Flyertalk for about a week. The blogger realized it was fake a week or more ago.

Since you've obviously viewed the entire Youtube broadcast, we'd like TSA commentary on the performances of the screeners, SPOTnik Jeanette, the airport cops, and the plainclothes guy.

Go for it.

RB said...

Are the images that this post links to the exact same size and resolution that a WBI operator would view?

Anonymous said...

Bob, why do you refuse to say whether the images you've just posted are of the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of your strip-search machines?

Anonymous said...

Why does TSA insist on implementing these machines even though they have been shown not to work?

Anonymous said...

You know, I really don't think having people like the drug-planting TSO in Philly look at naked pictures of people makes anyone safer.

Anonymous said...

Why has the contrast on the woman picture been raised so much? We all know from the videos that the quality is much better than that.

And when can we see each picture individually at full resolution? You don't even have to give us the magnifying tool that the TSOs get to use. I bet it won't be necessary to see every single detail in the genital area.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with this picture? Well, I'd say the first thing that's wrong is that it's being used in a discussion of a how a government agency plans to view naked (albeit blurry) pictures of me and my family. How about you respond to some of the more than reasonable questions that have been posed?

Anonymous said...

Can WBI see a tampon? Because if it can, it is definitely an invasion of privacy. If it can't, it serves no purpose as a security measure.

Imaging technologies are not adequate for the job at hand. Work on detecting traces of explosives.

Anonymous said...

Why did you censor the fake image, Bob? What makes that picture indecent, but the actual nude images that you will produce acceptable? Please tell us at what resolution naked pictures become acceptable to post? Furthermore, you have given us no indication that if there was a nude scanner that produced images like the fake one that you have posted that you wouldn't be pushing for it.

Anonymous said...

Also take a look at the zoom-in portions of this video--TSA can view a whole lot more detail than TSA indicates with its reluctant postings of little pictures.
----------------------------

Wow-- just, wow... I looked at the video, and these images are far more detailed than I had feared. I don't want TSA employees to see my genitals. It has nothing to do with the fact that they work for TSA-- except for my wife and my doctor, I don't want anyone to see my genitals. That is why I wear pants.

TSOWilliamReed said...

RB said...
Are the images that this post links to the exact same size and resolution that a WBI operator would view?

January 27, 2010 4:23 PM


Anonymous said...
Bob, why do you refuse to say whether the images you've just posted are of the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of your strip-search machines?

January 27, 2010 4:25 PM
---------------

Bob has said it before so I will say it again. YES they are the same size and resolution.

Anonymous said...

Why does TSA insist on implementing these machines even though they have been shown not to work?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They work! the argument is that they don't detect explosives. They detect hidden objects on the body. Secondary screening determines if the hidden object is an explosive or not.

Anonymous said...

Just to be sure can we see the 30 to 50 sample images that the TSA requires manufacturers to provide them with. Unaltered in their full size & resolution, as a TSA screener would see? Call me paranoid, but the TSA did say the machines were "incapable" of storing images, yet the TSA documents state that storage is "required". PS here is a link so you guys can check the definition of incapable and required:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incapable

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/required

Anonymous said...

640 x 480?
800 x 600?
1024 x 768?

Resolution and size?

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

you said there are no children on the no-fly list.

So how do you explain this one here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/eight-year-old-with-autism-on-terror-list-detained-at-airport.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e20128771c10bb970c ?

And please, before you start making fun of people again, please note that this poor boy has autism.

Thanks for letting us know

Anonymous said...

Thanks, but don't want my children in either photo shoot. Nor groped. Don't need to fly under those conditions.

Anonymous said...

These pictures are bigger, but still much smaller and lower resolution than the full-screen images viewed by the TSA, much less those viewed using the "zoom" tool on the image viewing workstations.

The difference in resolution between these images and the actual ones is far greater than any difference between actual images and those your previous blog entry labeled "inaccurate".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Why does TSA insist on implementing these machines even though they have been shown not to work?

January 27, 2010 4:26 PM

WHo hath shown that to not thou worketh? Ye shall give forth evidence pleaseth. Oh, and if you're talking about the machines that failed to detect the undie-bomber, he did not go through the body scanners. So do ye have another example?

Anonymous said...

Fake or not, you can clearly see the guy's penis on your version.

Ayn R. Key said...

Bob, is it against the rules to refer to the WBI as "child porn machines"? Is that why you are censoring my post? Or is it because I ask you about TSOs planting drugs in order to find them?

I notice that once an entry accrues a lot of comments you allow comments that are identical to ones you rejected - trying to bury me?

Anonymous said...

"Bob has said it before so I will say it again. YES they are the same size and resolution."

Bob has never, ever answered this question. And you're not an official representative of TSA. We deserve an official answer to this question, just as we do to the many reasonable and sensible questions Bob would like to ignore.

Anonymous said...

Are WBI screening operators able to disable any privacy features on images? If not who in the airport has the security clearance to do so?

Anonymous said...

TSOWilliamReed said...

Bob has said it before so I will say it again. YES they are the same size and resolution.

-------

Launching Photoshop.... looking at individual picture....

Are you telling me that the pictures that TSOs see are 240 by 575 pixels at 72 dpi?

No. No way. You are lying. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are lying.

Anonymous said...

So how come that we urgently need these machines that are forbidden in some countries due to health concerns and others (like the very thorough Germans) decided against them since they don't work?

I know the TSA's answer will be that they work since they can produce nude pictures of us. I maintain my point that they don't work. If you need a secondary after WBI to be sure then what are WBIs for?

And shouldn't the TSA start with basics first before getting yet another set of gear? (Hint: Try not to leave your post while being on duty, also don't let people with hand-guns on planes etc.)

Sandra said...

WilliamReed, where is your head? You truly believe that the pictures posted here are the same size that the voyeur in the secret hidden booth sees?

Get real!

Anonymous said...

What´s wrong is not that the picture was doctored, but the simple concept that we should be viewed nude in order to catch an airplane.

TSOWilliamReed said...

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html

For all those that disagree with me here is the blog post that bob posted the actual sized images in. They are the actual size. They have to be that size because placed around them are image tools and system information bars that take up the rest of the screen. There is also a zoom function that zooms in on those pictures in the same size and resolution that those are in.

Anonymous said...

William, you're not a spokesperson for TSA. Bob is a big boy and can and should respond to simple, direct questions about TSA's desire to see passengers naked.

Sandra said...

http://www.daylife.com/photo/05OFe7Rab40YG?q=scanner

Now try to tell us they are the same size, WilliamReed.

RB said...

TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Are the images that this post links to the exact same size and resolution that a WBI operator would view?

January 27, 2010 4:23 PM


Anonymous said...
Bob, why do you refuse to say whether the images you've just posted are of the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of your strip-search machines?

January 27, 2010 4:25 PM
---------------

Bob has said it before so I will say it again. YES they are the same size and resolution.

January 27, 2010 5:53 PM
.....................
The images sett Bob has link to contain 4 seperate images in one pane covering 12 inches by six and one half inches.

I just can't buy that this is what an Operator of the TSA Porno-Viewer is seeing.

How about some evidence to support your claim.

RB said...

TSOWilliamReed said...
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/08/imaging-technolgy-bigger-picture.html

For all those that disagree with me here is the blog post that bob posted the actual sized images in. They are the actual size. They have to be that size because placed around them are image tools and system information bars that take up the rest of the screen. There is also a zoom function that zooms in on those pictures in the same size and resolution that those are in.

January 28, 2010 11:00 AM
............
That blog post does not say those images are actual size. And I am refering to the large view images after you click on the smaller image.

Here is what Bob says; "Many have asked to see a bigger picture than what we had on our TSA.gov web page. So, we're not only showing you the bigger pictures here on the blog, we also updated them on the web page as well. They are male/female – front/back – Millimeter Wave/Backscatter."

So they are just bigger images, but still not actual full size, full resolution images.

You can keep on calling a skunk a cat but it still stinks like a Skunk!

Why won't TSA just man up and post some real unaltered images?

Anonymous said...

Why won't TSA just man up and post some real unaltered images?
___________________________________

Wow you people are annoying. It doesn't matter how many images are posted, you are never going to be happy!
And by the way RB, I am a frequent reader of this blog. And usually when I come to your posts I just skip right over them. Your posts are so repetitive & monotonous I can't even stomach to read them anymore!

Anonymous said...

"Wow you people are annoying. It doesn't matter how many images are posted, you are never going to be happy!"

The question at hand is not about the number of images; it is a simple request for Bob to answer a reasonable yes-or-no question about the images he has posted. Bob's reasons for this refusal are known to him alone, but the fact of the refusal speaks volumes about TSA's lack of trustworthiness.

Anonymous said...

Would love to see what the agents see.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Why won't TSA just man up and post some real unaltered images?
___________________________________

Wow you people are annoying. It doesn't matter how many images are posted, you are never going to be happy!
And by the way RB, I am a frequent reader of this blog. And usually when I come to your posts I just skip right over them. Your posts are so repetitive & monotonous I can't even stomach to read them anymore!

January 28, 2010 1:50 PM

.............
Anon, I could care less what you choose to read or not read.

What I do care about is the TSA conducting a disinformation campaign.

I suggest for each person to make their oun decisions.

If you think TSA has published the real full size, full resolution images and also believe that WBI technology makes you safer when flying then step right into the machines.

However, if you do not think TSA has been truthful about WBI images and capabilities then refuse WBI screening until satified you understand just what you are agreeing to.

TSA lied when they stated the machines have no network capability.

TSA lied when they said the machines cannot store images.

Why would they do that if they were being honest and upfront about the machines.

Anonymous said...

What in the world is everyone up in arms for? This machine is voluntary. You don't want to go through it? Don't! You don't have to! From cops, to border patrol to TSA...the average American citizen despises security workers who keep them safe and continually brings up the few "bad apples" that make the news. Suck it up. One day we'll be like El Al in Israel, where you have to check in 4 hours early just to clear through because security is so tight. THEN you can complain.

Anonymous said...

The double-wide images on Bob's linked post are 1044x604 pixels. Compared to the height of a cheap 1024x768 LCD screen, you get 164 pixels left over. At 0.297mm/pixel, that gives about 2" of margin, which seems compatable with the http://www.daylife.com/photo/05OFe7Rab40YG?q=scanner image.

However, the video shows the TSO zooming in maybe 2x bigger to portions of the woman's body. If the zooming isn't pure theater, they've got the pixels to support it.

Representing a 2.5m tall body with 604 pixels gives you an imaging resolution of about 4mm (~1/8in) per pixel. Doubled resolution would get you down to 2mm per pixel, or up to an image of 1044x1208 pixels, about 4 times the pixels of a 640x480 webcam.

If you want to see what TSA could see through your clothes, use your own webcam and a photoshop filter to make a picture much like Bob's posting. Would you give that picture to a security guard?

TSOWilliamReed said...

Sandra said...
http://www.daylife.com/photo/05OFe7Rab40YG?q=scanner

Now try to tell us they are the same size, WilliamReed.

January 28, 2010 12:46 PM
-------------------

Judging by the size of the TSO and his/her keyboard the monitor he is viewing those images on is about a 15" monitor. The size of that monitor and the resolution of the image on such a monitor would match with the images bob posted on a previous blog. For some reason everyone thinks we are going to be viewing these images on a big screen tv with HD 1080p or something.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "Wow you people are annoying. [and a lot more which is cut for readability]"

-------
Are you a TSA employee that feels the heat?

I think most of these "annoying" questions would disappear in an instant if the TSA would explain in an honest and straightforward way what they are up to, why their up to it and drop the ridiculous stuff.

I like air security. As a passenger I rely on it. And I like my privacy, my dignity and being treated with respect.
In my experience the TSA is neither particularly good in the area of air security and horribly bad at the other one.

Anonymous said...

I think the video in the first post here is probably what the screeners see. It is MUCH more revealing than the pictures on this blog.

Anonymous said...

"Wow you people are annoying. It doesn't matter how many images are posted, you are never going to be happy!
And by the way RB, I am a frequent reader of this blog. And usually when I come to your posts I just skip right over them. Your posts are so repetitive & monotonous I can't even stomach to read them anymore!"

I am sure that RB is just totally crushed by that personal attack.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

I appreciate the information as always as I travel frequently.

I have to say i get aggravated more than not during my travels because of the screening procedures in place and differences in procedures at different airports- shoes in the bin, shoes out of the bin- and your workforce could be a little friendlier-

But when it comes to situations like the Dec 25th incident i have absolutely NO issue with the technology that you have in place. EVERY airport should have the advanced imaging tech in place- it's not like the images are stored or shown to the world! If it's going to keep me and my family safe- then its worth it! You can see worse on the internet if you really wanted to see actual "pornography".
You commenters need to stop abusing your power of freedom of speech here and realize we are far better off than ANY other country involved in air travel.

If i were given two lanes, one with TSA screening and one without any screening whatsoever- i would choose the lane with screening. Those extra few minutes of waiting and complying with rules is worth it when you think of what could happen without!!

Anonymous said...

And by the way RB, I am a frequent reader of this blog. And usually when I come to your posts I just skip right over them. Your posts are so repetitive & monotonous I can't even stomach to read them anymore!

We're looking for some straight answers and since very few are forthcoming the same questions get repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Are the sample images provided in this post the same exact size and resolution that the newest generation scanners produce?

Also what date or year are these images from? I ask this because the very first image most people saw was Susan Hallowell, the former director of the Transportation Security Administration was from June 25, 2003. link: http://www.livescience.com/technology/061201_ap_airport_xray.html

And as we all know from this blog's mantra: "Terrorists Evolve" but so does technology. Does the TSA plan to post new example images every time the technology is upgraded, which will produces more detailed images?
Please reply if only to say you can't comment. Thanks!

Trollkiller said...

Riddle me this. If the Nude-O-Scopes (WBI, ATI, Full Body Scanners) are so effective, why does the White House security use explosive detection dogs instead?

Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

They work! the argument is that they don't detect explosives. They detect hidden objects on the body. Secondary screening determines if the hidden object is an explosive or not.


The do not detect anything, it is up to the operator's skills to determine if anything is hidden.

Of course it does not matter how skilled the operator is if the item is secreted in a fat fold or under the breast and therefore invisible to the device.

The only way around this is for the TSA to profile large people or women with large breasts for an extra groping after they have been viewed nude.

The Nude-O-Scopes do not work as well as dogs would for detecting explosives. If the Nude-O-Scopes are used for primary screening you will also miss any metal weapon secreted under the breast or fat fold that the WTMD would have alarmed on.

In short the Nude-O-Scope opens up more security holes than it closes.

GSOLTSO said...

I have been posting this info on blogs for about 2 weeks now, and it amazes me that so many people believe this is an actual image from a WBI... Crazy!

West
TSA Blog Team

Online Saavy said...

The amount of detail you can get with these machines is increadible. What is posted here is not the best that can be obtained with this machines. I understand the need for security, but let's look at it this way. If I were to implement this system to allow people into my bar or club, I would be answering to the FBI if I posted these images on the internet. Yet the TSA can?

Gunner said...

>>And by the way RB, I am a frequent reader of this blog. And usually when I come to your posts I just skip right over them. Your posts are so repetitive & monotonous I can't even stomach to read them anymore!<<

How did that pass moderation?

fralk said...

Why has the contrast on the woman picture been raised so much?

Gunner said...

A modest proposal:

Let's be candid here. No one believes you on the issue of screen size and resolution for the images that the agents do or do not see.

We don't believe you, we don't believe TSO William Reed nor any of the TSA sock puppets who post as anonymous.

In the spirit of try to come up with something positive -- as opposed to the usual "liar, liar pants on fire" rhetoric -- I propose the following:

Reach out to one of your critics here -- one of the regular posters. Make private arrangements for this person to meet a TSA representative (or three) at the local airport near where they live, and give them an opportunity to view the actual viewing booth and see an actual image (using a non-passenger).

Then, by agreement, have this person describe what they saw; for example:

"Saw a 17' flat screen monitor that appeared to be 1280-1024 resolution, the images took up about 2/3rd of the screen, with maximum zoom I could (or could not) see the person's genitals."

If I saw a statement like that from one of your critics, whose screen name I recognized, I would give it a lot of credibility. Others might as well.

Think about it -- I realize this is coloring way outside the lines -- but since no one believes what you are saying on this topic, and no one seems to grow weary of challenging you on this, it might be a way to get the more reasonable of your critics (not the ones who foam at the mouth -- they are beyond hope) to back off on this issue.

Of course, if they really are invasive, and you know it, and have been lying to us, just disregard this suggestion.

'gunner

Anonymous said...

Yet again, no discussion of the expected cancer deaths from all of these X-Rays.

CarrotTopTSO said...

I am an 8 year veteran TSO. I promise that no one really wants to see your "sensitive areas". This is NOT porn. It is a tool for us to use so we CAN cut down on the "groping". Grow up!

Anonymous said...

Why do you people ask the same question day after day if it did not get a response the first time is it going to a second, third, fourth time? Get a hobby or something my god...

Anonymous said...

I work for TSA and I for one do not want these machines at my checkpoint it is just one more of the million things for passengers to complain about.

Anonymous said...

Great job Sandra, I looked at your picture and those posted by TSA discovered that the two are the same size and appear to be the same resolution. TSA has already released the correct information and you proved it. Thanks

Greg said...

The posters on this site keep asking for real unaltered images at the resolution as those viewed by the operator. Problem is, TSA has already posted the pictures. I could find them easily just based on the links provide on this very blog not to mention that other websites available. Go to the links provided, it’s easy and all the pictures match.

The continual requests for information that is already here just makes the posters on this blog silly. If you tried asking for information that is not staring you in the face you would probably learn more and this blog would be a more useful tool.

Anonymous said...

So what does the TSA Blog say about the latest TSA scandal in Florida?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/30/florida.tsa.investigation/index.html?hpt=T2

Is the TSA racist? What does the TSA structurally / organizationally do to not have these kinds of events ever happen again?

Anonymous said...

Bob, what about that Orlando TSO arrested for child molestation? Seems that he wanted to turn her into his own sex slave. Why didn't the local BDO discover this?

Anonymous said...

Its so bad at the TSA that they cannot even produce the reports that GOA is asking from them!!!!!!!!!!!! Like, why did you buy GE ETPortals? " Bee-cuz" is not an answer.

TSA has had Implant's QS300 since the spring of '09!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a year this spring. What the hell are they doing with it? Same thing they did with IMX's ETPortal!!!

TSA is a joke. They are threat to our security.

Anonymous said...

What will the TSA do to prevent things like this in the future?

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100131/BREAKINGNEWS/100131004/1006/news01/Report++OIA+security+worker+wanted+teen+sex+slave

I mean if in its current form the TSA can't keep its workforce free of sex offenders - what will happen once the WBIs are installed? I'm horrified sending my daughter through such a device knowing that people like the above mentioned TSA workers will look at her.

thetsablog said...

Hey Bob I feel this needs to be addressed. It has been recently reported that an Orlando Screener has been arrested and charged with the molestation of a 15 year old girl. We need to know how these people gain employment. Bob you and I are both fathers and it sickens me to know that this person was allowed to screen children. Further more these are the type of people whom the public are worried about when it comes to their privacy. Something need to be done now before it is too late. With people like this allowed to work at our checkpoints, it proves how vulnerable to an attack we really are.

Anonymous said...

Why are YOU all so obesessed with seeing these images??? BIGGER, BIGGER !!, you say. Sounds to me like you are the ones getting "enjoyment" out of these, not the TSOs who will see so many of these pictures every day for their JOB.

I really wish Mcdonalds had a blog like this. I would post everyday on how I had bad service and I would demand non-stop to give me the secret recipe to the Big Mac sauce. Not fair McDonalds!! I am a US citizen! Do not keep secrets from me.

You people need a life..Millions of people fly everyday with no complaints...why do you people loath TSA so much? Maybe you should go work for them and make some real changes...Clearly your non-stop whining on this blog isnt making a difference.

Anonymous said...

Orlando, more reason to ban TSA Porno-Viewers.

TSA News
http://rebelmodel.com/news/latest.php

Anonymous said...

I am an 8 year veteran TSO. I promise that no one really wants to see your "sensitive areas". This is NOT porn. It is a tool for us to use so we CAN cut down on the "groping". Grow up!
--------------------------

Umm, as a grownup, I can tell you that it is entirely reasonable to believe that there are individuals who would actually enjoy seeing images of others' genitals. Why is that claim so surprising to you? How are you in any position to "promise" that no one who works at the TSA has a sex-drive?

Anonymous said...

With all the goings-on at Orlando, who would want to fly there? Certainly not with children.

Ugh!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"I really wish Mcdonalds had a blog like this. I would post everyday on how I had bad service and I would demand non-stop to give me the secret recipe to the Big Mac sauce. Not fair McDonalds!! I am a US citizen! Do not keep secrets from me."


Here is the Big Mac sauce recipe.
Happy?

1/2 cup mayonnaise
2 tablespoons French dressing
4 teaspoons sweet pickle relish
1 tablespoon finely minced white onion
1 teaspoon white vinegar
1 teaspoon sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt

Now, can we move on to topics that actually have merit?

Like real images of the scanners at the same resolution and size the scanners see?

Like a real explanation of the rules at the checkpoints? For instance, why are scissors OK in Dallas but not in Lexington?

TSORon said...

Trollkiller said...
Riddle me this. If the Nude-O-Scopes (WBI, ATI, Full Body Scanners) are so effective, why does the White House security use explosive detection dogs instead?
-----------------

Because dogs can go from one place to another using nothing more than a car. A WBI system takes a crane and an 18 wheeler. :)

Anonymous said...

Here is the Big Mac sauce recipe.
Happy?

1/2 cup mayonnaise
2 tablespoons French dressing
4 teaspoons sweet pickle relish
1 tablespoon finely minced white onion
1 teaspoon white vinegar
1 teaspoon sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt
___________________________________

Who are you? You are posting anon. How do we know that this is the real Big Mac Sauce recipe. If you post anon your words have no credibility. Why don't you show who you really are?

Sound ridiculous?!

Anonymous said...

Ah Anon, he posted something you can replicate and try. Why don't you try it, if you're really inclined and see if he's right rather than just blasting?

I wish TSA was as forthcoming with what they expect of us. :p

Anonymous said...

The Orlando TSO sex offender.

A very good reason that the WBI should not be used.

Admit it: you can't keep perverts out of the work force. How can we be sure that perverts are not examining us and our children?

CarrotTopTSO said...

This blog is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. The same people complain about the same things ad nauseum.

For those who want bigger "nude-o-scope" pictures - you aren't going to see what you want to see! You'll need to go to an adult web site to get your eyeful. This IS NOT PORN. If you thinks it is, then you haven't ever seen the real thing. These pictures are no more sexual than x-rays or an MRI.

I'm done with you!

Randy said...

@TSOWilliamReed:

"For some reason everyone thinks we are going to be viewing these images on a big screen tv with HD 1080p or something."

Then please tell us the size and resolution of both the monitor and images. It really is that simple.

Randy

Anonymous said...

McDonald's is a private company. I choose not to give them my money. They have no reason to answer to me.

Our tax dollars pay for the TSA, including the salaries of the often controversial TSOs and their obviously flawed background checks, as well as the purchase of the nude-o-scanners.

I think they have a duty to answer our questions truthfully and promptly. Specially when our tax dollars are also paying for someone like Bob to do so.

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
Riddle me this. If the Nude-O-Scopes (WBI, ATI, Full Body Scanners) are so effective, why does the White House security use explosive detection dogs instead?
-----------------

"Because dogs can go from one place to another using nothing more than a car. A WBI system takes a crane and an 18 wheeler. :)"

Dogs also have a short attention span, and quite a bit of "down" time. Screening people over a short duration with dogs is easier than a long shift. When used to screen luggage or other cargo, they can be more effective, because the dogs are less distracted.

Anonymous said...

All the sample images in this post the exact same size and resolution that the TSA screener sees? Also is the screener viewing the images able to unblur the face or disable any privacy settings on the images?

Anonymous said...

Everyone is missing the biggest part of all this.
Because tsa and our political masters will not ethnic profile we are going to get massive amounts of radiation that NO MEDICAL FACILITY would put us through !! in next decade cancer will soar and they will anounce that these machines should have never been used>
1,will they garrentee us or even sign a book every time regular international travels are scanned ? NO !!!
how are we to know how much exposure we are getting ?
Leading experts tell us all xrays damage cells leading to cancer, thats why the medical proffesion are starting to be carefull not to give needless scans. So we all just let the TSA kill us off because they missed the terrorist.
If all the agencies bother to talk to ech other or the information other government security services send, instead of vying for top dog status between FBI _ TSA _ and other law enforcments agencies.
WE pay there wages so its about time politicals and our civil servants woke up to that fact.
Given the choise of several xrays per flight to and from europe for my own health i would strip naked>

TSOWilliamReed said...

Gunner said...
A modest proposal:

Let's be candid here. No one believes you on the issue of screen size and resolution for the images that the agents do or do not see.

We don't believe you, we don't believe TSO William Reed nor any of the TSA sock puppets who post as anonymous.

In the spirit of try to come up with something positive -- as opposed to the usual "liar, liar pants on fire" rhetoric -- I propose the following:

Reach out to one of your critics here -- one of the regular posters. Make private arrangements for this person to meet a TSA representative (or three) at the local airport near where they live, and give them an opportunity to view the actual viewing booth and see an actual image (using a non-passenger).

Then, by agreement, have this person describe what they saw; for example:

"Saw a 17' flat screen monitor that appeared to be 1280-1024 resolution, the images took up about 2/3rd of the screen, with maximum zoom I could (or could not) see the person's genitals."

If I saw a statement like that from one of your critics, whose screen name I recognized, I would give it a lot of credibility. Others might as well.

Think about it -- I realize this is coloring way outside the lines -- but since no one believes what you are saying on this topic, and no one seems to grow weary of challenging you on this, it might be a way to get the more reasonable of your critics (not the ones who foam at the mouth -- they are beyond hope) to back off on this issue.

Of course, if they really are invasive, and you know it, and have been lying to us, just disregard this suggestion.

'gunner

January 30, 2010 12:40 AM
------------------

That is the best idea I have ever heard and I think RB should be the critic chosen. However, I really don't believe anyone in bobs department could convince people in washington to allow something like that to happen. Even if they did I think most of the posters wouldn't believe said critic and would probably accuse them of being bribed or brainwashed. I really like the idea and I wish they would do something like that but i'm not sure if it's possible.

TSOWilliamReed said...

Here is the Big Mac sauce recipe.
Happy?

1/2 cup mayonnaise
2 tablespoons French dressing
4 teaspoons sweet pickle relish
1 tablespoon finely minced white onion
1 teaspoon white vinegar
1 teaspoon sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt
----------------

I always thought it was just thousand island dressing, is that how you make thousand island dressing? I don't really know, all I know is that it is delicious.

TSOWilliamReed said...

Anonymous said...
So what does the TSA Blog say about the latest TSA scandal in Florida?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/30/florida.tsa.investigation/index.html?hpt=T2

Is the TSA racist? What does the TSA structurally / organizationally do to not have these kinds of events ever happen again?

January 30, 2010 9:17 PM
--------------------

Wow, that is something alright. We have the No FEAR act and training courses almost every month on diversity. We are also pretty strict on racism and profiling. In fact I believe one of the main reasons people get upset with TSA at the checkpoints is because we treat everyone the same. Some people out there just can't help it and feel like they are better than everyone else. So when they get picked for extra screening and people "Beneath" them don't they get very upset.

Anonymous said...

CarrotTopTSO said...
This blog is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. The same people complain about the same things ad nauseum.

For those who want bigger "nude-o-scope" pictures - you aren't going to see what you want to see! You'll need to go to an adult web site to get your eyeful. This IS NOT PORN. If you thinks it is, then you haven't ever seen the real thing. These pictures are no more sexual than x-rays or an MRI.

I'm done with you!

------------------------------

Then if they aren't any big deal, you shouldn't have any problem showing them. Yet you don't show them, which clearly implies they are a big deal. Why is that?

Anonymous said...

TSOWilliamReed, we finally agree on something. I would also believe RB's opinion on the WBI.

The details of the experiment would also have to be publicly announced ahead of time. In other words, will he or she just be able to see a couple of live images? Will he or she be able to look at the different settings to make sure that a fast one is not being pulled on him or her? And so on and so on.

RB said...

No comment on the TSO in Orlando.
If not caught would this person been a TSA Porn-O-Vision operator?

And still TSA has not stepped up and provided information describing the image pixel size or screen size of WBI's, nor have actual full size and resolution images been provided.

Come on TSA, if these images are safe for school children to view, as Nico declared, then why would there be any hesitation to prove it?

Nico was truthful wasn't he?
.............................
http://rebelmodel.com/news/latest.php

TSA News

Get all the TSA News you need in one place.

Anonymous said...

Enough of this nonsense!

That is NOT the recipe for the secret sauce.

If it was the TSA would have declared it SSI to keep us safe from the terrorists.

Anonymous said...

The idea that passing through one of these scanners, even twice a day for the majority of your adult life, will in result in health problems demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the relationship between rediation and the human body.

Here are three truisms about living in a modern society.

1. You are guaranteed to be exposed to radiation every day, every minute of every day in fact.

2. You have a about a 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 chance of getting cancer in your lifetime (presuming you live into late adulthood).

3. For the vast, vast, vast majority of people, there will be no relationship between #1 and #2.

By the way, the exact same agruments about radiation were made when the walk-through x-ray machines were first introduced. I wonder when all of the frequent flyers (not to mention government employees who walk through these things daily to get to work) are going to drop dead from cancer.

RB said...

Welcome
2008

excerpt from:

Our ambition is to provide here a forum for a lively, open discussion of TSA issues. While I and senior leadership of TSA will participate in the discussion, we are turning the keyboard over to several hosts who represent what’s best about TSA (its people).
.....................
When will the blog team start the discussion?

Anonymous said...

Bring the images and people scanning them out into the public, if they are indeed not an invasion of privacy. At the very least, let the passenger see their own scan and the person analyzing it. Any other setting just convinces me that this is, in fact, an invasion of privacy.

RB said...

"You don't have to dare us. I showed the backside image to about 25 media outlets yesterday at a press event in LA. Additonally, we gave photos to media when we rolled this out in Phoenix. I'll stand by the contention that there really is nothing to see."

Nico

April 18, 2008 8:44 AM
....................
Were the MMW photos given to the media actual images from a MMW machine. If so why cannot TSA provided those same images to the public?

Are were those images not actual representations of the MMW and TSA provided false information to the media?

Anonymous said...

TSA says images cannot be stored in "operational mode". Since the operating system is windows based and is required to have USB capability, can a USB flash drive be plugged in thus enabling images to dragged & dropped onto the USB flash drive?

Also since Blogger Bob eluded to the fact that current sample images provided by the TSA are not the exact same size & resolution that the screener sees, is the TSA currently planning to make the full size, full resolution images available to the public. Or do they just not want the American public to be able make an informed decision?

Finally, why are the full resolution sample images considered to be proprietary when the taxpayers are footing the bill for these machines?

I won't get my hopes up and expect a response, being that the response time for these types of questions seem to take over a year.

RB RULES!!!!

Anonymous said...

This whole debate about the image resolution is pointless. Even in the versions that we have provided (which, incidentally, I highly doubt are full resolution images), it is obvious that the pictures are indecent. I'm not a prude-- I'm just referring to the fact that a person who exposed the body parts that are visible in the image would be arrested for indecent exposure. I wear pants so that strangers cannot see me genitals. When I do expose my genitals, it sure as heck isn't to complete strangers. TSA: is it really too much to ask that you not demand to look at my penis every time I fly?

TSOWilliamReed said...

Bob said...
Anonymous said... Makes me wonder if he'll take a minute and say whether the virtual strip-search images he's posted are at the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of the machine while he's at it. February 3, 2010 1:00 PM

-------------------------------

You guys are killing me (and others) with this. 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.

Thanks,

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 1:22 PM
--------------

I would like to point something out to everyone here please. Please read the above post from Bob very carefully. He says that the IMAGES he has posted are not the exact resolution and size that the officer sees. Why would that be, probably because in order to get said images they had to print screen + copy/paste the image of the consol then photo shop all the tool bars out of the image. and changed the size to a better format for posting.

HOWEVER

Bob states that the VIDEOS he has posted ARE THE IMAGES THE OFFICERS SEE WHILE SCANNING. If you wan't to see the screen watch the videos and there it is in full resolution and size like we have been saying for a very long time.

Anonymous said...

ANON Said

What will the TSA do to prevent things like this in the future?

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100131/BREAKINGNEWS/100131004/1006/news01/Report++OIA+security+worker+wanted+teen+sex+slave

I mean if in its current form the TSA can't keep its workforce free of sex offenders - what will happen once the WBIs are installed? I'm horrified sending my daughter through such a device knowing that people like the above mentioned TSA workers will look at her.

January 31, 2010 12:20 PM
-----------------------------------
Do you take your daughter to a doctor. How many of them have been caught up in sex scandals. It's an organization of over 45,000 people and you expect everyone of them to be choir boys. Oh what theres sex offenders in that profession also. I guess we should all stop going to church untill the police stop all of them. But wait aren't there sex offenders found in law enforcement. I could go on for ever. Wake up and get a life.

Wondering_Medic said...

Bob

so let me get this right TSA forced a airport to issue a SIDA badge to a convicted felon after he had already been hired.

okay thats kinda counter to what you have been saying here many times before.

furthermore this felon LIED on a SF-86 Form to get a clearance for which the penalties for falsying that form is a felony it self (Federal) and punishable with jail time and fines, not to mention being bared from future consideration for a security clearance in the future.


just curious what level of clearance do most TSOs have?

So how is this person still employed by TSA and not been fired and turned over to the federal prosecutor to for prosecution on federal felony charges

LOL my word verification was pervert -- oh the irony

Al Ames said...

Anonymous, when I take my child to the doctor, I don't leave him alone with the doctor and hope that he isn't a perv. I'm there with him to monitor the situation so nothing can happen. If it's me, I can make a scene on the spot, have legal recourse and can sue my doctor. It greatly mitigates the risk.

We don't have that option with TSA. There's no accountability and I can't see the person who's viewing me or my kid. They're not in view so I can't see what they're doing. TSA has shown itself not to be trustworthy. So if I monitor my doctors, and I generally trust them, why SHOULD'T we monitor TSA, who we CAN'T trust?

Al

RB said...

Al Ames said...
Anonymous, when I take my child to the doctor, I don't leave him alone with the doctor and hope that he isn't a perv. I'm there with him to monitor the situation so nothing can happen. If it's me, I can make a scene on the spot, have legal recourse and can sue my doctor. It greatly mitigates the risk.

We don't have that option with TSA. There's no accountability and I can't see the person who's viewing me or my kid. They're not in view so I can't see what they're doing. TSA has shown itself not to be trustworthy. So if I monitor my doctors, and I generally trust them, why SHOULD'T we monitor TSA, who we CAN'T trust?

Al

February 5, 2010 3:24 PM


Hear, Hear!!

TSO_SoupySales said...

BloggerBob,
when are we going to see the Nude-O-Scope pictures of your torso?
After all, there is nothing exposing or embarrassing about the technology. Why can't all the fellow travelers see it on a big screen so we can all feel secure?

There is no way I am taking my wife and young kids anywhere via airplane if this is part of the process.

The forced security theater is single-handedly destroying the airline industry. Your fear has become irrational.

Anonymous said...

WATCH OUT FOR USB STORAGE

These images cannot be stored locally on the HD in operational mode (supposedly), but they CAN be stored via USB flash drive by dragging and dropping or right-clicking and sending to the USB drive IN ANY MODE.... Is this true?

Anonymous said...

Lets all remember that it is not a right to fly!!!! anything that helps them with there job, so that some crazed bomber is not sitting next to me on my flight i'm all for it.

Anonymous said...

Can TSA screeners usa a USB flash drive to drag and drop images to a flash drive for later training? Are USB flash drives permitted into the screening room?

Gunner said...

New reports from the UK http://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html (granted, not the world's most reliable source) that what you say cnanot happen has happened. Comments?

Anonymous said...

"anything that helps them with there job, so that some crazed bomber is not sitting next to me on my flight i'm all for it."

So you'd be OK with being strip-searched -- physically, not with TSA's porno machine -- and having your body cavities inspected before flying?

RB said...

Bob, if TSA has provided real images from the WBI "TSA CHILD PORN" viewers then why cannot those same real images be provided to the public?

TSA did give the media actual images didn't you?

HappyToHelp said...

Al Ames said...
“Anonymous, when I take my child to the doctor, I don't leave him alone with the doctor and hope that he isn't a perv. I'm there with him to monitor the situation so nothing can happen. If it's me, I can make a scene on the spot, have legal recourse and can sue my doctor. It greatly mitigates the risk.

We don't have that option with TSA. There's no accountability and I can't see the person who's viewing me or my kid. They're not in view so I can't see what they're doing. TSA has shown itself not to be trustworthy. So if I monitor my doctors, and I generally trust them, why SHOULD'T we monitor TSA, who we CAN'T trust?

Al”

I understand what you are saying Al, but WBI is optional in the US (can’t believe it’s mandatory in the UK). You (or anyone) are not required to send your children into the WBI for screening. You can watch your children during the entire screening process and you will not be separated from them at anytime.

Wish you the best of travels,

Tim
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Does the TSA plan on releasing any unaltered sample images that are the exact same size and resolution that the screener sees? If not, why not? If the images are considered proprietary...what about the images make them proprietary?

Anonymous said...

Are WBI screening operators able to unblur faces or disable any privacy features on images? If not, does anyone in the airport have the security clearance to do so? Also if a weapon or bomb is detected by the scanner, wouldn't the TSA need to save that image for evidence to prosecute the passenger? Why can't the image be saved on a USB drive or external HD? Are the USB ports disabled in operational mode?

RB said...

Al”

I understand what you are saying Al, but WBI is optional in the US (can’t believe it’s mandatory in the UK). You (or anyone) are not required to send your children into the WBI for screening. You can watch your children during the entire screening process and you will not be separated from them at anytime.

Wish you the best of travels,

Tim
TSA Blog Team

February 10, 2010 12:22 AM
................
Well, now that the cat is out of the bag it seems TSA is moving forward to make "WBI CHILD PORN Viewers" the primary screening method.

How long before they are no longer optional.

IF we want some truth we know it won't be from TSA!

Sandra said...

Oh, Tim, you might want to talk to SATTSO over at TS/S who wrote:

"WTMD will be removed. I've said it on here before, but there really is no battle/fight going on as to whether or not we should deploy wbi's at our nations airport; that has already been decided, and the fight, if there ever was one, is over. Sure, there are a few on congress who do not want them, and they speak out, but oh well. Dec 25th sort of sealed the deal. Expect wbi's to be at all cat X airports by the end of 2011, and most if not all cat 1, - and scattered through out the smaller airports too - and they will be the primary screening method. And from what I've heard, no choice - you either do it or don't fly."

One of you is wrong. Which one is it?

Al Ames said...

So Tim, what happens, if the rumor is to believed that was posted by a screener at FT, (referenced in another blog post) when the nude-o-scope will become mandatory for primary screening after widescale deployment and if you don't submit, you don't fly?

Oh yeah, I'm sure many will say "drive, train, bus", but that doens't work going overseas, and it's only a matter of time till TSA sinks its paws into the other modes of transportation (it's already beginning with the VIPR teams).

What then?

Al

Anonymous said...

your website states:

Passengers who do not wish to utilize this screening receive an equal level of screening and undergo a pat-down procedure.

If the pat-down is equal to the WBI scanner.....Why is the TSA so hell bent on rolling out these machines? What benefit does the scanner offer that the pat does and other screening techniques do not? It seems like a waste of tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

You all just need to chill out. Take a trip to a nudist resort and get over it. Those people at the monitors probably have nightmares over what they have to look at.

Isaac Newton said...

Anonymous at February 10, 2010 9:36 PM said:
your website states:

Passengers who do not wish to utilize this screening receive an equal level of screening and undergo a pat-down procedure.

If the pat-down is equal to the WBI scanner.....Why is the TSA so hell bent on rolling out these machines? What benefit does the scanner offer that the pat does and other screening techniques do not? It seems like a waste of tax dollars.

It's all about public perception and TSA convenience.

1. Everyone who gets a patdown KNOWS that they're getting touched by a stranger of the same gender. Not everyone who goes through the WBI knows that someone (possibly of the opposite sex) is seeing them naked.

2. Patdowns make both the TSA screener and the passenger uncomfortable. (Lots of TSA people here at at FlyerTalk have mentioned how much they hate doing patdowns.) The WBI only makes the knowledgeable passenger uncomfortable; it doesn't bother the checkpoint-based screener any discomfort at all.

Think about it. If TSA tried to make patdowns mandatory for all passengers, the screeners would complain. But they can make the WBI mandatory for everyone without any complaints from the workforce.

Anonymous said...

Or what about this Associated Press photo? It's not much different from the censored hoax pics.

In all fairness though to the 19 airports using millimeter wave detection here in the United States, most, if not all travelers are given the choice of going through conventional screening rather than the millimeter wave screening, as long as they have not been deemed to be a higher-risk traveler for some previous reason, UNLIKE travelers in the British airports of Manchester and Heathrow who are actually banned from flying if they don't submit to the full body scan.

Still, not every traveler in America knows that they aren't required to submit to these scans (due to inadequately placed signage, poor communication, etc.), and even worse, a lot of people don't even see this as a civil liberties issue at all.

People are getting more and more comfortable with electronic surveilance, and I fear that we may be selling our bodies and souls to a future of dubious outcomes.

For more of my thoughts (as well as links to relevant news articles), check out my own blog, but be warned that it contains the uncensored version of the apparent hoax images.

Anonymous said...

pat downs are more than likely offered for those of us you can't stand for 20 or so seconds, but will most likely be used to placate those of us who havent grown out of the "down with the government maaaaaaaan" mentality well past high school.

just get screened and get on with your life.

Anonymous said...

Everyone please dont flatter yourself.Im postive TSO's dont want to see any of you "naked" as you(bloggers) would say. If Im wrong please correct me.These machines are optional right? meaning that you have the OPTION to walk inside of them?

Anonymous said...

This is like the fourth time I am asking this question....please respond even if you can only say no comment:

Since the WBI's are required to have USB capability how is the TSA assuring the passengers that images cannot be saved to a USB flash drive or external hard drive connected via USB? These 2 points are from the passenger privacy section of your website:

1-This state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled.

This does not mention possible USB storage. Or if the USB ports are disabled.
----------------------------------
2-Officers evaluating images are not permitted to take cameras, cell phones or photo-enabled devices into the resolution room.

Are agents permitted to bring USB flash drives or external HD's in with them. If so, why would they need to?

Scannerd said...

This technology is worthless for internal scanning, and obviously some kind of political payback to the manufacturers of these machines. Where did all of the SNIFFING machines go? Forget the x ray porno, what people should be worried about is a non medical agency promoting non medical companies making what amounts to a MEDICAL device. I want to see the FDA, AMA etc. data over years of testing on animals before I even think about getting strip scanned. These companies say the technology is safe, this after the FDA actually admits increases in CANCER from routine Mammograms and CT scans which had been tested and used for DECADES!
If you're worried about putting your little cell phone up to your head, would you step in front of a cell tower?

Anonymous said...

For most of you who have not even seen the machine in action you use anger and hate of something you know little about to make points that are at this point in time useless. Until the day comes you see the WBI in action you have no credible knowledge of which to speak about. You are like the little hen you cried the sky is falling why get yourselves al worked up about soemthing not in place yet. Honestly, if a person wnated to see porn it is available everywhere, these images are neither porn nor a vit interesting to view for anyone. Have you seen what some of the young men and women who lfy out wear to the airports with their parents, they look and suggest much more with their clothes on than the images do. Please let's all take a moment and use some common sense, a blurry image of your body vs. and IED really, I's certainly rather have myself be viewed than killed, anything and I mean anything is worth the choic of LIFE. Le'ts move on and discuss things of real importance, such as solving hunger, education, employment, le;ts all stop the bloggin and start working towards a stronger America.

Anonymous said...

Would you rather have someone view these images or would you rather have a terrorist get on your airplane. You decide.

Anonymous said...

If strip searches are the answer let the professionals handle it. The only way would willingly submit to this invasion of privacy is if the TSA handed the scanner responsibility over to trained Police Officers. A Police Officer is required for a physical strip search anyway and I see no difference here. Police go thru much more exstensive training (6 months in some depts) and a psychological exam. Also if the scanner detects a bomb cops can take immediate and decisive action, unlike the TSA who needs to wait for a cop to show up and hope the terrorist doesn't just detonate the bomb when he is detected. Yes there are bad cops out there too, but I would rather take my chances with the Police as opposed to the TSA who hires felons and child molesters because they filled out an application and the atrocious excuse for a background check missed it. True public servants is the only answer when dealing with passengers civil and constitutional rights!

Anonymous said...

For most of you who have not even seen the machine in action you use anger and hate of something you know little about to make points that are at this point in time useless. Until the day comes you see the WBI in action you have no credible knowledge of which to speak about. You are like the little hen you cried the sky is falling why get yourselves al worked up about soemthing not in place yet. Honestly, if a person wnated to see porn it is available everywhere, these images are neither porn nor a vit interesting to view for anyone. Have you seen what some of the young men and women who lfy out wear to the airports with their parents, they look and suggest much more with their clothes on than the images do. Please let's all take a moment and use some common sense, a blurry image of your body vs. and IED really, I's certainly rather have myself be viewed than killed, anything and I mean anything is worth the choic of LIFE. Le'ts move on and discuss things of real importance, such as solving hunger, education, employment, le;ts all stop the bloggin and start working towards a stronger America.
-------------------------------
I am still waiting for the TSA to allow me to view my own image so I can "see it in action". It's such an easy way to alleviate the publics concerns yet the TSA does not offer it. Why don't they just post the full size & resolution images and make me eat my words? Also no one seems to be answering my question regarding the ability for the TSA to store images on a USB flash drive via the required USB ports in "airport mode". So many easy ways to shut us up but the TSA refuses to do so. You guys bring the abuse upon yourselves, so I do not feel sorry for you. Stop misleading the public with these severely degraded sample images and show us the unaltered images. If you do that now you will need to do less damage control when the true images inevitably get leaked.

Anonymous said...

I's certainly rather have myself be viewed than killed, anything and I mean anything is worth the choic of LIFE.

February 18, 2010 3:11 AM

....................
What a sad statement.

Joseph Mancia said...

It just goes to show that the almighty dollar comes before the security of this great nation.

Joseph

katz said...

I don't care what size or resolution the images are or whether anyone finds them sexy. People should have the right not to be forced show their naked bodies to anyone for any reason.

Anonymous said...

What if this was a local police department coming up with a new "policy" that allows them to search every house/apartment in their jurisdiction?

That would be illegal, since it's a search without warrant.

I see this as the same thing, it's an intrusion into my private areas and personal effects (body) by a government agency without warrant or even probable casue.

Some people say "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care" and "you're the one choosing to fly."

What about the above scenario? It's my choice to live in that town, but I still would fight against unlawful searches.

Anonymous said...

When entering a TSA checkpoint, you are consenting to what is called an "administrative search", just like when you enter a courthouse or theme park.

This means you consent to any and all screening processes, ragardless of how "outrageous" or "invasive" they may be.

Consent to the searches and screening processes is implied when a passenger or employee enters the checkpoint, because it is common knowledge that a person is required to be checked before entering.

Those entering the TSA checkpoints always have the option to decline going through security, but declining or refusing will result in a denial to fly.

but, look on the bright side. There's always the bus, the train, or even driving, and there's no search or screening required!

That being said, I believe TSA has accepted that the American public will always deride TSA as being "invasive" and "unnecessary", until an incident occurs, and then they'll change step, and tell TSA that they're not invasive enough, and didn't do enough to prevent an incident.

Anonymous said...

TSA opens door to creating future millionaires out of normal citizens
Make sure you file a complaint with the police department if you feel molested during your pattdown. This will protect your rights should the TSA employee be arrested in the FUTURE as a child molester or a sexual predator. Should a report be filed and the individual that did the molestation actually be found guilty, you may be able to sue the police department and TSA for exposing you and endangering your children for failure to catch this predator.
The legal risks to local and state police departments for closing a case on somone who is later found guilty is not something to be taken lightly.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-02-01/news/os-tsa-s
If you or your child was groped by said agent, and you filed a complaint with the Police Department after the incident at the airport, you may be entitled to a large settlement.
When you opt out, and experience what you may believe is a molestation pat down make sure you ask for a police officer to be called and file a complaint immediately. Follow up to make sure you have the Police report number. Protect your legal rights now. Create a record and a paper trail showing negligence in background screening and investigation follow up. The odds that you are being violated are greater than winning the lotto.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"but, look on the bright side. There's always the bus, the train, or even driving, and there's no search or screening required!"

At least until until next week. Coming soon to a bus/train station or road near you! ;-)

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with using dogs to sniff for explosives? They have them all over the international terminals in airports around the world with no disruption. It's simpler, cheaper and less dangerous to use low-tech techniques. Ask every passenger a couple of questions - they already do this - and intensify the questioning only if responses warrant it. Use behavioral profiling and continue with the metal detectors. Expensive technology isn't the answer to every perceived problem.

Anonymous said...

"That being said, I believe TSA has accepted that the American public will always deride TSA as being "invasive" and "unnecessary", until an incident occurs, and then they'll change step, and tell TSA that they're not invasive enough, and didn't do enough to prevent an incident."

So much for the government being by and for the people.

Anonymous said...

SO if you "dont" store these images and this has been disabled in the machines....how did you get these photos? I fly weekly and I will NEVER submit to this NEVER! Plan on it in your budget for every Frequent Flyer who Opts out at every airport. It is clear that the American Public finds this practice invasive. We vote! even if "1/5=20%" People disagree that is enough to change the results of an election which could dismantel your entire agency "the dept formerly know as home land security"

Anonymous said...

Why don't fast food and retail workers go through body scanners or have pat downs? What is stopping them from passing on explosives to a passenger after he goes through screening?

mwester said...

No matter what the resolution of the images produced by these machines it it still an incredible violation of our fourth amendment rights.

If citizens of our country who have not been accused, suspected or convicted of a crime are forced to undergo gropings and strip searches just to board a plane, why not to walk a city street or enter a public school? We need to wake up!

Until the TSA begins requiring rectal exams for every passenger these scans are useless anyway! How far are you willing to go for security?

Hey TSA! You can settle the resolution issue by creating a scanner video that takes us to the same screen your rent-a-cops see. While you're there, allow some non-partisan individual to operate the and demonstrate for us all of the machine's capabilities. Just video the whole show and let us see it!

I think you're lying, TSA. Prove me wrong!

Anonymous said...

You are all utter morons. I don't care if the scanner takes a hi-resolution buck-naked picture of me and my entire family. Think of it this way, would you rather die? Who said your entitled to privacy aboard an airplane anyway. Your person comes second to the lives of everyone around you. Get over it and get over yourselves.

Anonymous said...

Should I be worried that I can see resemblances of the brain and skull in the first set of images above?

Anonymous said...

Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading?
I'm trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.



Here is my weblog - Houston Texas public adjuster