17 ms·
TSA can now force you to go through body scanners [pdf]
- Dublum 11y agoThe link appears dead with an access denied error, does anyone have a mirror?
- SCAQTony 11y agoThe PDF does not define what TSA Advanced Imaging Technologies are. It implies rather than defines that it is a x-Ray even though the image is a generic drawing of a person with a superimposed an icon what area should be searched. Not okay.
- afiedler 11y agoThe TSA doesn't use backscatter x-ray machines any more. They were all removed because the company that makes them (Rapiscan) couldn't figure out a way to mask the naked images. Now they just use millimeter wave machines, which have the body outlines only. I really don't find this objectionable from a privacy standpoint. It it basically a better metal detector in that it detects non-metal objects, too, and shows the scanner exactly where they are on the body.
- slouch 11y agoFun story: Last time I flew, the scanner detected the surgical plate in my right shoulder. The TSA agent saw the diagram and put his hand on my left shoulder before letting me walk.
- mattdotc 11y agoIn October, I also triggered the machine for having a suspicious back. The cause? I was in Hawaii, wearing a backpack. If you didn't know, their airports are mostly open-air. Of course, Hawaii is pretty warm and it was humid, so I was sweaty on my shoulders where the straps were. Win for security (theater).
- Sakiina_ 11y agoI once went to the SLC airport with slightly damp braided hair. I went through the scanner. A TSA agent pulled me aside for a patdown. She did it quickly, sighed with relief, and said, "Oh, it's just your hair. It showed up on the scanner as a weapon."
- epoxyhockey 11y agoThat was the official reason. Though, backscatter x-ray machines were decommissioned in the US shortly after the EU banned their use due to public health reasons.
- exhilaration 11y agoNow they just use millimeter wave machines, which have the body outlines only. Do you have a source for this? And have all US airports upgraded to this "body outlines only" technology?
- SCAQTony 11y agoSo they are using microwaves. Do you know what GHz they are using and wha benchmark is a safe level? "...A millimeter wave scanner is a whole-body imaging device used for detecting objects concealed underneath a person’s clothing using a form of electromagnetic radiation. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner
- shALKE 11y agoThey already do this in some airports in Germany, rather then the classic metal detector crap.
- Kliment 11y agoLegally speaking, it's optional to go through those. I exercise my right to opt out every time I fly, and the variation in response among airports is quite spectacular. CGN has posters telling you how to opt out, and a dedicated optout lane (Terminal 2 at least). DUS wants to see ID and tries to intimidate you into conforming.
- shALKE 11y agoI didn't notice the flyer, will check it out in 2 days when i flight out :)
- dogma1138 11y agoSome gates don't have metal detectors anymore it seems that they are being phased out slowly but surely. And in some cases even if you have the option to opt out you might not even know that you are in a body scanner line as some lines might start where the scanner isn't visible yet. The problem in my opinion is that body scanners are considerably less effective than metal detectors. A personal experience from going through on in Germany is that it flagged the passport and boarding pass that i had in my breast pocket which lead to the guy patting my chest like he was a 15 year old getting to 2nd base. The scanner however had no objection to my key chain which I have had a leatherman micra on which technically has a knife (its only 4cm long and is legal to carry even on air travel or at least it was never flagged for me).
- schoen 11y agoSeveral countries now use these scanners. The particular issue (and change) here is about whether people have the right to opt out of passing through them and be screened by an alternative method. In the U.S., that was the case until just now. According to European law, it should also the case throughout the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011R1147 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:320... Policies in the U.K. were also changed last year to allow passengers to opt out, which wasn't permitted before. The descriptions of passenger screening on the TSA website haven't changed to reflect policy change. Maybe they expect it to be used extremely rarely? I'd like to write to my Congressional representatives about this, although it's a bit difficult for me to imagine that Sen. Feinstein will be on my side of the issue.
- jlgaddis 11y agoI have to get back to work so I just skimmed over this quickly, but I didn't see anything that supports the claim in the title. Anyone who has read the whole thing mind pointing it out? ETA: I did see the part that everyone is quoting, but the title makes this sound like this will apply to everyone all the time and I don't think this document backs up that claim.
- aestetix 11y agoPage 4: "While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security"
- crymer11 11y agoAdditionally (on page 5): > Individuals undergoing screening using AIT generally will have the option to decline an AIT screening in favor of physical screening. Given the implementation of ATR and the mitigation of privacy issues associated with the individual image generated by previous versions of AIT not using ATR, and the need to respond to potential security threats, TSA will nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security.
- jlgaddis 11y agoThanks aestetix and crymer11, I actually saw that part but the title makes it sound like TSA can force everyone to do AIT screening. The text doesn't support that, though. > "... TSA will nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers ..." Okay, so some passengers ... > " ... as warranted by security considerations ..." ... assuming they have a reason to, basically. Don't get me wrong. I loathe the TSA, think that the imaging stuff is bullshit and a violation, and I "opt out" every time I fly. The title, though, makes it sound as if everyone will be subjected to the screening everytime they fly. I don't think this document supports that claim.
- 11y ago
- alttab 11y agoIf only body scanners were proven to be effective.
- pyre 11y agoThey are effective at getting people to falsely believe that they are effective. "Look! It's a 'scanner' just like on Star Track! 'Bet they can detect anything with one of those!"
- thoreauway 11y agoAs someone who always opts out, this makes me sad.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mathgeek 11y agoThe requirement may be a step backward, but at least the idea of not storing the images is a step forward.
- bradbeattie 11y agoDiscreet cellphone pic? Hard to imagine an image being "unstorable".
- URSpider94 11y agoThere is no "pic" at all. The images are never viewed by humans. All you get is a stylized threat alert indicator on a generic silhouette.
- exhilaration 11y agoDo you have a source for this? Have all US airports upgraded to the "no pic" technology?
- balls187 11y agoNot an exhaustive search, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive source that explains that all machines have been replaced, however the TSA has laid out the timetable for June 1, 2013, and that all machines were to be removed by Rapidscan at their own expense. http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/01/rapiscan-backscatter-contract.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/01/rapiscan-backscatter-contract.ht...
- kreneskyp 11y agoThey said they don't generate or store images period, which is at best misleading. It might not generate or store a commonly used image format, but it's still an imaging machine. The machine generates images or it's pure security theater. Either way they are attempting to deceive people and they shouldn't be trusted. (doubly so since previous claims that they don't store images is a proven lie)
- 11y ago
- js2 11y agoTSA Pre is also no guarantee. With Pre, you normally proceed through a metal dectector. However, the metal detectors randomly alarm to force some passengers through the image scanner. You could previously opt-out at that point and receive a manual screening. With this policy change, you might additonally be compelled to go through the scanner.
- saryant 11y agoI chewed out a screener and his supervisor when that happened to me. Turns out you can call a TSA agent an idiot and nothing happens.
- js2 11y agoPre is a racket. At my home airport, they regularly send non-Pre passengers through the Pre line. They have no way of knowing past that point who has Pre and who doesn't. (In theory I guess they could ask to see your ticket again, but they don't.) Added to clarify: I have Pre and it is printed on my boarding pass, otherwise I could not enter the Pre line. They check for the "Pre" stamp both when I enter the line, and when they scan the pass at the end of the line. After that point, I put away my ID and boarding pass and enter a "reduced screening" line (the point where they check your baggage and send you through the metal detector). What I'm saying is that at my airport, they sometimes also direct non-Pre passengers (who've had their boarding pass checked via a separate line) into the same "reduced screening" line. At that point, both Pre and non-Pre passengers are receiving the same "reduced screening". It is at this point where I've had the metal detector randomly flag me for going through the image scanner. When I protested that I had Pre, their response was "we don't have any way to know that at this point"). Pre almost always saves me time, so it's not a racket in that sense. But it is a racket in the sense that it's no guarantee you won't end up with a pat-down. It's theater in the sense that: either the government trusts me, or they don't. If they don't trust me, they shouldn't have issued me Pre. If they do trust me, then I shouldn't need to be patted down.
- jwoah12 11y agoIn most airports I haven't really needed it, but having it when going through security at any of the NYC airports during busy hours can make a HUGE difference. I was flying JFK->Charleston last month, and the regular security line had hundreds of people in it. The pre-check line was literally empty, and I got right through security in about 2 minutes.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoAnnnnnd now there's no way my pregnant wife is going to travel with me by air. Thanks security theater! EDIT: I have TSA Pre via DHS/CBP Global Entry, as does my wife. There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.
- URSpider94 11y agoIf you have Pre, they don't usually make you go through the scanners, only a metal detector.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThe problem is, I can't take the chance we get to the airport, go through the Pre line, and then they refuse us passage if my wife refuses the mandatory body imaging scan.
- edwhitesell 11y agoLooks like you and I will be buying fully refundable tickets from now on...
- pyre 11y agoThere was also that incident where the guy didn't want to go through the scanners, and tried to leave. They tried to prevent him from leaving and said that once he enters the line he has to go through the scanners (even though he was willing to do other things like metal detector, pat-down, etc).
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI remember that, and that also greatly concerns me. I can be held by the TSA solely for being concerned for my or my wife's wellbeing. Disclaimer: I'm not a nutjob. I completely understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I simply don't believe enough research has gone into terahertz imaging, and don't believe I'll have any recourse against the US government (based on their track record) in the event its proven to have negative health effects in the future.
- obeone 11y agoIt appears from the wording that you can still request an opt out, but that they can refuse: "While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers."
- jlgaddis 11y ago> " ... as warranted by security considerations ..."
- cryoshon 11y agoBecause going through the body scanners prevented the mass shooting or Boston Bombing, right? If we just make airport security more invasive, we'll be safe, right? Wrong. Security theater is a fool's game. We'd be better off adjusting our geopolitical and societal priorities (such as mental health care, among other things) so that people don't want to terrorize us-- which will never be completed, by the way. Violence is going to happen no matter what, so our task is harm reduction rather than feel-invasive-but-do-nothing measures a la TSA.
- pera 11y agoThe TSA should start sedating every passenger, then pack them and put 'em into the planes. Then we will be safe!
- schrodinger 11y agosounds great!
- gboudrias 11y agoIf there was a way to do this safely it would be my preferred method of travel.
- steve-howard 11y agoMany people attempt this ad-hoc through the inflight beverage service.
- astockwell 11y agoImages abound of underpaid baggage handlers hurling human meat-bags over the sides of the baggage train carts...
- warfangle 11y agoWhat's interesting is, flying out of SFO a few weeks ago, I was directed into a line with no body scanners and only a metal detector. I was also instructed to keep my laptop in my bag and my shoes on. But there was a K9 unit tensa-barrier-ed off that everyone had to walk past.
- orblivion 11y agoI think this is them giving you a free sample of what you get if you pre-register with them.
- asciimo 11y agoI had a civil and humane US airport experience a couple years ago and I asked about it. The TSA agent said it was because of the K9s sniffing around.
- fancyketchup 11y agoYou were part of "managed inclusion" in TSA Pre(check).
- warfangle 11y agomanaged inclusion ended at the beginning of september.
- fancyketchup 11y agoManaged inclusion v2 was ended in September. That's when managed inclusion v3 began[1]. [1] http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1710806-more-free-passes-precheck-managed-inclusion-iii.html http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-de...
- warfangle 11y agoaha. Either way, I vastly prefer this to everything else :) Maybe I'll have to sign up for pre ... I only fly four or five times a year, but it seems worth it.
- orblivion 11y agoThis seemed inevitable to me. There's officially nothing wrong with the scanners, right? Out-opters are just old fashioned, and they're just putting up with us for now until we die out, or they slowly but inevitably loosen the last fingers from our grip on our own dignity. I've already been denied entrance into the secure area of an airport once a couple years ago, until I went through a scanner, because they found traces of some chemicals on me and/or my luggage. (Was probably from a campfire).
- 67726e 11y agoI don't opt-out to be old-fashioned, I do it as protest. You want to waste my time with your security theater, I will surely waste yours.
- asciimo 11y agoThat was exactly my position. Then I got really uncomfortable during a pat-down at SFO and decided that I'd rather suffer humiliation at the hands of a machine.
- 67726e 11y agoI'm curious what they did to make you uncomfortable? Aside from some pissed off grumbling it usually doesn't elicit much of a response.
- asciimo 11y agoIt started when the agent asked if I had ever been patted down before. I said something like "many times." He told me a story about some guy who flies out of SFO twice a week and always opts out. His tone was creepy, and he suggested that this fellow must really like getting patted down. Meanwhile, he was taking his time, giving me an unusually thorough "screening." I was disturbed by the whole thing and felt violated.
- mindslight 11y agoReally? I call the process "molestation" and refer to the goons as "kiddie-fondlers" in every day conversation, but honestly I've never been uncomfortable with how they've actually touched me. I don't particularly want to be touched, but maybe my violation meter has already been pegged by the larger process or maybe I'm just happy to finally get through the obvious-target-of-next-false-flag chokepoint and interact with someone closer to being a human. Or maybe SFO is different due to having privatized thugs plus SF, uh, customs.
- darkpicnic 11y agoMy best guess as to why they changed this procedure is not to increase security (since they know body scanners to be ineffective), but because so many people were opting out that it was increasing delays. I always opt out and notice they try to incentivize me by saying "We're really busy right now, it'll be a while". I always politely wait. Sadly, now that they have this as an option, I doubt I'll want to do much flying anymore.
- MCRed 11y agoThe hassle of a 2 hour flight is no longer "cheaper" than a 7 hour drive. I didn't even think about flying this holiday... never even looked up the prices. I know it would be monetarily cheaper, but I can't abide the abuse.
- belovedeagle 11y agoJoke's on you: It seems that when the TSA get really busy, such as at Seatac on 12/19 at 6am, they simply shut off the body scanners and switch to a single dog sniff and metal detectors. I didn't even have to take off my jacket or shoes! Which only serves as further evidence in my mind that the imaging devices are bullshit and the TSA knows it.
- leesalminen 11y agoSame thing happened to me at DIA yesterday. Except, the dog got off-leash and chased a loose cat throughout the terminal. Hilarious.
- jlgaddis 11y agoI opt out every time and it's the same conversation every time. "Ok, we're gonna have to call somebody over here." "No problem." "Well, you might be waiting a while." "That's show I show up waaay early, I've got plenty of time." I think it pisses them off, but I don't care. I don't think I've ever waited more than two or three minutes, anyways.
- 11y ago
- ck2 11y agoSo wait, does congress still get to opt-out and be waived through? https://google.com/search?q=congress+exempt+from+tsa+scanners https://google.com/search?q=congress+exempt+from+tsa+scanner... Love how their manual suggests the results are stick figures and how they fail to note smartphones could take a photo of the ATR monitor for posterity.
- URSpider94 11y agoThe results ARE stick figures now. The lewd x-Ray goggles photos that we all saw before are gone now.
- ck2 11y agoI don't believe that for a second. I bet there are different modes they can select.
- edwhitesell 11y agoDoes anyone know if this also impacts children being forced through the scanner? I didn't notice it mentioned in the doc.
- tjohns 11y agoAt least the backscatter x-ray machines are gone, now replaced entirely in the US with millimeter-wave scanners. Personally, I don't care if somebody's looking at my body on a computer monitor. However, I do care if I'm being exposed to extra ionizing radiation for no good reason. Which is why I always opted out of the x-ray machines, but don't really mind going through millimeter-wave ones. (Obviously, other folks will feel very different about this. If your concern is privacy, the millimeter-wave machines aren't much of an improvement -- though I do believe most of the human elements of the system have been replaced with image recognition on newer versions.)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- grandalf 11y agoI would love to have a job where I got to try to break through all the TSA's nonsense security. If I believed any of it was making us safer I'd happily comply, but the whole process is so ham-handed it's embarrassing. I brought a small radio transceiver with some coils of wire through recently and the look on the agent's face when he removed it from my bag was "oh shit I've found an explosive device". He looked extremely relieved when I told him it was a radio (but didn't inspect it further), then he proceeded to lecture me about the importance of putting my toiletries into a zip lock bag (they were in a similarly sized see-through bag with a zipper)...
- CaptSpify 11y agoHonesty? it seems pretty boring. Look at their failure-rate: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/11/04/surprise-tsa-is-still-sucking-terribly-n2075370 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/11/04/surpris... It'd be fun if there was an actual potential to be caught. This? Not so much
- grandalf 11y agoHah good point. I wonder when it will become a crime to publish/link articles like that.
- RA_Fisher 11y agoHmm, Medtronic says my wife shouldn't go through the scanner with her insulin pump ... http://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/customer-support/traveling-with-an-insulin-pump-or-device http://www.medtronicdiabetes.com/customer-support/traveling-...
- RA_Fisher 11y agoCan't go through x-ray, can't carry it through the scanner (I presume) -- a true catch 22.
- CamperBob2 11y agoDo more research yourself, starting with a physics book, and and you'll understand why it's not a problem. Your child won't benefit from superstition.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI disagree with your naive and condescending reply. To assume we have thorough understanding on long term effects of any new technology is grossly irresponsible. But then again, who cares when its other people, amiright? EDIT: I'm not some ignorant bumpkin. I've worked with physicists to do data taking for a detector at the LHC. I have a solid fundamental understanding of physics. Is it wrong to be cautious when hundreds of millions of people could be effected by a new technology with little to no oversight, no resources for them in the event its discovered there are health effects, and little to no benefit for the actual process? For fuck sake, Jon Stewart had to literally badger congressional representatives on camera to provide funding to first responders who are dying from cancer and other aliments from responding to the WTC on 9/11. I'm supposed to have faith the US government is going to make things right if body scanners are causing health issues? Fuck. no.
- CamperBob2 11y agoI have a solid fundamental understanding of physics. What are your thoughts on E=hv?
- toomuchtodo 11y agoSo we're going to debate the energy of photons vs higher energy radiation on HN? That sounds like a terrible use of time for both of us.
- madengr 11y agommwave scanners run about 100 GHz, but the effects of THz are still questionable. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-apart-dna/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-wa...
- littletimmy 11y agoCan these scanners ever malfunction and give someone a massive dose of radiation? Does anyone have research on this?
- scrupulusalbion 11y agoI now feel somewhat smug over refusing to fly whatsoever since hearing about the body scanners. The security theater is indeed a serious issue, but if the body scanners are physically harmless (not certain about that), then I am not sure why I should be concerned. Perhaps those who are disfigured, have to carry around a colostomy bag, etc. have a good reason to not be seen naked for some bogus security theater, but I suspect that that matches relatively few people. Don't get me wrong, I still think the body scanners are terrible and that the security theater is a problem. However, my reason for not flying is a moral one, namely that some people are being paid to look at the naked bodies of thousands of people throughout the day. Perhaps if the TSA could provably (1) match the sex of the scanner-operator with the person-to-be-scanned, (2) match homosexual operators with the opposite sex, and (3) prevent all images from being recorded, then I would consider flying again. However, I can't trivially prove the second and third before entering the scanner, thus I see the body scanners as a reason for me to avoid flying altogether.
- Overtonwindow 11y agoSo does that mean it's OK to wear my "I made it to second base with a TSA screener" T-shirt?
- thefastlane 11y agowhen discussing the safety of these technologies, please share citations! as i write this comment, i don't see a single reference to a published research paper in this discussion (unless i missed it).
- justifier 11y agoWhere is part 9: Principal of health?