TSA Finishes Removing "Virtual Nude" X-Ray Devices From US Airports

dsinc writes "The Transportation Security Administration announced it has finished removing from all airports the X-ray technology that produced graphic and controversial images of passengers passing through security screening checkpoints. The machines, which the TSA first deployed in 2008, provoked public outrage as the technology, better able than traditional X-rays to detect hidden contraband, also created images that appeared as if they were 'virtual nudes.' Critics called this an invasion of privacy and questioned whether the scanning devices truly lacked the ability to save the images, as the TSA claimed."

Comments

Misleading headline

[dgatwood]

Although the X-ray versions have been removed, the equally invasive millimeter-wave versions are still there. The only difference is that now you have to spend a little time changing the device configuration to save off the images instead of being able to see them live.

Re:Misleading headline

[0111 1110]

Why do you say they are equally invasive? The laws of physics would seem to indicate that they are not. The few images I have seen have been much less detailed than the xray images which are nearly as good as black and white photographs.

Removing the private wank booths is by itself a huge step forward (assuming they really do get rid of them) and the cartoonish stick figure images on the machines with the newer software would seem to eliminate the privacy issue completely. Assuming of course that the TSA is not lying again and secretly continues to monitor the images in the peep/wank booth.

The millimeter waves are a huge improvement. No ionizing radiation. Based on our current understanding the 27-30 Ghz microwaves are not harmful.

The millimeter wave images are orders of magnitude less suggestive and detailed than the x-ray machine images. They don't appear to be wank material. Many of the millimeter wave scanners in the US are fitted with automatic detection software which effectively illiminates the privacy issue anyway.

The mmw machines with ATD software still have problems however. Based on independent testing they have something like a 50% false positive rate and if the machine alarms you must submit to a potentially sexually invasive procedure in order to fly. If they were to eliminate either the after-scan patdown or the false positives the scanners might be acceptable except for the fact that they don't really achieve anything. Metal detectors are far more effective at detecting real threats, much faster, and do not require any genital patdowns afterward.

The sensible thing to do is to go back to the metal detectors and maybe augment them with explosive sniffing dogs until reliable explosive detection machines are invented.

Re:Waste of money

[NormAtHome]

Whoever approved this incredible waste of taxpayer money really needs to loose their job along with half of Congress.

Re:Misleading summary, as usual

[petsounds]

I never understood why people just go through these scanners like sheep. I have never been through one despite flying periodically -- one can and should decline the scan.

In the USA, yes you can decline and instead get sexually groped by a TSA employee. In other countries like the UK you can't decline -- if you want to get on your flight, you go through the scanner.

Re:What?

[steve6534]

Here you go. It came up about 2 years ago now - http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/

Re:Misleading summary, as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be on the bus soon enough. What's your argument going to be then?

Re:Analog hole

[iggymanz]

it was the U.S. Marshalls who leaked pictures in Florida from Gen 2 mm wave machines, the machines for which was claimed the operators "cannot store, print, transmit or save the image"

Re:Analog hole

[erroneus]

The TSA would NEVER use a scanning device without the ability to record and save the data. Take it from a former screener. *I KNOW* (caveat, I never used one of these backscatter machines as an operator... they weren't in airports when I was a screener.)

Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the image. We did not open the containers... Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.

If you wanted to be able to prove something, a picture is better than testimony. What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving the images?!

Re:Waste of money

[artor3]

Your analysis contains some very important oversights:

Your numbers are taken from the US Census Bureau: 2001 & 2011.

First, let's look at the difference between 2003 & 2004, so that we can see the addition of the Department of Homeland Security. See how the total number of full time employees stays roughly the same, but the 2004 numbers have that extra section for the DHS with ~140k full time employees? Those people weren't all hired that year -- the DHS employees are already in the grand total on the top line. You were double counting them in your 2011 numbers. So let's revise your numbers to account for that:
2001: 2.7M employees with a payroll of $11.4B
2011: 2.85M employees with a payroll of $16.1B

That's a 6% increase in headcount, and a 41% increase in payroll. Still pretty big, right? Well, we ought to adjust for inflation. Looks like the $16.1B would have been worth $12.7B in 2001.

So really, we're looking at a 6% increase in headcount, and an 11% increase in inflation-adjusted payroll. It's not nothing, but it's not what you're making it out to be.

Let's go into even more detail!

By pulling up the 2008 numbers, we can see which parts are attributable to Bush, and which are attributable to Obama. Since Bush has more years of growth, we'll annualize the results.

(I did this in Excel, and you're free to download the tables from the Census website and repeat my calculations. I'm tired of making hyperlinks.)

Under Bush, the Federal Government grew at an average of 4.5% per year, with the largest contributors being National Defense, Healthcare and Law Enforcement. Under Obama, the Federal Government grew at an average of 1.4% per year, with the largest contributors being Healthcare and the Postal Service (which didn't grow much percentage-wise, but its sheer size meant that even a few percentage points put it over the top). Remember, we're talking about payroll here, so Social Security & Medicare aren't nearly as big.

So under Obama, the government payroll has actually been shrinking in inflation adjusted dollars. And remember, this is pre-sequester. Of course, that doesn't mean all of the cuts were Obama's idea, or all of the heavy spending was Bush's. But it does show that over the past several years, the government has been trimming the fat. Your "throw the bums out" approach is unwarranted.