text:
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
TSA has not, will not and our Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) cannot store images of passengers
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
233 comments:1 – 200 of 233 Newer› Newest»
- Anonymous said...
the tsa has been caught storing this data. to deny this now is irresponsible and typical of the tsa. ignore the problem and deny if it doesn't
- November 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM
- Parkylondon said...
You know what Bob? We don't beleive you.
- November 17, 2010 at 10:56 AM
- American Security Theater said...
True or False?:
The AIT Machines software is based on Windows XP
- November 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM
- Anonymous said...
True or false Bob; the hardware was sourced with the ability to store images. That is known, you claim ( you make a lot of claims ) that this is disabled by policy but the hardware can do it.
So your title is factually wrong, the hardware can store images of passengers, you *claim* to disable this feature just like the marshals service did, right?
- November 17, 2010 at 10:58 AM
- Anonymous said...
Can they Print? What happens when you catch someone with contraband - surely there's an image captured for prosecution?
- November 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM
- Anonymous said...
Well, first of all, there's been enough TSA hijinks already reported that no one trusts the "oh no, we won't do THAT" line.
You also have NO idea what the long term health risks of this will be.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM
- Matt Hurley said...
Why are you LYING to the American people, Bob? The US Marshal Service uses the SAME scanner. http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans
- November 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, why do you continue to mislead people? The scanners DO have the ability to store images; such ability, according to the TSA, is simply "disabled".
And as anyone who has experience with computers knows, a feature that is simply "disabled" can almost always, with enough effort, be "enabled".
- November 17, 2010 at 11:12 AM
- Anonymous said...
So what happens if you do indeed see something dangerous in a picture? You don't have a way to store it for proof and potential litigation or law enforcement use?
And you always said that these machines are not networked. I still don't understand how the porno scanner is connected to the remote location. Is it one looooooong cable, or are you going through a data network?
- November 17, 2010 at 11:16 AM
- Anonymous said...
Except you don't need the machine to actually capture and store images when the operators (against policy mind you) capture the images on mobile cameras.
Also without an INDEPENDENT 3rd part audit I don't believe you can even assert that they devices can't store images.
As to will not....I seem to recall a similar statement regarding the AIT devices would NEVER be used as the primary screening device....except now they are in some locations.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:16 AM
- LD said...
I don't believe you or the TSA. Period. The technology is closed source and not open to independent review (not even for health concerns). Unless and until it is there is no reason to believe this is not possible.
And besides, there's always the "analog loophole". That is to say an agent snapping a pic with a phone or camera.
People were reassured in this particular case that images weren't stored either. So why should we believe the TSA when they say the same thing? Please answer that.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:19 AM
- Anonymous said...
This is a complete and utter lie. Your machines can store images, can store images, and HAVE stored images.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:20 AM
- Tim Hutch said...
It's interesting to see how these new systems get vetted to prove that they don't. If the statements are true then that is a start. But till that moment we won't have proof till a 3rd party trusted vendor in the public verifies this and not a closed 3rd party company that doesn't publish the report.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:20 AM
- Anonymous said...
You mean your STRIP SEARCH technology, Bob. Call it what it is.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:21 AM
- Anonymous said...
You Lie!
- November 17, 2010 at 11:25 AM
- Anonymous said...
Thats what they all say.
I'll take Penn's approach and call a officer of the law and have the renta cop brought up on charges for assault if they "touch my junk!"
- November 17, 2010 at 11:31 AM
- Anonymous said...
why have you disabled all comments? what happened to transparency?
on this issue, specifically, are you arguing that the computers used to view the AIT images cannot screen capture? or are they not networked? or are you arguing that employees will never snap photos of the monitor with their cell-phone cameras?
I'm going to need more details before I decide whether I want to subject myself to what some are calling 'security theater'
speaking of which, is there any indication that TSA policies will prevent the next attack? because it looks like they're designed around "fighting the last war". Actually, has the TSA actively stopped even one attack? proof of that would go a long way towards silencing your critics
- November 17, 2010 at 11:32 AM
- Anonymous said...
Unfortunately, some people will not believe anything the government says.
And will keep repeating things that are not true.
Thank you for the thankless job you do.
Part of me thinks being a TSA agent to day is like being a Vietnam vet in the 1970s.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM
- T said...
The machines have this capability. For the moment, TSA has disabled it.
Have they disabled the cameras on the cellular phones that the screeners in that private room carry?
When the machines were installed for testing, there was a non-invasive opt-out. Users who did not want to be exposed to X-ray radiation could be inspected with the wand, and given a perfectly reasonable pat-down, that did not involve the touching of junk.
Now, by making the pat-down extremely uncomfortable (bordering on assult), TSA is trying to take away the opt-out.
Do you think they might re-enable image storage in the future? I sure do.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM
- Anonymous said...
We do not believe you.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:46 AM
- Jeff said...
I'll spot you the current policy to not store or transmit images, but the hardware supports it. So you cannot say that it cannot save images. If you do, you are being intentionally misleading which leads to the lack of faith in your good intentions.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM
- Anonymous said...
Given your previous lies, why should we believe you?
We know from the manufacturer's specs AND TSA's own requirements that the machines are built with recording and networking capability. We also know that TSA has lied in the past about the machines.
For example, there was a post on this very blog about how the scanners were going to be a supplemental piece of equipment and not the replacement for the WTMD and wanding.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM
- chris bray said...
Anyone who knows how to do a google search -- that is, anyone smart enough to not work for the TSA -- already knows that the TSA's puschasing specs require that these machines be able to store images for training purposes. You are lying.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:51 AM
- Matt Gallagher said...
With all due respect, what independent assurance does the traveling public have that this machinery "cannot store images"? Is it just the word of the TSA and the manufacturer that the hardware is crippled? Is there an 'off switch' that can be flicked on again, in hardware and software? Or is the hardware physically incapable of storing images (e.g. no hard drive or memory of any type whatsoever, which seems impossible)?
Until this technology is independently evaluated by a trusted, non-governmental and non-manufacturer testing body (UL, ISO, Consumer Reports come to mind), I will not go through it and I will not allow my minor children to go through such a machine.
The vast majority of TSA employees are undoubtedly hard-working, honest people. However, with absolute certainty, an agency this size has one or more 'bad people' working there - it is unavoidable. This technology is basically a gift to the pedophiles of the world.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM
- RB said...
Saying that TSA's WBI cannot store images in blatantly dishonest.
The contract specification requires the ability to store images.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM
- Anonymous said...
That may be true. But it doesn't take a screen-capture button on the device itself to store images of passengers. An immature screener who wants to show off to his friends a particularly hot, sexy, weird, fat, ugly, or otherwise interesting image of a naked passenger just has to hold up their cell phone for a second to save an image of the screen. Are screeners having all their personal image-taking devices confiscated?
Screeners are just people. Of the thousands of screeners, some of them are bound to be silly, immature, insensitive, unthinking, or simply fail to see the harm in snapping a quick photo with a cell phone.
How can the TSA guarantee this won't happen?
- November 17, 2010 at 11:57 AM
- Git Em SteveDave said...
I used to run a x-ray machine similar to the machines used at airports for scanning baggage. Being a geek, I of course went online and found the manuals for all my equipment. While the model I used COULD store images, it was an add-on feature that my company didn't choose, so we didn't have that ability. If we did, the storage was on a Zip Drive in a locked compartment. I could scroll back about 3-4 belt lengths to see what I had scanned earlier, but if I turned the machine off, or scanned more items, those images were gone forever.
Also, there were a lot of features that my machine did have that I could not access/turn on because the user interface I had was custom, and locked down very well. With the control panel/board I had(not a keyboard in the traditional sense,which allowed me to change/invert image colors, run the belt back and forth, zoom, etc...) there wasn't the ability to "ctrl-alt-del" or reboot and force a safe mode or make it boot off a external CD, etc... The machines are very "dumb" and are built to do their job and not much else, so it's easy to lock them down and prevent people from tampering with them.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM
- Anonymous said...
As a computer developer in the heart of the valley, I ask "where's the proof"? Computers are extremely good at saving information, and it is hard to just take the TSA's word for it.
Why can't you just show the software and hardware running and prove that no pictures are saved?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM
- JohnO said...
Blogger Bob:
Will you permit your co-workers to do the extensive physical search on yourself, wife, or children?
Will you daily allow your body to be subjected to the radiation like you are asking us to do?
I want America protected. Why not do these things on inbound international flights?
Why not use logical profiling like EL AL?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM
- Anonymous said...
So tell me this Bob. If an individual did have some sort of dangerous material on him, i.e. a TSA agent spotted something and then frisked the man/woman beyond belief, how would the image used for probable cause to search be brought before a court of law or necessary committee?
This is a lie. Just like everything else that comes out of Napolotano's, Pistole's and the TSA mouths.
LIE! Don't believe it people.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM
- Anonymous said...
If you put it in "TEST MODE" then it stores the images.
If it can't store images, then how would you present evidence that you even detected something on the person?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:03 PM
- Anonymous said...
Leaving aside the fact that your computers were specified to have hard drives, USB ports, and Network ports - all potential avenues for exploitation, there is a simpler way to record images from the scanner:
Camera built into Cell Phone.
And by the way, where can I find the actual policy that states my under 12 child won't be molested by a TSA employee during their genital pat down check?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM
- Anonymous said...
Can the machines store images of those who do NOT pass security (i.e. a threat) so they could be used for prosecution?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM
- Anonymous said...
AIT scanners can and will store images when in test mode. How will the flying public know whether or not a scanner is in test mode and storing naked pictures of themselves?
Furthermore, someone can simply take a photograph of the screen that displays the images regardless of what mode it is operating in.
And the fact that the TSA has released their own images of what the scanners see proves that, yes, obtaining images from scanners is quite possible.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
The point that has been made is not that this was a TSA checkpoint, but that they too claimed the machines "could not" and would not save images. They continued these claims until it was proven the truth was otherwise. We also have repeated reports of TSA officials behaving immaturely about the machines and pat downs, so how is the public honestly expected to believe that the person monitoring isn't saving things using their own camera or that the TSA is telling the truth about saved images to begin with?
Fool us once, shame on you, twice is shame on us. There is a reasonable amount of evidence that blocks my ability to trust these statements.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
"TSA has not, will not and our Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) cannot store images of passengers."
Nice picture for your blog post. Looks like it doesn't matter if those scanners store images, you can just as easily obtain them by photographing the screen.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM
- Anonymous said...
You are treating air passengers like prisoners. What is next? Latex gloves and body cavity searches? Strip searches and arrest frisks are not a reasonable policy in the absence of any objective evidence of particularized risk.
Israel does not do use strip search scanners at Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion and has not plans to adopt the machines? What about that? No society in the world has a greater need to focus on security issues than Israel, and they view this technology as unreliable/not worth the cost of use.
I know that TSA does not care what frequent fliers think, and I have no expectation that the agency cares what those most affected by these Soviet policies thinks about them. I hope that Congress takes action to protect the privacy and dignity of the U.S. traveling public. Absent Congress taking action, I feel certain that anal and vaginal probes are not far down the road. Why not make us fly naked, chained to our seats?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:10 PM
- Adrian said...
It is a lie to say that the whole-body imagers cannot store the images. The requirements document the government issued during the procurement process *required* that the devices be able to retain images. The machines have a mode where they do not retain images, and we're told that the TSA uses them in that mode, but there is little public information available on how hard it is to change the mode. Also, the MMW machines abused by the Marshal Service are the same models as some of the MMW machines used by the TSA. Therefore, the machines *can* retain images.
Question: Are the machines connected to the internet?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:11 PM
- Gunner said...
That is, simply put, a lie.
The systems are capable of storing images.
You claim to have disabled it -- which is fundamentally dfferent than it not being capable of storing images.
The fact that few people believe you is a different matter.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:12 PM
- Anonymous said...
Oh. Well, if the government says it then it must be true. Good enough for me! /sarcasm Power has been abused, is being abused, and will be abused; such is the nature of power.
People, you've got to fight tooth and nail for your rights. If you give the government an inch they'll try to take a mile.
I'm praying for the day some imbecile gets caught with explosives up his anus (hopefully he won't have the opportunity to hurt somebody). TSA will predictably react by requiring mandatory cavity searches and the airline industry will cease to exist. But hey, at least the skies will be safe!
- November 17, 2010 at 12:12 PM
- Rick Boatright said...
Bob, you keep saying that the scanners "can not" store, print or forward the images.
And you point us to a blog post where you explain that you don't mean that, that the machines CAN do those things, and DO do those things in testing mode, but that they are disabled (in software) before being delivered to the airport.
It would be more honest, and cause much less screaming if you just said "Have those functions disabled in a way that the operators can not re-enable them."
Also, you keep posting the two images, but there's no indication of what size the images are when the operators view them. Can we get a sample screenshot of what the operators actually see?
Finally, are the operators physically searched each day so that the people entering the operating room for the scanners are certain to not have a cell phone or pen camera or button-hole camera to take photos of the screen as they're working? Have you plugged the analog gap?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM
- DevilDog438 said...
Once again, Bob, intellectual honesty instead of "1984"-esque doublespeak would be good to have here on a GOVERNMENT-sponsored forum.
If I remember correctly, the initial WBI RFP (the one EPIC and others have posted before) required the ability to store images (yes, it did say when in training mode, from what I recall) and further stated the specific levels of personnel that were enabled to place the system in said mode and permit captures. Several of the personnel listed appear to be assigned at the airport level from what other sources have posted.
If the two Qualified Vendors have installed machines at the airport checkpoints without that capability (the ability to go into training mode and capture/store images), then they are in violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulations for failure to comply with deliverable specifications (at least according to my annual FAR courses here at work) and should be reported to the GAO for investigation.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM
- Anonymous said...
Er.... are you sure?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
Why, and please be specific, would we believe the TSA when they say the same things that the Marshalls said about the ability of the scanners to save images? What exactly makes the TSA more credible?
Also, what will stop TSA employees from taking pictures of the screen? What will stop them from training a security camera on the display?
And how will any of this make us safer?
- November 17, 2010 at 12:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
Wait a minute Bob, you say "the machines cannot store images," but that is false and misleading. They can store images, you just claim that the function is turned off.
You need to be more precise with your language!
- November 17, 2010 at 12:34 PM
- John C. Welch said...
You say, talking about the scanners that because they are not networked, they cannot be hacked.
That's actually quite wrong. They can in fact be hacked. Just not remotely. However, hardware hacks are a well-known technique. Ask the people making fake readers for ATMs.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:41 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, you're contradicting yourself. Yes they CAN store images. Remember how you admitted that the machines can store images in "test mode" ? Of course, since you're a PR mouthpiece and have given us inaccurate information time and time again, your assurances that the images are not stored and that TSA will never leak images of our naked bodies are not really very reassuring. TSA has lost our trust, Bob, your assurances are meaningless. Show us proof.
Meanwhile, your agents continue to make life hell for people who opt out of body imaging, and continue to make up their own rules and flaunt standard operating procedure (http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html) with seemingly no repercussions for either the agency or the employees involved in incidents such as this. When is TSA going to enforce a reasonable code of conduct?
Neither body imaging or genital touching are going to fly, Bob. Find another way.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM
- Your_Friend_Ethel said...
Thats not what the spec that was put out for these devices says. The device has a harddrive so short of NSA destruction of the harddrive scans are still on the drive. just because it was "deleted" doesnt mean its gone. Its still recoverable.
Furthermore "test mode" anyone with half a brain and knows how computers work knows there is a way around that.
Yet more lies for TSA.
Good job Curtis your censorship has garnered a call to the OIGs office. hope you enjoy explaining you and your agencys actions
- November 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM
- Anonymous said...
And you also said Macbooks don't need to be separated.
There are other examples demonstrating a difference between what you say and what happens in reality.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:46 PM
- Anonymous said...
We don't believe you.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
There are no print-screen buttons on your keyboard? There are no other screen capture tools capable of being installed? The machines are not connected to any network that could infect it with viruses? Cameras/cellphones are not allowed in the viewing areas? Employees are screened to ensure that they aren't skilled with a sketchpad?
The reason people don't want these images stored is that they don't want people (including TSA employees) looking at semi-nude images of our families. Stored or not, these machines make us feel violated.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:55 PM
- Ayn R. Key said...
Except that they can. Every engineer in the world knows that a capability that has been disabled can be enabled. In order for your statement to be true it is necessary for that capability to not be there in the first place.
As for "will not", your agency is so very trustworthy that your belligerent announcement on the subject will only serve to convince people otherwise.
- November 17, 2010 at 12:57 PM
- Adrian said...
I just read a quote from Janet Napolitano who claims that the radiation from the x-ray backscatter imagers is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
Clearly, she doesn't understand the technology. It creates the images by measuring the reflected radiation. if it was so low that it could barely be detected, it wouldn't be able to produce a useful image.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:01 PM
- Anonymous said...
Once again, here is a quote about your procurement.
'TSA says it does not store scans, and there is no evidence indicating the agency does at routine airport checkpoints. But documents that the Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained show the agency's procurement specifications require that the machines be capable of storing the images on USB drives. A 70-page document (PDF), classified as "sensitive security information," says that in a test mode the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. '
So it *can* store images and transmit them over the network. Even if it were secure there is nothing but policy preventing screeners from capturing images with a secondary device.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:06 PM
- Anonymous said...
Don't you and your team of fear mongers get it? The DHS and TSA have lost the hearts and minds of the American people. No amount of your propaganda can change that fact. Its sad but the flying public does not win, the terrorists have.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM
- Anonymous said...
This simply is not true. I have read the manuals for your new scanners and they clearly state that the images are stored. There have also been leaks of scans from the exact same machines used in other areas.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:21 PM
- Anonymous said...
Is someone making sure the TSA agents don't have any sort of cell phones or recording equipment? In this day and age, images can be taken by almost anyone, anywhere.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:24 PM
- Anonymous said...
"TSA requires AIT machines to have the capability to retain and export imagines only for testing, training. and evaluation purposes."
Gale D. Rossides - Acting Administrator, TSA in a letter to the House Committee on Homeland Security available here http://bit.ly/cvHQfa [link goes to pdf]
- November 17, 2010 at 1:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
What about policies in the room that the screening takes place? Are there any surveillance cameras that may record the TSA employee doing their job and incidentally record the screen they're watching. If so, that's potentially storing images.
Is there a policy against iPhones or other staff in these areas? What's to prevent a fellow TSA employee to record a screen with a cell phone? I know I've seen images of people's body in the media...they're stored images even if not in the traditional sense.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
I don't believe you. Period.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
Do not think this is true you had someone take a pic from a cell phone and or a camera. Nice no comments real good. find this to be untrue also. Please read the items on CNN for the real story of the TSA.... NO COMMENTS for real???
- November 17, 2010 at 1:32 PM
- Anonymous said...
"The equipment sent by the manufacturer to airports cannot store, transmit or print images and operators at airports do not have the capability to activate any such function. "
You need to clarify this statement. You state the machines can not store, transmit, or print images. On the other hand you say that operators do not have the capability to activate any such function. Which sounds like that some people do have the level of access to store, transmit, and print the images. Which is it Bob, has the feature been disabled and can be used with the right level of access or removed?
- November 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM
- Shawn B said...
I miss the old TSA Blog. When did the sole purpose become defending your stance / correcting the media and not a public outreach tool? People are genuinely concerned about this and many other TSA-related issues and I appreciate the effort that goes into putting this blog together. We want this blog, however, to put a face and personality to the TSA and not just a content space for rebuttal and denial.
- November 17, 2010 at 1:42 PM
- Anonymous said...
this is a lie. photos have been saved and will continue to be saved to improve the system. so stop spreading anything else
- November 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM
- Anonymous said...
I have not, do not, and will not believe a word that you have to say.
It is incredible that you have the gall to claim that these machines cannot "transmit" images when you're constantly pointing out the fact that images are viewed in a remote location. Explain, if you could, exactly how they get to this location without being "transmitted."
- November 17, 2010 at 1:58 PM
- Chad said...
The general public is not stupid... we realize this is the US Marshals Office and not the TSA.
You guys are also completely missing the point: these scanners are broadly declared to be unable to store images (you've just repeated it in the title of this post) when, in fact, they _can_ and _do_. Even your own machines are capable of storing images in what you've called "test mode," so using the word "cannot" in the title is simply inaccurate.
It's a matter of trust and public perception. You're completely ignoring those factors and instead shouting out, "trust us!"
Do I believe you _currently_ do not store these images? Yes. Do I trust you to not change that policy and not inform the public? No.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM
- American Security Theater said...
The grammar of this title is incorrect. Not too surprising considering a HS education is no prerequisite for working at TSA.
The title: "TSA has not, will not and our Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) cannot store images of passengers"
Asserts the following statements:
TSA has not stored images of passengers.
TSA will not store images of passengers.
AIT cannot store images of passengers.
As last weeks blog post shows TSA regularly takes video of passengers and feels perfectly justified in releasing said video without permission from those recorded when it suits their talking points.
Irony, my captcha for this post is "unconsti" Perhaps Blogger Bob will get a laugh out of that while he deletes this comment with the rest.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM
- aardwolf said...
Don't say it "cannot" when it actually does! I've read articles where the TSA admits that each machine has a mode they turn on for training that allows the images to be saved.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
Yeah? So if Screener Bob has a digital camera to take pictures of the screen? What's the difference really?
One more thing: According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center's FOIA requests, your organization explicitly specified that the scanners must be able to "store and send" images.
CNN reported on this here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/
- November 17, 2010 at 2:11 PM
- Anonymous said...
But the agent could, for example, take a picture of the image with a camera or smartphone. Also, what measures are in place to protect children from being exploited or inappropriately "patted down" by workers? It's a fair question about the policies in place, so please respond.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM
- Anonymous said...
Can you ensure that images will not be stored by renegade agents (i.e., with a cellphone camera)?
- November 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM
- Anonymous said...
Care to explain why the manufacturer's documents say otherwise, and the TSA's specification REQUIRE that the AIT machines are able to SAVE images? "Must" and "Cannot" are two very different things coming from the same agency.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM
- TSA SUCKS said...
The TSA is a joke. It's security theatre, it's a waste of time and money and doesn't make us safer.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM
- Anonymous said...
Wish we could believe you.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:19 PM
- Anonymous said...
I am not sure freedom of speech still exists in America, but I hope some shred still does and this makes it to your blog... SHAME ON YOU. Shame on you. I am shocked that the TSA is ignoring the fact that it's methods are so intrusive and rude. Shame, shame.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
- Anonymous said...
Are the specifications for the machines up to public inspection for the purposes of verifying the fact that they cannot store images?
Will the TSA publicly release any and all documents and correspondence regarding any information or knowledge that it has about the same?
What remedies does or would a private individual have against the TSA if this promise is broken? Is the TSA willing to waive sovereign immunity for claims arising from or relating to the storage or disclosure of such images?
- November 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
- Carl Rice said...
Please explain this article http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html in detail because it sure sounds like these machines ARE capable. Certainly your liberal budget would allow for custom machines that do not have "a mechanism for 'high-speed transfer of image data' over the network".
If this is wrong, please prove it.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
On the subject of AIT and pat downs...why are these done at random and not applied to all people? Security that you impose on one person and not another is just random security. So we may or may not be secure.
Take a cue from the Israeli defense and question all passengers without the need for the excessive "pat down" which is quite clearly a violation of a persons privacy.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM
- Arun Luykx said...
Why didn't you write 'Gizmodo reports' instead of 'The Drudge report recently linked ...'? How is the Drudge report relevant, when Gizmodo filed the FOIA to get the 100 images and wrote the whole article?
Regardless, thanks for the insight on this. It is indeed interesting to note these are courthouse images.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
I hear what you are saying and read the other blog posts about how the ability to store images is disabled. However, as we have seen with electronic voting machines, these safeguards do find a way of becoming undone or not implemented.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:37 PM
- Anonymous said...
LOL...I can't believe you expect anybody to believe this.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:39 PM
- Skeptical Citizen said...
First off, this post says the machines cannot "transmit" images... well, aren't they already being transmitted to the remote viewing location where the scans are reviewed by security personnel?
At any rate, I have a real hard time believing that TSA is not actually storing these images, if only temporarily (as in some kind of time-limited cache), or that no such capability exists. Imagine if someone actually were to try and sneak a weapon through security, would not a scan of that person prove rather valuable in securing a conviction? (It could refute defense claims, say, that an item was planted by crooked agents.) Why would you destroy that kind of evidence? And wouldn't this be exactly the kind of thing that our intelligence community would be loathe to let simply waft away into the ether? By their likely thinking, here would be a great opportunity to learn about terrorists' bomb-smuggling preferences.
No, I have an extremely difficult time swallowing the line that TSA or other agencies can't and won't store these images. I can accept that perhaps images of we rule-abiding passengers aren't being stored, or perhaps are deleted after a prescribed period of time (let's say, long enough to cover the duration of your flight -- if you whipped out a box cutter midair, how great it'd be to go back and look at the scans to see if anything slipped through.) But I'd wager big money that if a passenger scan did trigger alarm bells, that image most certainly can and will be immediately saved for future use and review.
Given TSA's hard-line defense of any and all protocol that can be carried out in the name of "your protection," these kind of contingency storage capabilities strike me as exactly the kind of thing the agency would be very eager if not insistent on possessing.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:40 PM
- Anonymous said...
On the manufacturer's website - part of the description is this.
"Fully-integrated on-board computer: IntelTM Core-Duo processor enables stand-alone operation
without external PC connection. Microsoft Windows XP™ Operating System integrates with local area
networks for remote viewing and control via Brijot Application Software and APIs."
It's XP, on a Network - and you are trying to tell people images can't be saved?
What? Someone can't do a 'screenshot' and save the image in MS-Paint?
- November 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM
- Anonymous said...
Ridiculous. You'd have to save the image - if only for proof of misconduct and/or as training tools for when TSA discovered some innovative way of hiding something on their person. If its a digital file, it is stored somewhere and can be accessed somehow.
- November 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM
- Anonymous said...
If there is a digital signal, it can be intercepted and saved. Perhaps not easily, but to say operators do not have the capability is unquestionably false. Are employees allowed to have camera-phones in the screening area? ...is it actually enforced? Does the monitor support HDCP? Are ALL ports/cables secured by lock and key, and how trustworthy is the keyholder. It is just a matter of time until something is leaked and all this hyperbole and fluff will only bite you in the behind.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM
- Anonymous said...
How are TSA employees screened? How do we know there aren't more sex offenders like the screener in Boston last Spring?
- November 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
Trust but Verify.
Bob, Please identify the independent watchdog that has reviewed the deployed version of your nude scanners to make sure that they have been rendered incapable of storing images. If this has not been done, I'd suggest requesting volunteers. Plenty of academic and journalistic organizations have their own money with which to conduct such an assessment. It has been done for voting machines and other important devices. The only folks that object to independent verification testing are: 1) organizations that are lying about the capabilities of their machines; or 2) vendors that are covering up that they have sold defective machines. We've seen both in the voting machine business. Is the TSA a lying organization, as many blog entries claim? This would be easy to address with a constructive example.
By the way, there are academics with intelligence level security clearances and law enforcement sensitive background checks, so don't offer up the "classified" excuse.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM
- Anonymous said...
That's why images are already appearing on the internet. The TSA is the real threat, not us flyers.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM
- Blake said...
Leaked TSA internal documents have shown that the TSA required the machines to be capable of storing images to a USB and over a high-speed network. I have an idea to resolve this issue, release the Datasheet to the "AIT" scanners to the public. Perhaps not sensor specs to avoid leaking potentially sensitive information, but simply releasing the schematics on the image reading protocols and the main bus will allow engineers like myself to determine whether or not these machines are capable of storing or transmitting data.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
Please allow me to help educate the TSA:
They make them quite small now too, heck, almost every single cell phone comes with a camera in it.
Concerns of images being stored/leaked aside, even if you could guarantee no one but the viewing TSA agent will see the image, believe it or not, some people still have issue with being seen naked/near naked by a stranger. Most people also have issue with having their genitals handled by a stranger as well.
I pray this insanity comes to an end before my son is born and we are required to travel by air. It's one thing to fondle me, but so help me god if a TSA agent sticks their hands down his pants, as has been reported on already...
And what of this important question:
What will the TSA do when terrorist begin sneaking explosives in body cavities?
- November 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM
- Mr. Smartman said...
When flying, we all NEED safety and security on the one hand, and we all WANT freedom and privacy on the other hand. Why can't we have both? Maybe this hasn't occurred to anyone but me, but I don't think this has to be a "zero sum game", but instead, we can have a "win-win" situation, if only we will balance our conflicting needs and desires differently than has been proposed by either side of this contentious debate. I fail to see why we can't just simply give everyone what they want. Why not divide the flights into two kinds; scanned and/or groped and not scanned and/or groped, and people can take their pick? We have other kinds of choices that the airlines accommodate, such as first class or coach, window or aisle seat, cocktails or soft drinks, and more. So let the bashful, the privacy and freedom lovers, and anyone else who objects to being nuked by the airport body scanners choose the less safe and secure option, while those who prefer peace of mind, along with enhanced safety and security, must consent to having their bodies scanned and/or groped. Knowing the airlines, I'm sure that they can even find a way to charge a premium for such a service. This would likely be either in the form of a "convenience fee" if more people opted for privacy and freedom than not, or else a "TSA safety surcharge", if more people chose the body scan option.
If I am scanned or groped, then I want a hot female TSA agent to do the job.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM
- Anonymous said...
Question for TSA: Are Nude Imaging operators scanned by AIT for cameras before operating the scanner?
- November 17, 2010 at 3:46 PM
- chris bray said...
The TSA's procurement specifications for these machines, which require that they be able to store images, are available here:
- November 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM
- Anonymous said...
"In a statement, TSA spokesman Greg Soule called violence against TSOs, "shameful.""
Like you guys should be talking about shame...
- November 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
First, the TSA released images on the net showing examples of what the AIT machines capture. Now you're telling us those machines "cannot store images". Hmmmm. Did someone hand draw the example images or were they recorded from an AIT machine?
Second, whether or not you're storing the images is important (it's evidence of a crime if nothing else), but largely irrelevant. By taking the image in the first place, and/or touching someones genitals if they opt-out, you've already sexually violated another human being. Stop it.
Third, have you read the 4th amendment, and if so, do you really believe what you're doing isn't a flagrant violation of those rights? I know you and the rest of the TSA want to believe, in the depths of your heart, that you're protecting us poor helpless citizens. We're not helpless and you're not helping (in fact you're probably hurting security by giving people a false sense of security). Again, please stop violating my right to travel, privacy, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM
- Anonymous said...
Government lie, never! Whatever TSA. At any given time there are more citizens than TSA officers at most airports. Revolt and overthrow that which is oppressive. If someone is going to do damage no amount of scanning and patting down is going to do anybody any good.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
This is what I find disturbing. There are pictures all over the internet and also here on this blog of the very images you say can't be stored. But obviously they can be photographed and passed around that way.
- November 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM
- Anonymous said...
You also said this:
Our systems are independently tested as well by such laboratories as Johns Hopkins
A bit misleading as a spokesman for John Hopkins said:
But a representative for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory said the group did not evaluate the advanced imaging machines for passenger safety. "That was not our role," spokeswoman Helen Worth said. "We measured the level of radiation, which was then evaluated by TSA."
- November 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM
- John Hansen said...
Grrr! Airport screenings can be annoying but I'm glad that measures are being taken to make it easier and to protect our safety!
- November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM
- Adrian said...
Wait a second. Does this post claim somebody else's headline is misleading? Pot, meet Kettle.
- November 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM
- Jacalyn said...
That's funny. Body scan images were just posted online. So much for the TSA workers' integrity. From what a woman said on Fox, I would be highly embarassed to have my privates touched by anyone other than a doctor or my husband. Here's a novel idea: why don't you have people pass bomb sniffing dogs?
- November 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM
- Anonymous said...
- November 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM
- Anonymous said...
Is TSA claiming that AIT have no capability what-so-ever to store images?
- November 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM
- GLA said...
You know what else stores and transmits data? Camera phones. Are there procedures in place to ensure that the screeners are not taking and can not take pictures of the display? If so, please describe those procedures.
- November 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM
- Jacalyn said...
If the US Marshalls' machine can store it so can the TSA. I use Windows and if the defense department can be hacked into whatever protocols you set in a Windows operating system can easily be breached.
- November 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM
- Anonymous said...
Complete and utter lies
- November 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM
- Daryl said...
Anonymous (November 17, 2010 11:38am) inadvertently scored a couple of bull's eyes for the dissidents with his "defense" of TSA:
"Unfortunately, some people will not believe anything the government says... Thank you for the thankless job you do. Part of me thinks being a TSA agent to day [sic] is like being a Vietnam vet in the 1970s."
Some of us won't believe the government because, when the government lies, people die. For example, the 58,000 Americans and 2-4 million Vietnamese who paid with their lives for LBJ's lie about a North Vietnamese attack on American ships in international waters off the Gulf of Tonkin. If Vietnam vets didn't get a lot of thanks, it's because the job they did (and many of them were conscripts) was unnecessary, unconstitutional, fiscally ruinous, and ultimately served only to expand the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the Federal government here at home.
- November 17, 2010 at 4:56 PM
- Anonymous said...
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who will guard the guards?
- November 17, 2010 at 4:59 PM
- Anonymous said...
Hey Bob
What about Janet Napolitano's comment that 'adjustments' will be made to the scan/body search policy which may 'exempt' Islamist women wearing burkas. Many bombings overseas were made by those wearing burkas. Are we really that stupid to cave into CAIR (Council on American Islamist Relations - sic)?
- November 17, 2010 at 5:17 PM
- Anonymous said...
To Mr. Smartman:
You said "When flying, we all NEED safety and security on the one hand, and we all WANT freedom and privacy on the other hand."
I disagree. As an American, I NEED freedom and privacy and WANT safety and security. I'd much rather have my freedom than to feel a little safer.
- November 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM
- Anonymous said...
Oh common...machines 'sent' in one condition may be altered on site. Also, the idea that a machine is incapable of storing, sending...etc. How do we get all those images to look at in the news, etc. I bet I could take a digital image with my phone off a screen and...OMG...now it's everywhere. Stop with the foolishness...everything is recordable.
- November 17, 2010 at 5:18 PM
- Mike E. said...
So the machines can never provide any evidence in a criminal trial of someone arrested for trying to get stuff past security?
- November 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM
- Anonymous said...
Of course this government push for full body scanners seriously intensified after the Christmas Day "underwear bomber" last year after the Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Right?
But in a Congressional Hearing last January 27 it was revealed that the underwear bomber was being tracked and was ALLOWED to enter into the U.S.
Here's that part of the Congressional Hearing transcript:
REP. THOMPSON: Okay. So — all right. So he has a visa. So what does that do? In the process, does it revoke the visa? Does it —
MR. KENNEDY: We — as I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, if we unilaterally revoked a visa — and there was a case recently up — we have a request from a law enforcement agency to not revoke the visa. We came across information; we said this is a dangerous person. We were ready to revoke the visa. We then went to the community and said, should we revoke this visa? And one of the members — and we'd be glad to give you that out of — in private — said, please do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying roll up an entire network, not just stop one person. So we will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, do you have eyes on this person, and so you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?
REP. THOMPSON: Well, I think that the point that I'm trying to get at is, is this just another box you're checking, or is that some security value to add in that box, to the list?
MR. KENNEDY: The intelligence and law enforcement community tell us that they believe in certain cases that there's a higher value of them following this person so they can find his or her co-conspirators and roll up an entire plot against the United States, rather than simply knock out one soldier in that effort.
Any questions?
- November 17, 2010 at 5:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
I think it's plainly clear that the 'majority of Americans' do not approve of these porno scanners.
You cannot transport the data to a secure room if their capability to store the image doesn't exist; (not to mention you wouldn't be able to capture REAL THREATS in a database for.. training...No brainer we don't buy it...)
You cannot guarantee the TSA folks will not abuse their new found power. (demonstrably; you cannot)
You can't ensure the safety; either in single dose; or over time numbers....
Why again did you guys agree to use the machines?
No doubt a lobby.. someone got paid...
- November 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM
- Anonymous said...
If it exists, it's being stored. Sure, it's being stored in volatile memory at run-time, but that still means it's being stored. If the system is employing virtual memory, which it most likely is, then it is definitely being stored on non-volatile storage in some way. All of these things are exploitable. All that matters is how determined someone is.
So, to say that the devices cannot store images, you are either lying or stupid. They store images simply because that is what makes it fundamentally possible to display them. If voting machines are any precedent, these machines are not just insecure, they are blatantly insecure and you have made no effort to prove otherwise. Besides, you can't actually prove that someone can't or won't sneak in a camera.
You have continually failed to explain how these processes actually improve security in any significant way. This does not show items hidden in body cavities. This is a massive sacrifice of personal privacy in exchange for minimal to non-existent improvements to security. TSA has been making this argument that a balance must be made between privacy and safety. This is not the right balance.
- November 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA and BOB are deleting comments without incrementing their delete-o-meter.
I suspect they don't want the public to know about the 100's of thousands of posts that are deleted that oppose their policies.
If they really did allow all of the posts to be shown, then the ratio of TSA employees/shills postings as anonymous that favor the TSA would be even more laughable. Instead of the 100:1 ration of unfavorable vs. favorable posts, it would be more like 1000:1 against.
Don't be fooled, the "S in TSA does not stand for security.
- November 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
Cannot? How does 'cannot' work when one of the requirements for the systems was their ability TO store the data?
- November 17, 2010 at 6:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
This is absolutely disgusting, and worthless. How do you sleep at night, Bob, or have you really drank every last drop of the TSA cool-aid? Now we find out that you can be fined for refusing to fly after you enter the screening? How can you live with the cognitive dissonance of violating the very premise of freedom and liberty you claim to defend. I would rather fly with the threat of being blown out of the sky with a statistically insignificant probability than deal with then real consequences that arise from this sort of invasion.
You are a terrible human being, and I woukd rather take tea with Osama Bin Laden than give you the time of day.
- November 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
We don't trust the government. We don't believe you. We don't care if you are even right. The alleged increase in security is not worth the violation of our rights.
George Bush said the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. Is taking away our freedom a ploy to make us more pleasing to terrorists?
- November 17, 2010 at 7:49 PM
- Anonymous said...
I believe you Bob.
- November 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
The government has not, will not, cannot lie.
- November 17, 2010 at 8:23 PM
- Anonymous said...
So Angelina Jolie cannot get a charter, so she and Brad and the kids slum it and fly first class on United. Who will take a wager that she will be selected for screening and that there will be a thunderous stampede of TSA "agents" with cell phone cameras to that back room.
If you don't believe me, go look up records of IRS agents getting fired for looking up celebrity tax returns.
- November 17, 2010 at 8:25 PM
- omars said...
Sorry TSA, we don't believe you. Memos and Announcements are just more lies.
If you expect to be believed, show us the hardware specs that demonstrate your hardware is incapable of doing what the Federal Marshals were doing.
Yeah, I didn't think so...
- November 17, 2010 at 8:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
- November 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
- Lady Gem said...
Obviously seem people have issues with scanners and/or the pat downs my question why can't the explosive detection dogs be used? Its a lot less advasive than the scanner and patdown. I mean really put a person through the metal detector like they do now and have one of th exploive decection dogs smell them. And I believe the dogs are cheaper to train than the AIT scanners. What am I missing that we can't use the dogs to help elimanate these privacy concerns
- November 17, 2010 at 9:22 PM
- Anonymous said...
All it takes is a camera inside the image viewing room.
- November 17, 2010 at 9:31 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, that's a lie.
And y'know what, I found out about this from my friend who lives in JAPAN. The media is discussing this WORLDWIDE. I wonder what will happen when the worldwide airline industry sits up and takes notice of this absurd (in)security theater that you're perpetrating upon travelers (their revenue source)?
I'm a platinum flyer and will be letting my airline know how I feel.
- November 17, 2010 at 9:44 PM
- Anonymous said...
I have a question regarding the full body scans. I work in a hospital and as part of my job, I am required to participate in vidoeflouroscopic studies that involve being exposed to radiation. Our radiation levels are monitored every month with badges. Since we do not carry our badges with us on trips, how can we be sure that the full body scans do not push us past the threshold of what is acceptable amounts of radiation given our previous exposure? My counterparts, the radiologists and radiology technicians are extremely concerned about receiving any additional radiation outside what is required (and monitored very closely) for our jobs. Have there been any scientific studies regarding this? And if so, can you please cite the studies so that I can read them. Thank you.
- November 17, 2010 at 9:45 PM
- J. P. Carlo said...
Even if by some miracle the TSA's computers were set up so that you absolutely, positively, could not store any images (and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you), what about this?
Almost every cell phone sold today contains a camera.
When something that strikes your fancy appears, take a picture of the screen.
Email it to all your friends, post it on the Internet, heck, send it to the New York Times or the National Enquirer if you want.
- November 17, 2010 at 9:48 PM
- Randall said...
The title of your blog post is an assault on the English language.
- November 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM
- Anonymous said...
If I'm chosen for the body scanner, I'm going to ask for a copy of my scan to see what it looks like. You say you can't print one for me. But can I at least see it? After I walk through, I'd like to come around into the other room and look at it. It's my body, so I should be able to see a picture of it, right? If you can't accommodate that request then I want to go back to the metal detector.
- November 17, 2010 at 10:35 PM
- Anonymous said...
Either way, stored nude pictures or not, it's all still a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment relative to searching without probable cause and warrant.
Common sense and dignity remains absent.
- November 17, 2010 at 10:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
The sad thing is that the Print Screen key exists, and we, speaking on behalf of the internet, have *ALL* seen the evidence to the contrary.
Say what you will, we know the truth.
- November 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM
- Anonymous said...
This is a flat out lie. You've been CAUGHT STORING THESE PHOTOS. And not just a few. Over 35,000! You're lying!
- November 17, 2010 at 11:00 PM
- Anonymous said...
You're full of it. Credibility approaching zero.
Were I you, I'd quit TSA and get a real job.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:07 PM
- Anonymous said...
Aren't you just being silly? This technology inconveniences millions of people and won't stop a single terrorist. If someone's able and willing to bring down a plane and thousands of innocents with themselves, they'll have no qualms about shoving whatever explosives or ceramic cutters they need into their nether regions, which no pat-down or strip scan will detect. Unless you're going to make every traveler submit to a complete cavity search, you aren't going to stop determined terrorists from bringing hazardous materials on board as passengers. Oh, and even if you do detect say, an explosive device on a terrorist during a screen, what's going to stop that individual from simply detonating it then and there and taking out everyone in the screening area? You'll just kindly ask the guy to sit tight while you call over an officer?? TSA is more concerned with maintaining the illusion of passenger safety than of safety itself.
- November 17, 2010 at 11:23 PM
- Anonymous said...
Thank goodness for the TSA and all the terorists they've caught. Oh, woops that's right, they've never caught one...:(
- November 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM
- Anonymous said...
I find it interesting that TSA labels any critical news story as misleading. There appears to be no mistakes or errors at TSA if you listen take TSA's word. Is it possible that TSA is covering up?
- November 18, 2010 at 12:00 AM
- Anonymous said...
Why are you lying to the American people who pay your salaries? You should be ashamed.
- November 18, 2010 at 12:10 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, you know of course that this post will be archived and referred to on the Drudge Report when the first TSA backscatter photos leak to the web. As a programmer for 25 years, it is a fact that every machine can and will be hacked and every feature that is 'disabled' can be 'enabled' by a determined hacker.
Even before this happens, one of your your screeners will take a cell-phone picture of the machine when Katy Perry or Johnny Depp goes through the machine. What? They can't take a cellphone in with them? Do they have to go through the AIT before they man the AIT? I thought not.
- November 18, 2010 at 12:23 AM
- Anonymous said...
Does anyone else miss Kip yet?
- November 18, 2010 at 12:24 AM
- Lori said...
We all know they CAN store the images. I've read that the TSA won't buy them without the save feature; it's supposedly used just for training purposes. If it's there and simply disabled, it can certainly be enabled--I mean, how else would you use them for training purposes?
The fact remains that this is a gross violation of our 4th Amendment rights. It's not the Bill of Suggestions.
There's a reason the TSA is not trusted. You are untrustworthy. You are the enemy.
- November 18, 2010 at 12:31 AM
- Anonymous said...
nope. not buying it. you guys have not earned the public trust. sorry.
- November 18, 2010 at 12:39 AM
- Anonymous said...
True or False?:
The AIT Machines software is based on Windows XP
Windows XP Embedded which should alway a USB device to store images, and allows TSA to deactivate security to store images.
Doesn't matter that TSA claims it won't save images. I'm sure a TSA agent can still take pictures of the screen with their own camera.
- November 18, 2010 at 12:42 AM
- Anonymous said...
So by this blog post you swear and affirm that no image of any person who is caught smuggling explosives or weapons will ever be used at his or her trial because, much as the TSA would like to adduce that evidence, it could not be saved at the time the terrorist was captured.
If that is the case, then you are making it harder to convict terrorists caught within the U.S., and should (by the logic that safety trumps dignity) be ashamed of yourselves.
Plus, as others have noted, all it takes is a camera phone and, voila, you have a AIT image capture system that can upload directly to the web.
To give you the benefit of the doubt though, you could enforce the rules strictly (notwithstanding that you'd be deleting evidence that could have been used at trial) to avoid the problem. I suppose we should trust that, provided that the head of the TSA pledges to resign is even a single image is ever leaked.
I assume you will post on this blog when he makes that pledge.
- November 18, 2010 at 1:31 AM
- Anonymous said...
Yeah, we believe you....NOT
- November 18, 2010 at 2:38 AM
- Anonymous said...
I believe you did store the video where you exposed that womans breasts in public, as demonstrated by the TSA screeners disappointment that he missed it and would have to watch the video later.
Can you possibly post it here for the rest us us to enjoy too?
- November 18, 2010 at 3:05 AM
- Anonymous said...
i would gladly let you scan me or pat me rather than to face another 9/11/01
- November 18, 2010 at 3:09 AM
- Anonymous said...
Yeah, sure! And we, of course, believe you!
- November 18, 2010 at 4:16 AM
- Anonymous said...
We don't believe you.
- November 18, 2010 at 5:21 AM
- Jeff Allen said...
You know what, Bob? We don't believe you. Your boss is either telling you lies, or you are just making them up for him out of blind obedience. Computers store images, that's what they do. If it's in RAM for a millisecond, it can be stored. Go ask the NSA how the arrange that files do not leave a machine: it involves technology your vendors is not selling you, and we know it. So we know you are lying, so we don't believe you.
- November 18, 2010 at 5:50 AM
- Anonymous said...
I have a hard time believing they wouldn't keep them to later be used as evidence in a criminal cases. I declare shenanigans.
- November 18, 2010 at 7:39 AM
- Anonymous said...
- November 18, 2010 at 7:44 AM
- Anonymous said...
I'll tell you this Bob.
Your tactic of "Post and hide" does not reflect well on either your professionalism or the TSA's.
- November 18, 2010 at 7:51 AM
- Ron said...
The fact that the technical specifications for the machine REQUIRE the ability to store and transmit image data certainly does not mean that you are telling us a lie. You are telling partial truths. You have admitted there is a "test" switch that allolws the machine to do all tyhe things you say you can't do. Big Government lies continue.
- November 18, 2010 at 8:05 AM
- Anonymous said...
If the the scanners can't retain images, how do you explain this image on the T.S.A's own website? http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/mmw_large.jpg
- November 18, 2010 at 8:13 AM
- Anonymous said...
Hi Bob,
What steps are TSA supervisors taking to ensure TSO's aren't sneaking cell phones or cameras into to strip search scanner viewing room? How are they keeping other TSOs from passing phones/cameras to the screeners? How are they keeping TSOs at the scanners from cueing screeners to "get a copy" of a person's scan?
- November 18, 2010 at 8:38 AM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA has set themselves up as an enemy to the individual.
- November 18, 2010 at 9:12 AM
- Anonymous said...
I think your right "Bob". The machine its self doesn't store the photos but the machine hooked up to the scanner probably does in a little behind the scenes room. Grow up. Wake up people, no more TSA abuse!
- November 18, 2010 at 9:14 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob! Question for you. I asked it in the last thread but it got buried. I'm planning on a ski trip out west with my 4, 6, and 8 year old boys. There is no way in (cough) that some TSA employee is either looking at them naked or making any type of contact with their genital area. Same goes for my wife. And me. So, would that be $55,000 worth of fines? Is there a child discount, say $6,000? Thanks!
- November 18, 2010 at 9:21 AM
- Anonymous said...
I believe you Bob. I also believe some guy in Nigeria is about to send me $30,000,000.
- November 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM
- Anonymous said...
Just on the Grammar, your wrong. The machines CAN store images, that capability is required in your own purchasing documents.
Do you store images? Yes, you have to even if it is for some few short minutes.
Will you store images? Again, yes. As a Federal Agency we believe you are not going to because your SOP says you don't. However, the line of business intelligence from your Leaders to your Workers is severely flawed as evidenced by your workers making their own spot judgments when situations arise and usually making the wrong judgement (see pretty much any of the links from any commenter here that doesn't work for the TSA).
So, Yes, images are going to get stored. Regardless of what your SOP's say, regardless of what the FAA says. Regardless of what Blogger Bob assures us. And what makes that so bad is that by their very nature (the images, not Blogger Bob) they will 'leak out' and become a problem for someone somewhere.
And again, I am posting as Anonymous because I fear the TSA using my information for future retribution.
- November 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM
- Anonymous said...
Dear Bob,
I have cheerfully stood in very long lines, taken off my shoes, reduced my liquids to a few 3 ounce bottles and walked through your metal detectors. But Bob, my friend, you have taken things too far. This holiday season we are driving for 18 hours one way -- all because of you and your friends. I'm not feeling cheerful anymore, Bob....
- November 18, 2010 at 12:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
I do not believe the new scanning technology improves safety and security in any way - it merely serves to channel taxpayers' and travellers' money into the coffers of preferred technology suppliers. And humiliates travellers at the same time. So much for "land of the free"!
- November 18, 2010 at 12:24 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob we read the darn RFP!!! It was required that the units be able to save images. Do you think we are stupid?????
- November 18, 2010 at 12:47 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bull! I don't believe it for a second.
- November 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM
- oracle2world said...
Sorry, but computers store images in order to capture and display them. The only question is when they get deleted.
Now if the TSA said their scanners have x terabytes of disk storage and have to erase files to make room for more, that would be a bit more credible.
And demonstrate the drives are not backed-up to tape.
But if a computer geek couldn't copy those files to another storage device, they haven't tried hard enough.
Just FYI.
- November 18, 2010 at 1:14 PM
- Kevin M said...
Now all the talk is about the burka.. specifically that TSA will not be scanning Muslim women in burkas and won't be doing pat downs... please tell us your agency policy on Burka's
- November 18, 2010 at 1:24 PM
- Amerika - papers please said...
Bob/Curtis/whatever your name is, how do you sleep at night being a mouthpiece for an organization that is goose-stepping americans into the fascist 30's?
- November 18, 2010 at 1:37 PM
- Anonymous said...
Wow, why the lies? Of course the equipment can store the images. I really hate that I need to play lawyer-ball with my government, and I have to deal with this constant misinformation and half-truth telling.
Why is the TSA always reacting to yesterday's threat. You know that next al Qaeda bomber is going to carry his explosive in his body cavity... what's next, a proctological exam to get on an airplane?
- November 18, 2010 at 1:46 PM
- Anonymous said...
but what's stopping the viewers from using another device to take a picture of the image?
- November 18, 2010 at 2:06 PM
- Anonymous said...
You don't know much about computers do you?
Oh wait, you're a public sector employee--TSA, no less. I bet you're the HEAD I/T GUY as knowledgeable as you are...
why does the TSA hire folks with n00b computer skillz?
- November 18, 2010 at 2:35 PM
- Anonymous said...
I think for our one we should to anything to be safe.
but all people should be checked. L
- November 18, 2010 at 2:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
i to anything to be save on my flights. thank you for your Work.
- November 18, 2010 at 2:53 PM
- Aaron Poehler said...
Well this is certainly what you'd call a public relations disaster.
- November 18, 2010 at 2:56 PM
- Anonymous said...
It amazes me how many people commented on this story without reading the story. The 100 images leaked were from the US Marshals office from a federal building in Florida. Not from the TSA. It is a separate part of the government. Did anyone look at the poor quality level of those pictures released? Yea they are really hot! if you like jagged fuzzy pictures.
You can disable hardware so it does not have the ability to do certain things and honestly do you think an employee would be willing to risk his job and federal prosecution by tampering with a machine to get it to take pictures. There is a Test Mode but the employees at the airports do not have access to the test mode. (You complain about their competency and now you are thinking they are world class hackers?) Especially when many different operators are using it? And do you think they can have cellphone cameras in there? LOL yea you want to get fired and go to jail for that? I don't think so.
But many of you will not trust anything the government says so why do you even bother to have a dialog?
81% of people support the use of AIT at airports (CBS Story from 11-15-10)
And to the guy who ranted about Vietnam when I compared TSA workers to Vietnam vets. Yes it was a bad policy. But you do not take it out on the poor people who have no choice but to do their job. These front line employees do not need abuse from people because they are only doing their job. (And if you suggest that they can leave the job, then I would ask you if you to honor their patriotism in not working for the TSA and give them your job, because what better way to honor someone who is a patriot!)
Okay that may be a bit much, but you have to understand that they are doing their best to keep this country safe. You may not agree with what they are doing, you may not agree with the policy, but do not take it out on the people that have to do it to keep bread on the table and a roof over their head.
- November 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM
- Anonymous said...
I'm a software engineer. Give me 5 minuets with the ATI machine, I'll make it save images and post them to my facebook page.
All computers can save stuff. Period.
- November 18, 2010 at 2:58 PM
- Anonymous said...
Whether or not the machines themselves store images, anyone with a cel phone can snap pictures of what they're seeing on the screen.
- November 18, 2010 at 3:31 PM
- Anonymous said...
Even if the American people believed this, the person viewing these images has the ability to take a picture with their own cell phone.
If the TSA is so concerned about our security, why did they let the "underwear" bomber on a plane without a passport? That is 1960s security.
- November 18, 2010 at 4:13 PM
- Anonymous said...
so, where did the TSA get the sample images it uses for demonstration? Since the AIT "cannot store" images.
- November 18, 2010 at 4:15 PM
- Anonymous said...
As many have pointed out, this title is a simple lie. The technology has the capability, your specifications that were leaked showed this to be a fact. You claim it is disabled but don't explain how. Is it possible to enable this feature to capture evidence of illegal activity? If so, who has that authority? Pictures will be leaked as has already been shown by the US Marshall's and TSA will be left back tracking on yet another lie to the American people.
- November 18, 2010 at 6:00 PM
- toadkillerdog said...
Yeah, yeah, we believed Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, too.
"Please, please! The Americans are relying on what I called yesterday a desperate and stupid method."
- November 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM
- Anonymous said...
Of course these machines are capable of storing images.
They are shipped with that function disabled, but it can be reactivated by anyone with administrative rights.
Why not tell the truth about it and let the flying public decide whether that's a price they're willing to pay? Afraid of the answer you might get?
- November 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM
- RB said...
Bob, just read through the comments.
If your job is to communicate and advance TSA's objectives I don't think your getting the job done.
Ineffective, no trusted by your audience, no convincing, .....
You know I'm smiling!
- November 18, 2010 at 9:20 PM
- Anonymous said...
You aren't protecting us from terrorists; you ARE terrorists!
- November 18, 2010 at 9:46 PM
- Jonathan Byrne said...
Bob, as many people have stated, you are factually wrong. Government records state that TSA requested machines that have the ability to save images. TSA stated this was only for training purposes but why should we believe that when you aren't even forthcoming about the capabilities TSA requested?
- November 18, 2010 at 9:52 PM
- Anonymous said...
As a parent I am concerned with the unanswered questions regarding the safety of the new body scanning machines and potential risks to the human body. I know TSA states they are "safe". However, the concerns regarding safety for the human body expressed by EXPERT SCIENTISTS of the University of California have not been answered yet. So, I do not want any member of my family to be scanned.
According to TSA, there is an opt-out option: the sliding motion hand checking.
I checked your website and cannot find further information on this second option.
Please explain with DETAIL what is exactly done to adults (male, female) and to children. I am surprised that there is no further information at all. Any responsible parent wants to know this information. Why? In a nutshell and clear, we as parents, spend all the time telling our children not to allow anybody to touch them inappropriately, and less not go to the genitals area either. Hence the need to know what has TSA implemented as an option for the ones that opt-out of the scanning machine due potential health/risks concerns. What is exactly happening during the new hand sliding motion? Has the TSA at least make an effort in how to prepare parents with their children to get this done? What are the specific guidelines for our children? We have the right to know this in advance. Please, explain what is TSA doing during in DETAIL to the children when parents opt-out of the new scanning machines. I urge to post this ASAP since a lot of families travel during this holiday season. As responsible parents we need to know what all this means for our families and very specifically for our children as well. What is the TSA doing to inform families of what to expect when traveling? TSA should give a serious consideration to it.
- November 18, 2010 at 10:01 PM
- FedUp said...
Much of this post conflicts with what has already been reported by respectable news sources. I would point towards Jeffery Goldberg's piece in The Atlantic as just one example. I can not see why we as citizens should continue to support such an obstinate government agency.
- November 18, 2010 at 11:22 PM
- Anonymous said...
How do you guys sleep at night knowing you are subverting the constitution and the founding principles of this country. You are not protecting us, you are attacking us. You TSA are the enemy.
You are in fact terrorists and traitors.
- November 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM
- Abaddon said...
Your credibility has been ruined , you ruined it , not the citizens , you , the blame for this is on The Govs shoulders . I can not simply trust what you say now since it has been proven that the TSA has exagerated , lied , and misled us from day 1 . I know you won't post this , just needed to vent . We are mad and you just don't seem to get it and its rather tiring ....
- November 19, 2010 at 1:23 AM
- Abaddon said...
The utter indifference that the TSA is showing in regards to public opinion is disgusting . You don't care what we say , what we think.....probably don't even read most (any?) of these post...
- November 19, 2010 at 1:49 AM
- Anonymous said...
To the people responsible for greenlighting the backscatter body scanners: I hope that you and your families are subject to the horrible disgrace and humiliation by your newest measures to ensuring "security. What were you thinking?
- November 19, 2010 at 3:31 AM
- Karl said...
"The US Marshal Service uses the SAME scanner."
Actually, they don't. They use a PASSIVE millimeter wave machine. The pictures produced are a lot fuzzier than the machines the TSA use.
A well-informed argument is a much better argument.
- November 19, 2010 at 4:43 AM
- Karl said...
One thing the TSA needs to be careful of is inadvertent storage of images. Are temporary files used by the AIT software? Is there a page file, and if so, are there any safeguards against image data being written to it? The TSA, L3, and Rapiscan should all be confident in their answers to these questions.
People assume that copy machines don't store images of what they copy, but that's not true anymore. There are plenty of cases of confidential documents being leaked through the hard drives of surplus copy machines.
Don't let this happen to the AIT machines.
- November 19, 2010 at 4:49 AM
- Anonymous said...
Why are you still insisting that images cannot be stored when the machines are required to be able to store images.
- November 19, 2010 at 5:00 AM
- Anonymous said...
Ok this is getting really stupid!! If you people that are complining about the pat downs yall are stupid!!!! When I get on a plane, I don't want to BLOW UP OR DIE!!!!! If they don't do the pat downs then the person sitting beside you could be the person that kills thousands of people!!! Yall need to get over your selves and either deal with it or don't fly!!!!!! Stop being stupid!!!!!
- November 19, 2010 at 7:15 AM
- kak said...
We hate the scanners. Please remove this. You are putting people in the spot that they will resist!
- November 19, 2010 at 7:56 AM
- Anonymous said...
This article does not clarify if the hardware is designed with the ability to save images. It states it does not store images. I can state my camera doesn't store images if I omit the fact that it's oly if I don't use it.
Also I have not heard the higher up comment on how they feel about having their minor children go through the scanner or pat down.
- November 19, 2010 at 8:18 AM
- SSSS said...
Who watches the Watchmen?
- November 19, 2010 at 10:49 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob --
Hopefully this comment makes it through...
Again, I issue you a challenge. I will pay for you to fly with me. Fly with me as just US Citizen Bob... not a TSA employee. Try using a NEXUS card as ID. Try keeping your netbook in the bag. Opt out of the nudie machine. See how you are treated! See how your "front line" employees don't follow and/or don't know the rules. Come with me Bob. See for yourself. It's easy to claim these things while sitting at TSA HQ in Washington... but try flying as a non-TSA HQ employee and see what it's like.
- November 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM


text:
Peter Attia:
Is the obesity crisis hiding a bigger problem?
As a young surgeon, Peter Attia felt contempt for a patient with diabetes. She was overweight, he thought, and thus responsible for the fact that she needed a foot amputation. But years later, Attia received an unpleasant medical surprise that led him to wonder: is our understanding of diabetes right? Could the precursors to diabetes cause obesity, and not the other way around? A look at how assumptions may be leading us to wage the wrong medical war.
Similar topics
- Health
- Health care
- Medical research
- Medicine
- Obesity
- Public health
This video was produced by TEDMED. TED's editors featured it among our daily selections on the home page.
Related talks
999 comments
Enthusiastically agree? Respectfully beg to differ? Have your say here.
Log in to comment Don't have an account? Sign up now — it's fast and free.
Sort comments by
There are currently no comments for this talk.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Don't tell me you're not competitive. You're a climber, you love competition. Sport climbers and boulderers compete by chasing routes with bigger numbers, often with little regard for the history of a route, and subsequently log on to the world's most popular climbing website, 8a.nu, to catalog them. Alpine climbers compete to bag more peaks, and won't sleep for 60 hours if it means a faster, lighter ascent. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that in mixed climbing, going, um, leashless, is a big deal. Brits (and old people) do something called traditional climbing, which apparently involves training for months in a basement on plastic, ruthlessly wiring a 25-foot route on toprope, and using words like knackered, bollocks and proper fucked to describe the experience when they finally manage a lead.
Competition climbing, however, has perpetually struggled to justify itself. It's a black sheep. To many, it eats away at the more righteous climbing pursuits listed above. The dissenting voices say competitions are only for posers who like to spray about how strong they are and who sell out the sport in the process. Comps are seen as illegitimate, fake and unworthy. All ego and no integrity.
Those who don't see the integrity in comp climbing have got it all wrong. In fact, comp climbing may be the purest form of climbing there is. It is the only type of climbing where routes are ungraded and the grades don't matter. Comps are simple. There's no quibbling over style of ascent, no wondering if the route is 5.15a or 5.15b (who cares?) and certainly no wondering if there were any witnesses. In a comp, everyone has five minutes to climb an ungraded problem, onsight if possible. It's arbitrary, but what in climbing isn't? Comps are fun. Everybody tries his or her best and then rocks out at a wild after party.
They say, Greatness is distilled in the pressure cooker of adversity. Because most of us usually climb with only a partner, the nature of the adversity becomes a private experience. That's great if you're the Huber brothers or Tommy Caldwell streaking up El Cap like a comet, but it sucks for me. I can't really grasp how cool it is that the Huber brothers can fire the Nose in 45 seconds because I can't be there to see it. Comps, however, offer a different climbing experience, one that's not inwardly focused on how badass your own achievements are, but rather one that allows you to look outside yourself and appreciate the talents and strengths of others. Climbing comps are awesome spectacles of pressure, adversity and greatness all brought together right before your face. It is hard not to see how far from the top you really are, and at the same time hard not to be inspired. We've been lucky to have many such examples on the Bouldering Championships tour but my favorite moment has to be from last year's opening event at the Gravity Brawl in Fairfield, New Jersey.
There's no other way to say it: The men's division presented the greatest climbing I have ever seen. It featured the two best boulderers in the U.S., Paul Robinson and Daniel Woods, entering their prime at the same moment and climbing head to head. Paul out-climbed Daniel early on, sending problems 1, 2 and 3, but Woods rallied late and was the only climber to send problem 4. It all came down to problem 5. Despite chants of GO-PAUL! GO-PAUL! Robinson couldn't stick a desperate go-again and the pressure was suddenly on Woods. If he could send the desperate problem 5, he'd win. If not, first place would go to Robinson, who would finally break through and have his day in front of his home crowd. The packed gym was wild. People were popping miniature noise-making fireworks and waving giant foam Number 1 hands. There was even a guy who brought one of those signs you see at football games that say John 3:16, only his read Woods 3:16 instead.
On his first try, Woods established a high point to the deafening encouragement of the audience, but he still fell two moves away from the win. As Woods rested for one last go, the whole crowd (including Robinson) got behind him, drowning out a PA system I had rented from a guy who normally does NHRA drag races with it. I have never been to a louder concert. Though Woods couldn't quite get the send within his allotted time, minutes after the comp had ended, in a display of showmanship worthy of a star athlete, Woods chalked up again and sent problem 5, much to the delight of the still-packed house.
Competition climbing in the U.S. has been around for 20 years, and some say it has been 20 years since something really amazing happened at a competition. Way back in 1988, the fabulous, flexible Frenchman Patrick Edlinger won the hearts and minds of all in attendance at the World Cup held in Snowbird, Utah. On the men's finals route, no one had even reached the roof, two-thirds of the way up the 12-story wall. While waiting for his turn, Edlinger kept his back turned to the wall and his headphones on. When it was time to go, he walked up to the base of the route, tied in and began climbing without even looking up.
In his book Postcards from the Ledge, Greg Child wrote, Where others had slapped for holds, or quivered as they held on with gut-busting power, Edlinger danced catlike, weightless and elegant, with his blond shock of hair swaying in the breeze. Those who saw him climb that day learned the meaning of the term poetry in motion,' and they went away moist-eyed, convinced that climbing was, after all, an art.
When Edlinger gained the roof, he reached, and reached again, and continued beautifully in his effortlessness. Spectators swear that as he pulled the crux, the rain clouds parted and a ray of sunshine came down upon Edlinger as he climbed to the top of the wall. He was the only competitor to do so.
The reason this story has remained so powerful, even 20 years later, has everything to do with the purity of Edlinger's onsight, which was brought to life for so many by the simplicity of the competition format.
Edlinger had it running through his veins that day, continues Child in Postcards, and whether your game was mountains or crags, big-wall routes or bolted sport climbs, 5.14 or 5.7, the Frenchman's fingers and feet tapped out a message that was the same for all: be there, be focused, be your best.
So, what's happened in comp climbing since then? Where are all the amazing moments? Well, as with Daniel Woods and Paul Robinson's climactic battle in New Jersey, they are there but few have been paying attention. An entire alphabet soup of organizations has tried to bring competitions to the forefront of American climbing: the JCCA, PCA, USAC, the X-Games and, most recently, NE2C, the operation I am running with Jason Danforth and Lu Yan. But, until recently, there has been very little industry support for competitions, and not too much love for them in the community either.
That is about to change. Due to the efforts of what is now U.S.A. Climbing (USAC), a whole generation of climbers has been introduced to the sport through competition. For over a decade, the USAC has been running junior comps across the country and churning out kids that hike 5.14. Almost every current top American climber under 30 started in a gym, on a climbing team. Chris Sharma, Ethan Pringle, Alex Puccio, Alex Johnson, Kevin Jorgeson, Emily Harrington, Paul Robinson, Vasya Vorotnikov and Daniel Woods have all gone on to master outdoor rock climbing in a stupidly short period of time. They are conscientious, ethical and great for the future of our sport. Climbing in a structured environment supported by committed coaches has positively shaped their values. Most of the new generation brings a relaxed yet focused attitude to the table. I don't miss the anorexic, wobbler-ridden pose-downs of the early 1990s one bit.
Competitions are the next frontier of climbing. I think that in five years, we will read about climbing competitions in more detail and with more excitement than ever before. Pro competitions will continue to grow and a sustainable pro tour will help the best and brightest focus completely on climbing should they so choose. Perhaps some of the best climbers in the world will hardly climb on real rock at all. Actually, it's already happening in Europe.
I understand that some people don't get comps. I guess if you don't like loud music or the nervous energy of a crowd waiting to see something great, then you won't like comps. But I still challenge you not to be impressed at the finals of a top-flight pro competition.
Luckily for you, the two biggest bouldering comps ever in North America are making 2008 a benchmark year.
First, USAC brought the first World Cup to the U.S. since Berkeley in 1991. The Teva Games in Vail, Colorado, was an enormous success. It was packed with thousands of spectators, had exciting upsets, and a brilliant finale. We were wowed by the dominance of Killian Fischhuber, of Austria, and were lucky to see Alex Johnson, an American, take the first-place podium for women.
Next, the Mammut Bouldering Championships are returning to the Summer Outdoor Retailer show August 8th and 9th in Salt Lake City. The 2007 Bouldering Championships event was the biggest bouldering competition since the X-Games and the biggest ever to be solely supported by the climbing industry. That is a crucial point. The Billabong Pipeline Masters is probably the most famous competition in surfing, but there would be no Pipeline Masters without the Billabong before it. In order for professional competition climbing to grow the sport, the industry, and therefore the community, have to see the value in comps, the value of using comps to support the best and brightest stars, the value of using comps to expand what is possible in climbing.
Of course, the real value of comps is being there. Something unbelievable will happen, something you really have to be there to see. I'll be in Salt Lake City this summer waiting to see what happens next. You should be there, too.
Pete Ward is a Managing Partner of NE2C, owners and operators of the Bouldering Championships pro climbing tour.


text:
Men's Nike Flight 13 Basketball Shoes
Select a size above
Size Chart
Buy Online & Pick Up In-Store
Check Availability at stores near you.
The Men's Nike Flight 13 Basketball Shoes have a revolutionary design that has been inspired by an old favorite, the Air Jordan IV. The Flight 13 have borrowed the speckled midsole from the Air Jordan IV, but have new and improved color ways that are sure to excite.
Besides the cool '80s design look of the shoe, they also feature Air Max technology for a responsive, cushion-y stride, and a thick rubber outsole to provide you with all the traction you need, pivot after pivot.
Even if you don't use the Nike Flight 13 for the court, it's still a must-have addition for your Flight collection.
- MIDSOLE: Air Max
- OUTSOLE: Rubber


text:
It's important to note that while the report was issued in 2006 and appeared in the media in 2007, the tests it references were actually carried out in 2004-2005.
- Advanced technology X-ray systems, used to screen carry-on baggage, which feature multiple views of the item and enhanced detection capability. Currently, there are more than 940 AT X-ray units deployed to airports nationwide.
- Advanced imaging technology, which safely screen passengers for both metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons and explosives. There are nearly 500 units deployed to airports, and the use of the technology has led to the detection of more than 130 dangerous or illegal items in the last year.
- Enhanced pat-downs, which were deployed to greatly increase TSA's detection capabilities for threats such as those seen last year on Christmas Day.


text:
Visit our other Wisconsin Historical Society websites!
Refine or narrow your results by clicking any term in the gray boxes below.
Expand your results by removing any breadcrumb in a gray outlined box above. Click on the blue "X" to remove the term.
Narrow your results by entering a keyword into the search box above. Then click the "Search Within" checkbox, then click on the orange "Search" button.
If you did not find what you are looking for or you did not get any results, try changing your search term(s). See our Search Help page for more tips.
Community: Yorkville
County: Racine
Historic Name:
Reference Number: 12259
Community: Portage
County: Columbia
Reference Number: 40975
Community: Fitchburg
County: Dane
Historic Name: Student Observatory
Reference Number: 233000
Community: Madison
Historic Name: Washburn Observatory
Reference Number: 102240
Reference Number: 41574
Community: Oshkosh
County: Winnebago
Historic Name: Buckstaff Observatory
Reference Number: 17003
Community: Williams Bay
County: Walworth
Historic Name: Charles T. Yerkes Observatory
Reference Number: 81162
If you didn't find the material you searched for, our Library Reference Staff can help.
Call our reference desk at 608-264-6535 or email us at:
© 1996-2017 Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706