The Glade 4.0

The images shown online are what the images actually look like, I just don't see the issue with them, and for all I know one of the images out there could be me as most of the images they show are company PR images, no labeling as to who's who is kept and you really can't tell who the person is even without the facial blurring applied. I've seen both Millimeter wave and backscatter images directly from the systems as the company I work for now does millimeter wave, my previous company does backscatter. I've seen images of the scans and have been scanned over a decade ago, well before they were even in the public eye actually.

Of course the whole privacy issue if the scanners will be moot soon anyways as the only thing that will see the images are the computers in the system itself that analyzes the scans.

This is going to sound odd, but can you link a site with actual pictures of the scans? I've seen a ton that claim to be actual images, but the variances are to severe to know which have been manipulated by editing software, which are legit, and which are just really crappy reproductions.


No offense, but this akin to saying the whole privacy issue will be moot because the systems don't have hard drives to record and save the images. That worked out so well.

No the existing system did not work or the shoe bomber wouldn't have gotten through. Dogs sniff luggage but not passengers. Move the dogs to the line of people.

_________________

Dude, they use the dogs on people too, just not extensively. They should be used more, if that's what you meant by "replace the system" then you're right.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'd rather have a german shepherd stick his nose in my crotch than get fondled by a TSA agent

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I have yet to see or hear of a dog actually sniffing passangers in an airport line, but that would be great if they used that instead.

It isn't like it needs to stick its wet dog snout up in your **** to smell stuff either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, I've not seen them "walking the line", as it were. The way I've encountered them was either at relatively stationary posts or intermingled with travelers on the concourse. I've often wondered why they don't use them more, but I figure it probably comes down to bending over backward about offending people's sensibilities.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Most people react well to dogs I think. There's always a sort of fascination with their abilities, and the "oh cute puppy!" factor. I think it has more to do with limited numbers of dogs and handlers. Dogs require a lot of raining, and unlike machines they need time off to eat and rest.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yup, straight off my companies public website.

http://www.safe-view.com/advancedimaging/L-3%20composite%20300dpi.jpg

And this is what the newer system's images look like that the TSA sees

http://www.safe-view.com/advancedimaging/Mannequin1_brand%20300dpi.jpg

Our system is the millimeter wave one fyi.



I'm still curious as to who's machine it was that the images were taken from, I know our systems as shipped to the TSA are unable to save, only our machines for internal testing can save, of course that doesn't stop someone from taking a pic with a camera of the screen, though with the new systems even that is not possible.

See? Cute puppies!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've asked a couple of times, but no answer as of yet...

Does any here actually plan on participating in any acts to protest the scanners other than scathing posts on some obscure internet forums?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm curious -- if posting one's opinions on an "obscure internet forum" is such a worthless pursuit .... why are you here?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

As a hobby it's just fine, but as knicker twisted as folks are about this I'm thinking if they aren't going out and protesting it's all hot air.

I'm just trying to figure out if it's a real problem for folks or just total bullshit. Some I have figured out already, some I haven't.

One either walks the talk or they don't.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Lord knows raising public awareness of issues will always be sneered at as "hot air" and derided as "bullshit", but I believe it has obviously had the desired effect. I don't plan on "protesting"; the only way to have an effect in this instance through direct protest has the unwanted (to me) effect of inconveniencing people trying to go see their families. However, I have waived my contract fee and am working pro bono for an organization that has filed lawsuits against the DOJ and DHS. Lastly, due to a death in the family I am driving back to the Midwest Thursday night rather than participate in the wonders of security theater.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yep they don't get my money cause I won't use them. In addition, those that advertise on their websites I've informed that neither the company nor the airline will recieve a single dollar from me. While I'm sure it's a piddly annoyance easily ignored, if even a fraction of the people who feel as I do take the same action, the pressure on the airlines/airports will fix themselves.

But if you mean am I going to go stand in a TSA line and cause a stink? No, thats a fairly pointless way to go about it. I prefer to hit them in their tenderest part- the wallet. Protest is for raising the profile of a cause, not fixing it.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Honestly this all makes me much less inclined to travel. I don't want to be x-rayed or groped.

Based on the backlash over the "new" system and the TSA's response, I don't think sensibilities come into play.

_________________

I find it hilarious that it's okay to do these scans on US citizens who show no credible threat yet everybody gets their panties in a bunch if Arizona wants to allow cops to ask people to provide proof of legal status to be in the country after a lawful traffic stop.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Yep. I'll bet you a dollar if the AZ cops started doing "enhanced pat downs" and scans on people crossing the border illegally there'd be a firestorm of unprecedented proportion.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Airports are shutting off backscatters for today to avoid PR disaster.

http://gizmodo.com/comment/33032822

'Cause SamNobody on a blog says so?

Uh huh, right.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/1 ... n_use.html


But, if you want, I'll show you a blog:

http://blog.tsa.gov/

They have pics, too!



CNN and FOX are calling the protest a bust after building it up all morning.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I can shed a little bit of light on the altitudes of aircraft. Granted, I'm a turboprop not an airline jet pilot, and I fly in Northern Canada so the rules are different here than in the US where traffic is much more regulated.

First, today's turbofan engines perform much, much better at higher altitudes than at low altitudes. Their fuel efficiency is much improved up high, and airplanes enjoy a greater True Airspeed at higher altitudes than at low altitudes. True Airspeed is basically the speed at which an airplane is actually flying compared to the air around it; and is a function of the pressure altitude (altitude corrected for the barometric pressure) the aircraft is at with the outside air temperature. The airspeed displayed on an aircraft's instruments is not the actual speed at which is traveling (thats called Indicated Airspeed). I'm not the best at explaining the finer points of airplane dynamics, so maybe a trip to Wikipedia will explain it better haha. As an example, the twin-engined turboprop I used to fly would burn approximately 2500lbs of fuel per hour at 5500feet (slightly over 1 statue mile). If we climbed to 12,500' or 14,500', fuel burns would drop to 2000lbs/h or even slightly lower. Now, this is an older turbine-powered prop engine, but you can still see the advantage. Fuel is very high on any airlines cost structure, if not #1, so you can see why they would want to get the most efficient performance out of their engines. That is just a very basic explanation of the altitude mechanics, you could spend hours reading up on it. For example, look up "coffin corner", which is a pretty neat concept that aircrews have to keep in mind at cruising altitudes.

Another reason to fly up high is weather avoidance. Up at 35,000' there is pretty much no weather to worry about except for the top portions of large thunderstorms, which can be seen and avoided at that altitudes. Turbulence is usually pretty good at those altitudes also, with the exception of clear air turbulence, which I'm sure we've all been the victim of surprise turbulence at cruise level that has spilled our drinks haha. Obstacle clearance is also a non-issue at that height...well unless you're flying around Mount Everest haha. You also have to think about noise pollution from turbofan engines. A airliner cruising around at 1mile at cruise power will likely cause a few barking dogs and complaints from the neighbourhood haha. Up at 30,000', not much of a concern. In Canada we have a speed restriction of 250knots below 10,000' (just under 2 miles) and 200knots below 3000' within 5 miles (around there, can't remember exactly how many) or so of an airport. Obviously airliners can travel much faster than that hehe.

In North America, and I believe Europe but I can't be sure, above 29,000' is what is called Reduced Vertical Seperation Minimum (or RVSM) airspace for aircraft with certain equipment and requirements met. Below that altitude, aircraft need to have 2000' of seperation vertically from other aircraft. For aircraft meeting the equipment standards, and cruising above FL290 (Flight Level 290, aka 29,000'. Above 18,000' altitudes are assigned Flight Levels in 1000' increments), the seperation is reduced to 1000', hence allowing Air Traffic Control to have more aircraft operating safely in the same amount of airspace than before.

Anyways, that's a pretty basic explanation of altitude advantages for aircraft. As I said I'm still relatively inexperienced as a pilot (about 2,500hrs total time) but I still know a little bit about the industry

I've missed 5 pages of discussion, but suffice to say that my health concerns are not "strawmen" fabricated against this technology.

As to doing anything about the issue, I've attached my name to numerous petitions and always seek to avoid commercial air travel when possible.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/c ... 34724.html

You should protest folks using a cell phone around you before protesting this tech, then.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Organizations citing themselves is really not credible evidence.

Also, are you equating a cell phone to an X-ray machine, a known carcinogen? These machines have far much more in common with x-rays.

This is what I don't understand. People want the FDA to regulate new medical scans and procedures, but in the name of "security" we waive all of that and just go "gee, sure I'll subject myself to unknown factors that have previously been known to cause harm, all in exchange for some nebulous good."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine