Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Transportation Your Rights Online

Full-Body Scanners Deployed In Street-Roving Vans 312

Posted by timothy
from the this-slope-sure-feels-slippery dept.
pickens writes "Forbes reports that the same technology used at airport check points, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on US streets where law enforcement agencies have deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs. 'It's no surprise that governments and vendors are very enthusiastic about [the vans],' says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. 'But from a privacy perspective, it's one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.' Rotenberg adds that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment. 'Without a warrant, the government doesn't have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,' Rotenberg says. 'If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Full-Body Scanners Deployed In Street-Roving Vans

Comments Filter:
  • by houghi (78078) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:01PM (#33404302)

    I wonder what they will change. The amendment or make the use of these illegal.

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:11PM (#33404352)
      Neither. The government these days can either selectively decide which parts of the constitution to follow, the courts can selectively decide how to "interpret" it and congress simply ignores the constitution. How many congressmen (excluding Ron Paul) really make an effort to decide whether something is constitutional or not? The PATRIOT act was blatantly unconstitutional yet it passed with little opposition, many, many other laws have been passed that were blatantly unconstitutional that the issue of the constitution wasn't even raised.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by herojig (1625143)
        A little more then "a little opposition", so best to educate yourself: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml [educate-yourself.org] The point being that throwing hands in the air and proclaiming all is lost (unless Ron Paul is President) is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and just what the overlords want to see happen.
        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:46PM (#33404572)
          Ok, so let me get this right...

          These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patirot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.

          Out of all the members, only 2 people didn't vote in favor of it. Yeah, sounds like a lot of opposition...

          Yes, there were a few members of congress who voted against it, but if you really look at it, they simply wanted to opposed just about everything Bush was in favor of. They didn't make a conscious decision against it based on a constitutional point that they evaluate all their bills with, they saw that it was one of Bush's main points and voted against it.

          And I don't proclaim that "all hope is lost" I continue to vote but in most cases with the exception of local elections the people who I vote for don't win because the vast majority of America is so entwined in the two party system that they completely miss the point and instead vote for parties that are two sides of the same coin and only disagree on insignificant issues.

    • by FuckingNickName (1362625) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:12PM (#33404362) Journal

      No, just construct a specious argument that the Constitution/Amendment doesn't apply to this case. And ensure over time that the group of gentlefolk who get to strike down unconstitutional laws agree suspiciously often with you.

      That's how the US government's got away with it to now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Rockoon (1252108)
        This falls under their powers to regulate Interstate Commerce, just like everything.

        You might have something hidden on your person with the intent to cross state lines and then sell it. Obviously they have to scan you, me, and everyone. Kids too. Especially little boys.
        • by rhook (943951) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @04:49PM (#33405222)

          The founding fathers never intended the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to give the federal government the kind of power that it now uses the Commerce Clause as justification for. The whole point of the clause was to ensure that the states would be able to trade freely with one another and to ensure that the federal government could initiate trade with other countries and to allow the Indian tribes to have free trade with the states and federal government. The act does not say anything about allowing the federal government to regulate trade within a states borders, or interfere in people private lives (drug war, indecency laws, educational standards, minimum drinking age, etc). It is the sole basis of the federal governments claimed power to declare the war on drugs (a failed war that will never end), nobody seems to remember that alcohol prohibition took a constitutional amendment to begin and to end.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Text_and_pairing [wikipedia.org]

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
          “ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”

          The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. It must be noted, however, that the Constitution is more clear about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases-

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:27PM (#33404460)

      "If" it violates an amendment?

      In my uninformed (IANAL, etc.) opinion, this looks quite similar to--and if anything more egregious than--the circumstances in Kyllo v. United States [wikipedia.org], in which use of thermal imaging to look inside a private home was ruled unconstitutional without a warrant.

    • by crankyspice (63953) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:27PM (#33404462)

      I wonder what they will change. The amendment or make the use of these illegal.

      I'm reasonably sure this is already prohibited by the 4th Amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS. In Kyllo v. U.S. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com], the Court held: "obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," constitutes a search-- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." (A discussion of how the protection of a car differs from a house, legally, is beyond the scope of this post ;) but suffice to say there are at least some areas of the car and the person that are constitutionally protected...)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fluffy99 (870997)

        You're correct that a precedent has been set. The evidence can't be used in court and information gathered in such a manner can not be used as probably cause by itself. An anonymous tip about a car bomb in the area would be sufficient cause to do this non-invasive search and act upon whatever they find. Regardless, this ruling does not inhibit their ability to look for car bombs from a safety standpoint - they just have legal complications if they want to prosecute.

        Also note that the intended purpose is

        • by sjwaste (780063) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:17PM (#33404738)
          Not to mention, Kyllo probably does not apply at border checkpoints. From the perspective of your constitutional rights, as my crim law prof always hammered home, border checkpoints are different.

          I have absolutely no problem with using this technology at our borders, scanning cars parked on the departures curb at the airport, etc. I wouldn't want it roving through my neighborhood, though, and it probably won't because good luck prosecuting anything uncovered by this under normal circumstances (i.e. where Kyllo applies).
      • by pitchpipe (708843)

        I wonder what they will change. The amendment or make the use of these illegal.

        I'm reasonably sure this is already prohibited by the 4th Amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS.

        They won't change the amendment, they'll just ignore it, and SCOTUS will continue to water down these protections as they have been doing for the last 10 years.

        Although I'm not a conservative, I wish that they really stood for limited government (the military, police power, etc.) like they proclaim, and not just for limiting the parts that they don't like (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.). I'd respect them a whole lot more if they did.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:37PM (#33404530)

      Neither. If no one is allowed to wear clothes, then there is no "peeking under clothes" law being broken. Look for a "Only terrorists wear clothing" slogan on a billboard near you.

      • by 0111 1110 (518466)

        Now that's one "war on terror" fear inspired law that I could get behind 100%. Although I would offer an amendment that only females under 35 and weighing under 150 pounds would be forced to comply. All other compliance would be voluntary to show that you weren't hiding anything. I would also be in favor of selective enforcement by the mostly male police force. I think they could figure out for themselves who the most "egregious offenders" were. Any pretty girl who is clothed is an abomination. It has to st

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          only females under 35 and weighing under 150 pounds

          At least someone's thinking of the (female) children!

          For everyone else, there's NAMBLA Card.

          I have no idea why I just typed that.

          I'm sorry.

          I'm going to post this anyway just as an experiment to see how I get modded.

          Also, this is, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide!" taken to its inevitable conclusion.

          So I agree with you, except that it should compulsion should only apply to the families of those who support such government "protection".

          Because who wins out when the only way to protect

      • by Abstrackt (609015)

        Neither. If no one is allowed to wear clothes, then there is no "peeking under clothes" law being broken. Look for a "Only terrorists wear clothing" slogan on a billboard near you.

        I'd feel sorry for the people living in the northern states come winter.

    • by Ruud Althuizen (835426) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:38PM (#33404870)
      How many car bombs have we seen lately to justify these actions?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by slick7 (1703596)

        How many car bombs have we seen lately to justify these actions?

        It's only a matter of time until false flag bombings or worse occur or is it, have occurred?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I don't believe a constitutional amendment has ever been amended. But I am seriously considering going to law school to find out.
      Creating an amendment in the first place is difficult, and it only takes a very small population % to defeat a proposal.
      I would imagine removing an amendment would be an order of magnitude more difficult, as the same small population % could defeat it. And after 219 years people have become partial to the first ten, as removing one of them would also invalidate the Bill of Rights

  • by ZDRuX (1010435) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:04PM (#33404314)
    Don't listen to conspiracy nuts, all these things that have been talked about 20 years ago and have come to pass are just coincidences!! I swear!
  • Ok, honestly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:08PM (#33404330)
    Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious. No, some guy who carries a pocketknife daily who forgot to take it out at the airport is not a real threat.

    There are three reasons why we haven't had any "terrorist attacks" since 9/11

    A) Terrorists are stupid. Its not easy to carry out an attack.

    B) People are smarter. Pre-9/11 if your plane got hijacked you simply complied with the hijackers, landed in Cuba, and were on a flight back home later in the day. Today, if someone would try doing that, they would be stopped by the passengers. And unless there was a plane full of terrorists, the number of average passengers are much, much, much higher.

    C) Terrorists are rare. There aren't billions of terrorists everywhere, yes, there are a few, but the number of normal people outnumber them by far which makes stopping them very easy.

    9/11 was a one shot deal and only was successfully carried out because prior to that the standard operating procedure for dealing with a hijacker as a passenger was to let them do whatever they want and try to survive because they weren't crashing the hijacked planes in buildings.
    • Re:Ok, honestly? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:40PM (#33404544)

      You are missing:

      D) There is no need for a real incident. The first worked beyond Bin Laden's wildest dreams. All it needs to keep Americans locked up is the occassional shoe or underpants 'bomber'. The US politicians will then do all that is necessary to destroy America.

      • Re:Ok, honestly? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by S.O.B. (136083) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:11PM (#33404698)

        For once an AC that makes an insightful comment and me without mod points.

        The terrorists have continued to win since 9/11 because they continue to successfully insight terror.

        And every time you hear a call to accept this search or give up that privacy because if we don't then the terrorists win...don't bother, they just did.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The terrorists win every time we:

          Add another search and seizure method.

          Add anti-Muslim (or any religion) propaganda.

          Fail to close our borders because of the addiction to cheap labor on the bottom end (illegals from the South) and the top end (I-9s). Note: The last terrorist caught was an I-9, taking a job an American can do.

          Fuck around in some country without an active mission or path out. Iraq is now going to have its oil sucked out by the Russians and Chinese. Where is Bush's promise that the war wou

    • There have been THOUSANDS of terrorists attacks since 9/11, try Iraq and Afghanistan. What about Madrid and London? Those don't count? Because they don't strike were YOU claim they should strike? Here is a hint: THAT is how terrorism works. Strike ANYWHERE with the implied threat that it could happen ANYWHERE.

      There have also been attempts on US targets, FOUR at least. (Shoe-bomber, nigerian via dutch airline, car on times-sqaure, fort hood shooting) 1 out of 4 succeeded. Stupid attemps? No, just unlucky on

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AnAdventurer (1548515)
      My grandmother was on a plane hijacked in the 70's. It was LAX to JFK via layover in SFO. 30 minutes out of LAX a "crazy guy" (not a terrorist) with a gun took the plane over and had the pilots head to HNL. Upon the news over the intercom that the flight would be diverted (and was now a hostage situation) the passenger erupted in applause, apparently it was primarily business travelers. At least it's how Gran told the story. HNL = Honolulu.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by stephanruby (542433)

      Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious.

      No doubt at least one, child pornography, since they chose not to test these x-ray vans on themselves, but on random samples of the general population instead. It's a very high probability that they've essentially strip-searched, recorded, and taken naked unauthorized snapshots of a number of random children.

      This program must have been the bright idea of another Mark Foley pervert.

    • Re:Ok, honestly? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) on Sunday August 29, 2010 @01:16AM (#33407280)
      D) Why bother spending your resources to instill fear in your enemies when they're perfectly willing to do it themselves?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Law enforcement considers the beach based vans critically important to beach safety.

  • by countertrolling (1585477) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:10PM (#33404348) Journal

    Who am I to argue? To all of you fools who believe it can't get any worse, I can only say, step outside the door. You haven't seen shit.

  • A bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Magee_MC (960495) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:12PM (#33404360)
    "The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back."

    A doctor needs informed consent to do an X-ray because of the risk from radiation. Why do these people think that they can irradiate people just because they want to? At least, as I understand it, at the airport you can decline to be irradiated and get searched the old fashioned way. With this you have no right to decline, or even knowledge that it happened.
    • Re:A bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hedwards (940851) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:20PM (#33404410)
      Because ZOMG teh terrorists are going to attack. There's no legitimate reason, and the back scatter technique is likely to be even worse than what's been acknowledged as while the dose is for the whole body, the concentration of it ends up just inside the skin. Meaning that while it might be an acceptable amount of total radiation, it's focus in an area where you're at a heightened risk of skin cancer.

      Personally, I won't be flying again until some sanity has returned. Choosing between being assaulted with radiation or assaulted by TSA staff is not what I'd consider a reasonable function of government. In normal contexts that would be regarded as threat of violence and intimidation so that you allow them to take indecent liberties with your body. It isn't a question as to whether or not it's a violation of the 4th, it's a question of why we're even having to ask.
      • Re:A bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:31PM (#33404496)
        Plus, really the airline lobbyists need to tell the DHS and the FAA to stop subjecting their customers to crap. Because its a vicious circle.

        A) FAA/DHS pass some new stupid requirement

        B) Less people fly because of A

        C) Airlines, facing a loss of revenue try to cut costs in any way possible which makes even less people fly.

        D) GOTO A

        Airlines cannot be profitable when the government fucks with their customers. Before the airlines go broke/get nationalized they need to have their lobbyists put sanity back in flying.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        >Personally, I won't be flying again until some sanity has returned. Choosing between being assaulted with radiation or assaulted by TSA staff is not what I'd consider a reasonable function of government.

        But isn't this what the gov wants? To have you stuck in the US and only fed their own views.

    • Re:A bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mysidia (191772) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:59PM (#33404644)

      Aren't there electronic devices that can detect X-rays?

      Perhaps they could be countered by emitting an EM burst or EMP in the direction X-rays were detected in.

    • Re:A bad idea... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blueg3 (192743) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:23PM (#33404770)

      With X-ray exposure, quantity is important. You don't need to be informed that you'll be exposed to X-rays when you fly in an airplane or turn on an incandescent bulb, but you are.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      A doctor needs informed consent to do an X-ray because of the risk from radiation. Why do these people think that they can irradiate people just because they want to?

      The shorter your lifespan, the less likely you are to be the victim of a terrorist. You're welcome.

    • by Exitar (809068)

      I don't think it would be the first time that the US government do something harmful to its citizens:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

  • The presidential Secret Service will buy and use one of these. Wherever the president goes somewhere public, these scanners will be sweeping parking lots to pre-empt any possible dangers.

    That's my prediction

  • by Rivalz (1431453) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:26PM (#33404448)

    I'm going to make x-ray resistant clothing and supply it free of charge to everyone in america.
    Sure it might have a small side effect of being created with lead paint and turn your body into a microwave oven when they fire the xray in your direction. But just think of the look on the faces of the techs when they start to microwave innocent tax payers without their consent or knowledge and they drop dead. I might go as far to make pet clothing available but that has yet to be determined.

  • Neat! (Score:3, Funny)

    by zmollusc (763634) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:32PM (#33404498)

    Hah! With the right aerials, i can top up my hybrid's battery as it is parked on the street.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      Don't antennas generally need to be on roughly the same scale as the wavelength of the radiation they're interacting with? X-rays have nanometer-scale wavelengths.

  • by Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:46PM (#33404568)
    On the linked article, I saw a lot of civil libertarians and privacy advocates dismissing the health concerns of these devices as secondary to privacy concerns. While this maybe true, this is a bad way to influence the average person. Instead, we should be promoting a massive campaign to state that X-Ray devices of all types cause cancer and other radiation related illnesses. Leave any strange population control or other conspiracies out of it (even if you have them). We just want to instil this belief as an undercurrent that goes throughout society. Just like the current smart meter scare. As technical people, when we instil fear about something, people will listen.
    • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:08PM (#33404678)

      As technical people, when we instil fear about something, people will listen.

      Sure, right up until they figure out that we, like everyone else whom they thought they trust, have also been lying through our teeth. At that point they bring out the pitchforks, and rightfully so. Remember that old saw "we have seen the enemy, and he is us?" We have to be careful not to adopt too many of the tactics of those currently in power or we, in the end, are no better. The ends do not justify the means

      The reason that lay people tend to trust those with knowledge is because they don't have the ability to tell if that educated person is lying or incompetent, and because of that have no choice but to hope the expert knows what the Hell he's talking about. We've all been in that position at one time or another in our lives: having to trust someone that knows substantially more than we do about something important to us. It's rarely a pleasant position to be in.

      Are you really telling me that it's okay to deliberately lie to people, abuse their trust in a big way, simply because it's for their own good? Because we assume that it's for their own good? That's precisely what our government and our corporate leaders have been doing to us for years. So far as I'm concerned, if we're so far gone as a society that we can't fight this with reality, with facts, with what is, then We the People don't deserve to survive anyway. In any event, that's not a campaign of which I would choose to play a part. Furthermore, you will have to accept that there will be some deaths involved should you be successful in this, as people who might otherwise have received a medical X-ray or CT scan refuse them out of fear. There are always consequences to fearmongering and ignorance peddling.

      • That's true. I was very angry and did not think through the consequences of this idea.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ScrewMaster (602015)

          That's true. I was very angry and did not think through the consequences of this idea.

          Oh, make no mistake ... it irritates the Hell out of me too. Let's face it: power can be an intoxicant just as powerful as any psychotropic chemical compound, and is just as ripe for abuse. Personally, I believe the Drug Enforcement Agency's efforts would be better directed at politicians than drug users. Find the ones who are abusing the power to which they've become addicted and are abusing, and get rid of them.

    • by sjames (1099) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @04:35PM (#33405166) Homepage

      Just think, perhaps a secret police scan while mom was pregnant is why the kid ended up autistic. Or got cancer. Won't the police please think of the children?

  • Viva la resistance! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:51PM (#33404606)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector

    Send their radiation right back at 'em!

    Seriously. If they ever start doing this, I *will* build something that will let me reflect it all back.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by GrumblyStuff (870046)

      There may be a problem with that. I suggest reading up on the Chandra X-Ray Telescope [harvard.edu]. Long story short, because of the high energy, only shallow angles are used so the mirror in the telescope is more like a barrel.

  • how long until.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by st0rmshad0w (412661) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:53PM (#33404610)

    ...some clever bastard rigs up something that is triggered by an x-ray detector?

  • by geogob (569250) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @02:54PM (#33404614)

    ..."Google X-ray backscatter view". Germans are really going to love that one!

  • Spying on me without a warrant is a non-starter. But I personally would love some backup protection against accidentally leaving a young child in the vehicle on a hot day (before making snarky comments about Darwin Awards, read this Pulitzer prize winning article [washingtonpost.com]. It's not about intelligence. Just read it. Seriously.)

    A couple of problems might be: (a) narrowing down the scope of the search such that society would both desire and trust the process, and (b) figuring out how to detect living, moving soft ti

    • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:20PM (#33404756) Homepage
      There is something wrong with you if you need the government to run up and down the street with mobile scanners to ensure you didn't leave your child in the car. Forgetting your child in the car while you go to work shouldn't even be possible. How absent minded could you be?

      if this isn't some sort of joke you should be neutered and have your children taken away.
  • modest proposal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kylemonger (686302)
    Some rich libertarian should buy one of these machines and a van, and start roving the streets building their own image archive. And then they should link the photos to Google Street View. Fair is fair. No assumption of privacy on the streets, right? Besides, this kind of information can be useful for ordinary citizens. For instance, I can see how many gun/knife/crack-pipe toting people are in a given area and make my own decision as to how safe that neighborhood is. And since I'm not the government,
  • by davmoo (63521) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:17PM (#33404740)

    SCOTUS ruled several years ago (and I'm too lazy to get a link to the ruling right now) that law enforcement could not use things like infrared and thermal imaging of a house to detect pot-growing operations without a warrant. Their ruling was something to the effect of "If a person can't see it from the street without using fancy equipment, it needs a warrant".

    This is obviously different technology, but I fail to see how this would be any different in the eyes of SCOTUS and that ruling.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by blueg3 (192743)

      This is more intrusive than infrared imaging. In both methods, the user can "see" objects that they couldn't see without entering the house or searching the car. X-ray backscatter is an active method, though, sending X-rays at the target and measuring the results, rather than measuring radiation the target was emitting to begin with. I can't see how this will hold up in court, unless it's designed so that it can't "see" objects, but only "detect" very particular classes of objects (e.g., the presence of exp

  • Vancouver olympics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by future assassin (639396) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:35PM (#33404848) Homepage
    They were using the x ray vans in Vancouver. I know one person who works as a delivery driver and he got pulled over downtown Van for having several 24L bottles of liquid in his van. Also they were looking for other things too as I also know of one person busted for having 10+ lb of weed in the car while driving through an area where the vans patrolled.
  • by durrr (1316311) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @03:38PM (#33404872)
    If the officers don't like you, they'll peek at you naked with this device and then arrest you for undecent public exposure.

    Next up in law enforcement technology: Directed transcranial magnetic stimulation to disable the visual cortex of bystanders to prevent criminals from identifying those who protect us, dualing in its use for making criminals confess all crimes they are accused for.
  • FUD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dwillden (521345) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @04:42PM (#33405194) Homepage
    How about this use. They've sold 500 of these, most of them most likely to ports. These devices are used to scan cargo containers. They are used to scan cargo containers arriving at our military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I see no reason at all for these to ever be used in the general public in the manner being put forth in this FUD article.

    There is a legit and non-privacy invasive mission and use for these vehicles. Many more than 500 will be needed before we start getting to a surplus where they could be redirected to these "evil tactics". How many ports do we have, how many containers are unloaded every day, how many can they currently scan versus that total load.
  • by Simmeh (1320813) on Saturday August 28, 2010 @04:53PM (#33405238)
    When are these available for the public and will someone point me to the nearest police station/strip club? thanks! ;)

Good salesmen and good repairmen will never go hungry. -- R.E. Schenk

Working...