Full-Body Scanners Deployed In Street-Roving Vans 312
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.'"
Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guarantee you that... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
CopKiller (Score:1, Interesting)
HERF devices could easily fry these scanners while high powered laser pointers can destroy the CCDs in cameras. People need to fight back or get out of this shitty country (the FoxNews pigs aren't dying quickly enough).
Re:A bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Think of the children (Score:1, Interesting)
"Mommy, why does that van keep driving around our school?"
Really now, when it comes to opposing excuses for doing things of "terr'ists" and "think of the children" which one do you think will win out?
Maybe I should ask "What would Jesus do?"
Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer (Score:3, Interesting)
Viva la resistance! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
how long until.... (Score:3, Interesting)
...some clever bastard rigs up something that is triggered by an x-ray detector?
I can think of a good use (Score:2, Interesting)
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 tissues of babies or pets in the vehicle, versus the solid metal of guns or something -- I don't know if this part is even feasible.
OK, you can start the "think of the children" cat calls now. :P But I bet there are a few Slashdot parents out there (like me) who would love to see some backup protection against their worst nightmare. The scenario is that you forget to drop your kid off at daycare, then run in to work. Many hours later, you return to your car, at which time it's too late. Your typical working parents have the opportunity to make this mistake every morning at seven, five days a week.
Re:A bad idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
guess what (Score:1, Interesting)
Before anybody even thinks of defending this technology they should at least study it's affects on pacemakers. seriously.
Re:Really? (Score:1, Interesting)
Right, but it can also detect the differences in densities, just like a regular xray. So a group of "students" walking down the street could be scanned and the one "student" with a "book" that looks completely different from the other books could be flagged. As could a car siting outside the [$Important Building] with a trunk full of oddly shaped things that aren't normal looking trunk things.
If you watched the video, they claim that being scanned by one of these things is the equivalent amount of xrays as flying on a plane for 15 minutes. These are less like the old fashioned lead apron xray machines and a lot more like the new digital detector ones where the operator doesn't need to run away in fear. I don't even think it penetrates the skin very much. We probably have more to fear from broken CRTs and broken street lamps [wikipedia.org].
As for the legal analysis, I'm not sure whether this violates the 4th amendment. Certainly, if it isn't scanning people or their homes, it can't violate people's rights. And I'm not sure if it would even violate the constitution in it's original form, or as interpreted. It is really just enhancing what a normal person might be able to see if they looked close enough. You are in public: if the sun is really bright or the wind kicks up just right and I can see your poontang or the glint of your concealed firearm, I haven't violated your rights. Nor have I done so if I have a camera that doesn't block UV (or IR? I forget) and take your picture.
The difference is what I (or the State) does with it. Like the airport scanners: legal. Saving pictures of scans for no reason: not legal. Taking an IR picture of your tits and jerking off at home? Legal. Selling that? Probably not legal.
To me, the spirit of the 4th amendment is twofold: to check law enforcement from bothering people or their homes for no reason, and attempting to guarantee some level of protection for the same if they DO have a reason. That if the police (executive branch) wants to do something, then the judicial must sign off.
Vancouver olympics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A bad idea... (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:If it violates an amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama, Kerry, Dean, Clinton, Regan, Bush Sr., Cheney, all have this bullshit slickness to their speech, where they dance and talk circles and refuse to speak clearly and refuse to make firm answers to difficult or unflattering questions. Some people suck that up and look at policies, etc. That's fine for them, I guess, but it's probably also the reason that lying assholes run this country for the benefit of the rich.
Give me an honest guy, who is highly qualified and sincere, over a lying mouthpiece any day.
FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
some history and the future... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ok, honestly? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Different device, same theory (Score:3, Interesting)
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 explosives) and is only used in particular situations where warrant protections are not as strong.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
You should also take a look at his policies if you think that corporations are happy with Ron Paul (they're not) or that he has a lust for power (he's consistently humble and well mannered).
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem with the federal government is that they stole way, way more power than they were ever intended to have. If the people or states had voted to give the federal government these powers, it wouldn't matter. But the government stole those powers, and continues to steal powers even in direct contradiction to the Constitution (Patriot Act, etc.).
Ron Paul has always said, if we need the federal government to do something, let's give them the power legally. We can't let them steal power and continue stealing power without objection. It's hard to imagine that so many people just accept that we're ruled by an all powerful central government, when our supposedly most sacred document explicitly says that such shit is not allowed.
With that said, I'd be happy to let the federal government handle some things, like universal health care, if it were properly accomplished according to rules setup for our country.
Re:A bad idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
>>I suggest you do a search for "cumulative radiation."
The FDA uses cumulative radiation exposure because they don't have any better metric. They already know it's a flawed measure, but nobody is sure where the threshold lies, so they don't use one. For example: http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/biological/stochastic/leukemia.htm [ndt-ed.org]
While you might like to pretend that 1 rad a day is equivalent to 365 rads one day a year, it's not, as common sense should tell you.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that may be true, but then they just call out the "drug/bomb sniffing dog" and yank on its leash while it's near your car so it barks, and then bam, "probable cause."
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
You may not agree with his politics, but even his enemies (who know anything about him anyway) know better than to question his honesty. Because they can easily be shown to be wrong, and they would be laughingstocks.
Re:Vancouver olympics (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Just for fun, load up your trunk with a dozen bags of Gold Medal Flour and park downtown for a while. When they eventually pull you over for a broken taillight and ransack your car, you'll have stung them....