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.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Like what? Ron Paul wants a minimal government so the "worse things" would mainly be a complete lack of a government "safety net", ie welfare state, as opposed to actively doing bad stuff.
Moderation is often the best policy. Pure socialism or pure capitalism are both bad ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If history is any guide, most people on the outside rail against the "system." They promise to bring change, to root out corruption, to make government smaller, etc. etc. Once they get in, all of a sudden they think that certain subsidies are all right, that some compromises need to be made, etc. etc. Funny how those exceptions happen to benefit themselves or they campaign contributors.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would know that he is a unwavering supporter of the Constitution. That includes denouncing blatantly unconstitutional actions like spy vans, warrant-less wiretaps, etc.
To suggest that Ron Paul would allow states to do anything they like, in violation of the constitution, is so stupid it's almost hard to believe you're not intentionally trolling. His entire political basis for states rights is that *it's what the fucking Constitution says*. Like it or not, the federal government has expanded way, way beyond the powers given to it in the foundational framework of the union.
Want a federal government that's stronger than what the Constitution allows for? That's fine with me. I think I do too. But to shit on Ron Paul because wants to follow the fucking rules and insist that such changes be made properly through amendments, etc. rather than just bussed in by the crooked politicians de jour, is shockingly stupid.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with treating the constitution as something holy and unchanging is that this isn't 1787. It seems ludicrous to me to be obsessing about what the intent of the "founding fathers" was and using their will as an absolute basis for everything to follow. At a certain point that becomes it own quasi-religion.
Back when the constitution was written it was unlikely most people would ever interact with people from different states. Other than the rare news stories there would be no way to even know wh
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're wrong about the level of interaction between citizens in the early US states. They were tightly linked in terms of trade, culture and defense. In a crude 5th grade summary: tobacco and cotton came from the south, machined tools and clothing came from the north. Grain, lumber, gunpowder, lead, iron, coal, cattle, etc. were all shipped between states in a web of supply and demand.
Furthermore, news was not rare. The early US had several successful newspapers that were widely distributed.
Anyway the question of the best balance between state and federal power doesn't matter until we the people have some way to effect it. Our current way, the drafting and protection of laws and documents like the Constitution, don't mean shit if the federal government can do as they please without regard for the rules. That most important first step is to demand that everyone play by the rules as they are written. The second step is to debate what rules we should make or repeal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the beauty of the Constitution is that the people who wrote it figured that times would change, and thus it contained provisions for amending the document.
Do you think that the Federal government should have more powers. Fine, get 2/3rds of congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to approve that and now the Federal government can do more. Want a monarchy while you're at it - fine, just get the appropriate parties to vote for it.
The problem is that nobody wants to do that, instead we just ignor
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ignore ANY part of the Constitution, then you might as well ignore it all. Seriously. This argument has been hashed around for hundreds of years now. Either it has meaning, or it doesn't. There is little -- if any -- middle ground. There is no justification for ignoring part of it but obeying other parts. So if you ignore part of it, all of it is effectively dead.
And a Government without rules is not a democracy (or, more properly, a Republic). It is, by definition, a tyranny.
So you don't get to just ignore it because you think it's out of date. A method for making changes is available. But if laws are passed that ignore it, those laws themselves are illegal... they have no legal authority. This was a guarantee made to the States, before they would agree to ratify the Constitution in the first place.
There are rules, and they are there for very damned good reasons. If you support un-Constitutional laws, then you are little more than a criminal yourself. Why, then, should anybody treat you as though you were not?
Proper rules for amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the proper method would be to change those parts of the Constitution that have become obsolete, not to violate them.
Civilized society needs to follow established rules, not let a bunch of petty dictators act as they see fit.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why when they wrote it, they made it so it could be amended, but not easily. They amended it to give the feds the power to outlaw alcohol, for instance; history shows it was a stupid decision but at least they did it legally. Not so when they outlawed other drugs.
But the fact is it is NOT unchangeable. But there's a proper way to go about changing it. Ignoring it is anarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no such thing as an "honest guy" (at least in the context you mean it) who is highly qualified. Anybody qualified would recognize the necessity of politics to get things done. You hate politicians for being politicians, but politics is how things get done. Frustratingly slow? Sure, but if you don't stroke some egos, make some compromises and pay some lip-service, you can't get the votes you need to do anything accomplished. That's the sad truth. There's a reason all the idealists slowly turn in
Re: (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.
xkcd (Score:3, Funny)
http://xkcd.com/779/ [xkcd.com]
Gotta look your "best" for the backscatter scan!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"It isn't congress's job to decide if something it passes is constitutional. ... If the people want something unconstitutional it is congress's duty to see that it gets passed."
That's just ludicrous. And 100% wrong. Congress -- every single member -- has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Knowingly passing any law that violates the Constitution is a violation of that oath. Further, House rules call for ALL bills to show the Constitutional authority for the proposed law. They don't always follow the rules, but those ARE the rules.
"If it were the legislative branches job to both represent the people -and- decide if the laws were constitutional their goals would often be at odds, so constitutionality simply isn't part of their job at all."
Your understanding of the duty of Government branches would be funny if it were not quite so bizarre. Any alien who applies for citizenship in the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That still contradicts GP's assertion that Congress has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Informative)
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-
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Um, simply, no. At least with respect to the truck (since the glove box is within the 'wingspan' of the vehicle's occupant(s), it's been given different treatment). Speaking not just as a lawyer (although predominantly civil, I've handled criminal matters), but as a citizen who has encountered the police under such circumstances and has many good friends in law enforcement (I was the only member of a recent wedding party *not* wearing an ankle holster; bunch of G-Men...)...
". . . [A]ny reasonable officer would recognize that, under clearly established law, Freeman's refusal to consent to a warrantless search . . . could neither itself justify an arrest nor create probable cause . . ." Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 416 (5th Cir. Tex. 2007) (citing to SCOTUS, Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 213-214 (1981)).
Graves v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 339 F.3d 828, 842 (9th Cir. 2003): "[R]efus[al] to consent to search cannot be used to establish probable cause."
"It is well [**6] established that a refusal to consent to a search cannot be the basis for a finding of reasonable suspicion. Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 495-96 (3d Cir. 1995). In United States v. Williams, the court recognized that an officer's consideration of a defendant's refusal to consent to a search would violate the Fourth Amendment. 271 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1019, 122 S. Ct. 1610, 152 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2002)." United States v. Leal, 235 Fed. Appx. 937, 939 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007)
Etc.
Re: (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:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:If it violates an amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
No conspiracy here, move along (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, honestly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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
Spouting a lot of bull (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (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:Ok, honestly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, its easy to purchase a gun, but to shoot it with accuracy? To stop a mob of people from taking you down? If people could conceal carry anywhere that would add in another dimension to it
The fact that some things -are- possible doesn't mean that they are likely, or even possible.
For every "successful" bombings, there have been thousands of failed ones.
The only "successful" attacks have happened be
Re: (Score:2)
I think I could easily permanently blind dozens (or more) of people with a high powered handheld laser, and I can do this from a fair distance (100+ metres). I think there are many cases where you have hundreds or thousands of people looking at the same spot...
You can buy these lasers online. They make no noise and are easily concealed. By the time people see the beam, it's too late. Most peopl
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok, honestly? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds easy on paper but history tells something radically different.
Re: (Score:2)
Say i was one of these terrorists everybody is so worried about.
All you need is a Van(or a car, van is better), a Fertilizer bomb (easy to manufacture) you could add bags of nails around the bomb to encrease fragmentation and a nice, public place with a lot of people.
...
If one whanted to kill people there is nothing stoping him/her.
Ah, so what you are saying is this technology wont do anything to stop scenarios like yours? Then why do you seem to be arguing for it's need?
Re: (Score:3)
My simplest explanation is this: We focus our resources on stopping groups from planning attacks. We basically have to write off the risk of a crazy loner acting alone. You're right, it is easy to buy a gun, bring it into a stadium/subway car/whatever, and start shooting. If someone wants t
Re: (Score:2)
The people who carry out the attacks are pretty stupid, the people giving the orders and making the plans are not.
Critically important (Score:2, Insightful)
Law enforcement considers the beach based vans critically important to beach safety.
Since over 95% of the population approves (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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: (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: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.
Re:A bad idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Hey, Mr. Glass-Half-Empty. . . (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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]
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
I'm going to make.. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Hah! With the right aerials, i can top up my hybrid's battery as it is parked on the street.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
...some clever bastard rigs up something that is triggered by an x-ray detector?
Can't wait for... (Score:5, Funny)
..."Google X-ray backscatter view". Germans are really going to love that one!
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 ti
Re:I can think of a good use (Score:4, Insightful)
if this isn't some sort of joke you should be neutered and have your children taken away.
Re:I can think of a good use (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you are posting as a teenager in your mom's basement, please just ignore this for another 5 or 10 years. Someday it will be important to you.
As a teenager living in his parent's house, I find the issue extremely important to me. The preservation of free society against incursion of moralism and safetism is one of the most important aspects of sustaining oneself. In fact, as a parent, it should be more important to you than it is to me, because your child's life depends on it. The ultimate progression of a non-free society (which these vans and your idea are) is the genocide and killing of the undesirables. Wether your non-free society is based on the worship of government, race, health, the environment, or the greater good over the rights of the individual, the ultimate result is the killing of the undesirables. Your idea might save 100 or 1000 children in the short run. However, it, combined with all the other ideas for protecting people will lead to a genocide killing millions, as well as the war to overthrow that genocidal government. The most dangerous people are those that seek to protect us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us read it. And its a good story about some very sad tragedies. But also very rare. So we are trying to figure out why you posted the link. Sure, it would be great if one of these roving vans just happened to spot a kid sitting in a hot car. It would also be great if random police raids would occasionally catch some kids just prior to their getting into the cleaning chemicals or daddy's gun safe.
What it smells of is a "think of the children" justification for losing some more rights.
modest proposal (Score:2, Insightful)
Different device, same theory (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
This is awsome for the police! (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Good job team! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Likewise in people, plants, that sort of thing....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the glass is made in china!!
Cause its leaded. Probably.
Re: (Score:2)
The only question is: How do these scanners work, and How can we make them unable to see into our vehicles and other private places ?
Is there a material we can apply to the walls in our house and the windows + frames of our vehicles to negate the utility of these scanners against our possessions?
Yes, I think they call it lead. Sadly, I hear it's pretty toxic, pretty high mass and thus pretty heavy. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It uses ionizing radiation, which is known to cause DNA damage, in constrast to cell phones, wifi, etc?
Re:not only that (Score:5, Informative)
There is no minimun safe threshhold for ionizing radiation. The danger is cumulative across your lifetime. Radiation-related workplace safety regulations all take this into account. Some of the full-body scanners for airports use microwaves instead of X-rays, and so don't have this concern (though there may still be cause for concern).
This isn't some debatable area where there's no good evidence, but more reasearch might be helpful, like cell phone radiation. The effects of ionizing radiation is well-studied, and never safe at any level. There's a reason the dental technician leaves the room when she takes your dental X-rays, you know.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a background level of ionizing radiation that is more or less unavoidable, and there is an average yearly exposure level due to environmental exposure. As such, there are certainly quantities of radiation exposure that are negligible compared to environmental exposure.
For that matter, there are legally-defined acceptable levels of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. (I worked at a synchrotron, where exposure to high-energy X-rays is unavoidable and carefully measured.)
The reason the dental