Full-Body Scanners Deployed In Street-Roving Vans

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.'"

Comments

If it violates an amendment

[houghi]

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

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Darkness404]

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:If it violates an amendment

[FuckingNickName]

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:If it violates an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"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, in which use of thermal imaging to look inside a private home was ruled unconstitutional without a warrant.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[crankyspice]

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, 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:If it violates an amendment

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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:If it violates an amendment

[herojig]

A little more then "a little opposition", so best to educate yourself: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml 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.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[fluffy99]

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 isn't for random searches in your neighborhood. The main deployments will be at the borders, ports, or other high-security areas where consent to be search is already implied. This is a great technology to employ at the borders to help stifle the influx of drugs and illegals. The technology is also quickly evolving to the point that we could have walk-through corridors at the airports like you see in the movie Total Recall.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[MightyMartian]

Not to mention if a maniac like Ron Paul became president, there would be much worse things to worry about than X ray machines in cars.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[mysidia]

Neither. The use of these is already illegal

Re:If it violates an amendment

[sjwaste]

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).

Re:If it violates an amendment

[canadian_right]

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:If it violates an amendment

[0111 1110]

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 stop.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Ruud Althuizen]

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

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[FuckingNickName]

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 yourself from terrorist bogeymen is to have hordes of paedophile bogeymen looking at your family naked?

Another single sentence paragraph.

Well, sentence fragment!

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Derosian]

Honestly like every other president, Ron Paul would probably only get a quarter of what he promises done if he became president, we would either be up shit creek or doing pretty well depending upon what area he succeeds in. Also on top of that, most of the bills would never clear congress. If you honestly didn't like McCain and you don't like Obama you SHOULD have voted for Ron Paul. At least he would have vetoed bills that would curtail constitutional rights, and he likely wouldn't have been able to change much as president, which is fine by me.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[pitchpipe]

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

[davester666]

Yeah, they would just hand you a NSL letter, tell you to fill in your name and address in the blank spot, then send you through the scanner.

All nice and legal. And you can't even tell anybody about it.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Abstrackt]

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

[slick7]

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.

It doesn't matter, a judiciously placed executive order (in the name of national security) is all that's needed.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

Bullshit like this comment shows your ignorance and you ability to be affected by propaganda.

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

[slick7]

but suffice to say there are at least some areas of the car and the person that are constitutionally protected...)

Refuse to open your trunk or glove box and see what happens. Refusal is a tacit admission of guilt and therefore is grounds for a search warrant.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

There's plenty I disagree with Ron Paul about, but one of the main things that attracted me was his honesty. You can tell, not just from the way he speaks, but from the way he gives the same answer every time regardless of who's asking, that he's a honest person who sincerely cares about the country.

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:If it violates an amendment

[slick7]

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:If it violates an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one way to fight back: claim that anyone using one of these devices must be into child porn.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[sjames]

So what you're saying is that the technology that will only ever be used if you freely choose to fly will now only be used in your neighborhood if some crank says there's a bomb (or a litebrite) or if they think you might have drugs (because you're within a hundred miles of the border perhaps?)

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Hint of Herring]

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).

I would be all for it if it actually meant AT THE BORDER. The problem lies in "at the border" being legally defined as "within 100 miles of the border". According to the ACLU, two thirds of US citizens live within that range.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[rhook]

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

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

[Cyberllama]

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 into politicians (see: Barrack Obama).

Re:If it violates an amendment

[crankyspice]

Refuse to open your trunk or glove box and see what happens. Refusal is a tacit admission of guilt and therefore is grounds for a search warrant.

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:If it violates an amendment

[westlake]

the Court held: "obtaining by...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...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 ;)

I think it would be unwise to frame the argument around "technology not in general public use."

It will never be easy for a court to deny the police a tool to counter an imminent and out-sized threat.

The truck bomb on the move. Human trafficking along the border.

The driver found with two kids locked in his trunk is probably not going to win on search and seizure.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[maxwells_deamon]

They have real x-ray machines for the borders and have for years. That has been held to be legal.

These are probably for bomb threats and for times when a large crowd will be gathered.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[ArundelCastle]

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

The justification is that they cannot see the car bombs without the scanner, and lives could be lost if we wait for a catalyst.
Didn't you get the memo? "Live free or die" was changed to "Die free or live".
Stark future indeed.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[ArundelCastle]

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.
And that is precisely the moment the terrorists win.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[(H)elix1]

I have absolutely no problem with using this technology at our borders, scanning cars parked on the departures curb at the airport, etc.

The issue, of course, is they extended the 'border' to include a strip of land 100 miles from the border, all around the US.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[KDR_11k]

They might find a whole lot more once these scanners are deployed and people look for ways to stop them...

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Criton]

None that's how many we need to fight back. Really I would not want this shit even if there was a car bomb going off every week. The government having this kind of power is far scarier then any terrorist.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Brilliant!

If you're wearing clothes, you're a terrorist and the government should arrest you.

If you're not wearing clothes, you're committing indecent exposure and you can be arrested and fined.

All the money people are no longer spending on clothes can go to other sectors of the economy, and the fines will help the government as well. Everyone (except the people) win!

Re:If it violates an amendment

[hitmark]

seems similar to how EU started as a trade agreement between france and germany, and have now spiraled into some kind of pan-europa super-nation.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Sperbels]

If you consider George Bush a moderate, I'd hate to see what you consider a non-moderate.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

It sounds like you're unfamiliar with Ron Paul and his history. It's forgivable that you think he's just looking for publicity, but I encourage you to look at his record. He's been saying the same things, and voting the same way, for 30 years.

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

[johnhp]

The US government was never meant to be a collection of provinces ruled tightly by a central government. The territories were known as "states", which as you know is the term usually reserved for independent nations or nations in a collective, rather than for provinces as is the case with Canada.

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:If it violates an amendment

[interkin3tic]

How many congressmen (excluding Ron Paul) really make an effort to decide whether something is constitutional or not?

All of them! If and when they disagree with the item in question due to their paying supporters, if and when they can't make a "It's gonna raise taxes" argument first.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[pinguwin]

> Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin....but if you really look at it, they simply wanted to opposed just about everything Bush was in favor of. Anyone who says this really has no idea what Feingold is about. He has consistently stood up against this kind of BS. He is still against this kind of thing now that they have that new guy in the president's office.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[InfiniteWisdom]

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 what was happening elsewhere. You couldn't hop in a car and have crossed several state boundaries in the space of a few hours. People wouldn't routinely be buying produced and shipped from a distant state.

I'm not saying that states should lose all authority to the federal government or that the balance today is exactly right, but I do think that the notion that they got it exactly right in the 18th century and that's exactly what we should be doing in the 21st century is laughable.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

You're seeing this all wrong. No one said that the Constitution is perfect and should remain unchanged. The only thing that has been said is that the federal government should be forced to operate within the terms of the Constitution. If new situations mean that the Constitution must be changed, then great. Some of the best parts of the Constitution are the changes that were made since it was written.

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:If it violates an amendment

[BlueStrat]

They might find a whole lot more once these scanners are deployed and people look for ways to stop them...

Simply use a backscatter radiation scan detector as one of the vehicle-bomb triggers. Here's what that might be like.

"OK Corporal, this car's clean, just some nice crotch-shots of those pre-teens sitting in the back seat to pass around back at HQ. Pull up to that truck."

"Yessir Lieutenant, proceeding now sir."

"I'm starting my scan...hey!!, there's a shitload of..."

kaBOOOOM!!!

After they lose a few dozen very expensive scanning vans along with the personnel, they may rethink the strategy. Or simply raise taxes and make this particular type of police/security service subject to involuntary and secret draft-by-NSL (unless you're a sufficiently-powerful politician or a member of his/her family/staff, naturally).

Strat

Re:If it violates an amendment

[pizzach]

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.

InfiniteWisdom, this means you are saying some things indirectly. One of them is that rules are made to be broken, not fixed or amended. The US government is going into lawlessness which can only result in ruin in the long run. You are also indirectly calling Europeans fools and also would like a world government. Obviously Europe shows what a failure a number of small independent countries is, right?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Rich0]

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 ignore the Constitution.

If you look at US history the government was not afraid to amend the Constitution when there was a need. However, in the last 50 years we've stopped doing that, and instead we just ignore the Constitution instead. I don't think we're better off for it.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[adavidw]

I don't believe a constitutional amendment has ever been amended. But I am seriously considering going to law school to find out.

You don't need to go to law school, only high school. Crack open a history book (they still teach history in schools, right?), and read about Prohibition and its repeal (specifically the 18th and 21st amendments).

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Skexis]

"Clearly our car bomb repellent is effective in the absence of carbombs!"
But kidding aside, we'd be better off asking the CIA how many carbombs are being planned (with both the means and the motive) to make them think x-ray vans are an effective deterrent. Asking a member of the general U.S. populace how many carbombs they've seen lately is not going to be an informed opinion by any means.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[WillDraven]

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

[KDR_11k]

Besides, do explosives really look that different from other objects on a backscatter scan?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[DamienRBlack]

You main problem is that you aren't taking into account the role the different branches of government play. It isn't congress's job to decide if something it passes is constitutional. Congress's job is to represent the people. If the people want something unconstitutional it is congress's duty to see that it gets passed. Of course unconstitutional laws should be repealed. That job belongs to the judicial branch. Checks and balance. 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. Constitutional checks are delegated to people appointed for life so that they don't have as much motive to corrupt the system for personal position and gain. It is a pretty good system, works out alright in the long term.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[FuckingNickName]

The pathological extreme being that it doesn't matter that "freedom" was never intended not to mean "slavery".

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

No, because States can't violate the Constitution, either. If something is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional across the board. The states do not get a free pass to ignore that.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

Then change the Constitution. Seriously. There is a process for amending it. Use it. Or get your Congresscritters to use it. Or shut up.

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?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

You and Derosian are both wrong. Ron Paul has been involved in politics for over 30 years, and in all that time, nobody has EVER been able to show that he broke even one campaign promise. He has always voted exactly the way he said he would. And he has NEVER voted for higher taxes, even once.

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:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

"I find Obama's speeches pretty clear, but then again my IQ is higher than the average."

I find them to be clear, too. But also what I find is that his willingness to actually carry out what he says, to be... well... missing.

And before you say "Health Care", let me remind you that the "Health Care" bill that actually passed had very little resemblance to anything he actually promised.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

"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 United States has to take classes that teach them about Government a lot better than that. They could teach you a thing or two. Maybe you should apply for citizenship?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[DMiax]

You are seeing it the wrong way. It is Ron Paul's likes that see he constitution as changeable. In this way it can be updated to reflect the new needs. On the other hand if you see it as immovable then you just disregard, with the final result that you have devalued the entire document, including the pieces that are still necessary. If the law is wrong you change the law. Especially for the most important one of the country. If you can disrespect a minor part of it and go unopposed it is possible that you can just disregard everything that is written there, including basic rights.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

Many people like to bring up this point but they are forgetting one crucial thing: the time in history during which the Constitution was written and ratified.

There is NO WAY in hell that the Constitution could have outlawed slavery and still been ratified by the States. It just would not have happened. So you really can't blame the Framers for doing the only things they could possibly do, and still end up with a Constitution at all.

What they DID do, however, intentionally or otherwise (I personally think intentionally), was to word all the other parts of the Constitution such that it only referred to People, rather than Free Men and Slaves. So that when it came time for a change, only a very small change really needed to be made. Just about all the rest of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were little more than clarifications of things that were already in the Constitution anyway.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[complacence]

Are you saying that because it's possible that someone's flawless record of integrity could be corrupted, we should just keep on voting for the already corrupt?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[GWRedDragon]

If you believe that the nature of the country has fundamentally changed such that the rules in the Constitution no longer are sufficient, that is exactly why it included an amendment process.

If, instead of simply ignoring the rules, amendments were passed, the boundaries would be better defined and more subject to the control of the people. Right now there are no boundaries, and the result is that Congress basically does all kinds of crazy stuff that regular citizens don't want.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[herojig]

You want this then: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296. Pretty impressive.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[MightyMartian]

http://the-discourses.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-and-slavery.html

Re:If it violates an amendment

[slick7]

Logic: Going wrong with confidence

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

This post is off the front page, so no idea whether you'll ever see my reply, but... Ron Paul says in the first five seconds that Lincoln didn't have to use war to end slavery. He states clearly and multiple times that slavery should not be allowed, that it is not a state's rights to enslave, and that his only point is that slavery could have been ended without the loss of 600k American lives.

Seriously, are you psychotic? Mentally challenged? I don't see why you can't understand the plain English in that minute-long video.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[seekertom]

I don't think we are saying we should keep the Constitution intact because the founders were like gods... rather, we are saying those guys knew some shit, probably way more than you and I, and we ought to take their opinions quite seriously. The case about the feds stealing their power from us has nothing to do with this argument, however, since the theft occurred outside the boundaries of the Constitution. The problem remains that the 'cops' whose job it is to enforce the law, ie the Constitution, don't enforce the law when it's the feds who are the perps. Street cops know about the law. When they observe it being broken, they bring the perp to trial, where it is determined if the law was actually broken. Here, there is no-one bringing the feds to court in the first place. Either the 'cops' don't know a law is being broken, or, there is some reason they decide to turn a blind eye. Now, if you and I and a bunch of other Americans can see what looks like a law, ie the Constitution, is being violated, why can't those 'cops'? That, my friend, is one of our biggest problems we need to fix asap.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[stonewallred]

Every member of our armed forces have a legal duty to refuse to follow unconstitutional orders. The congress is expected to follow the Constitution and to pass laws within its scope. There may be minor differences and the courts are there to right wrongs, but any congressman that voted for the Patriot act and any president who signed it should be taken out and hung until dead, by their necks, for high treason.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[stonewallred]

I think that we have lived a very sheltered and peaceful life here in America. I also think it is going to come to an end sooner, rather than later. Cops have already gone from friendly guys who chase bad guys and are there to help, to scary dudes in paramilitary gear and carrying assault weapons. Their tactics have changed also. Won't be long before folks start cop hunting. It won't take but a little and every cop will become a marked target and their families. And then we will see blood in the streets and real civil unrest.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Tiro]

Today, the "border" includes everything within 100 miles of a coastline or Canada or Mexico: Border Sweeps in North Reach Miles Into U.S..

Re:If it violates an amendment

[drinkypoo]

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.

This is an artifact of spending about two minutes on the constitution in school, which itself is due to the powers-that-be (and declare what the curriculum shall contain) not trying to create good citizens. School is designed to produce obedient taxpayers, soldiers, and people who can be kept in poverty to keep the privatized prisons running.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[mcgrew]

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:If it violates an amendment

[phorm]

In terms of states VS federation, a lot of things have changed over time, though. During formation, how long did it take to travel from one state to another? How long did it take trade between distant states or - possibly more importantly - the world.

There are some things that would make sense to keep its nose out of, but a lot of things that don't. Now I'm just a nosy know Canadian, but the variety in US laws/policy makes my head spin.

Some examples include things like laws regarding age-of-consent, gay marriage, etc.
Say you a girlfriend/boyfriend who's straddling the legal border and a year or two younger than you, no problem in state X... but what if she lives just across the "magical line" in state Y... now you're a criminal.
How about two persons of the same gender get married in state X and receive marital benefits, but then need to move to state Y due to work relocation or whatever. Are they still married?

In Canada, my personal peeve is traffic laws/rules. In Quebec, you CANNOT turn right on a red light. In most other provinces, you can safely and legally treat a red much like you would a stop-sign. My favourite though is the "blinking green light." In Ontario, it means the same as a left-turn arrow (protected turn, you can turn and nobody else is supposed to be crossing or going straight), but go west to BC, and it means that it's a pedestrian-controlled intersection (it never turns red unless a pedestrian hits the button), so anyone *thinking* they have a safe-left may get nicely T-boned.

There are plenty of things that should be managed at a federal level. Lots of things that *aren't*, in fact. The big problem is the things that - as you said - should *not* be managed by the fed and yet they've slowly clawed them in.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

"Say you a girlfriend/boyfriend who's straddling the legal border and a year or two younger than you, no problem in state X... but what if she lives just across the "magical line" in state Y... now you're a criminal"

Different age of consent between states may be confusing, but in the end, the "answer" is that you're bound by the laws of the state you're currently standing in.

"How about two persons of the same gender get married in state X and receive marital benefits, but then need to move to state Y due to work relocation or whatever. Are they still married?"

This one is easy: yes. The United States has something called full faith and credit. It means that most things, like marriages and driver's licenses, are equally valid in any state no matter which state issued them.

I can see how the Quebec stop light difference would be annoying though. Oregon does something a bit different, which almost got me in a wreck, but I'm still not sure what the hell happened (I took off when I got the green light and was almost destroyed by a wall of cars).

Re:If it violates an amendment

[stubob]

The difference is that Kyllo had a clear "privacy" boundary - the inside of your home. This case may set the precedent for "expectation of privacy" since you are in a public space while being imaged. I don't see how the case could be won, though. All the law enforcement would need to do is claim reasonable suspicion of whatever they're searching for, and then the right to search everyone in the area, just like at the airport.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Skjellifetti]

Sounds like you believe that the world is strictly binary. It isn't. What you think is unconstitutional may well be viewed by most others as perfectly acceptable. The Constitution is pretty flexible and leaves a lot of wiggle room for interpretation in many cases. Show me, for a simple example, where in the Constitution it is OK to forbid yelling fire in a crowded theater? And yet it has been found OK by the courts to do exactly that even though the Constitution explicitly says Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... But how did Congress know it was constitutional until it had been tested in the courts?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

No, go back and read the sentence again. What I stated was that Congress is prohibited from knowingly passing unconstitutional laws. That's not the same as passing a law in some gray area.

That still contradicts GP's assertion that Congress has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Thinboy00]

And a Government without rules is not a democracy (or, more properly, a Republic). It is, by definition, a tyranny.

Not always

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Skjellifetti]

All laws passed by Congress are in the gray area until the courts say otherwise. That was the point of the GP.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Jane Q. Public]

Except that it's not true. That was my point.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Cyberllama]

Politics is kind of like the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Yes, the best possible outcome is for everybody to be "honest", but the worst possible outcome is for you to be honest, while everybody else is not. If by "honest" you mean unwilling to compromise, then this is a condition that makes you unqualified for the presidency. We need people who can gather support, organize people, compromise, and get stuff passed.

This means sometimes you have to support some pork to get a bill passed. This means sometimes you have to smile and nod when a large campaign donor tells you something that frankly, you think is absolutely nuts. This means you have to play nice with large interest groups. It's sad, but if you can't do these things, you can't do *anything* in Washington.

It's real nice that Ron Paul sticks to his guns no matter what (I'm taking your word for it). I never said that a politician can't be honest. I just said a politician can't be honest *and* effective at the same time. Do you want a politician that's going to tell PETA he that he loves bacon and he thinks they're a bunch of nutjobs? Or do you want a politician that's willing to shake their hand, use their influence to gain support for his agenda, and actually go out and pass some damn legislation? I'm sorry, but when it comes to *politics*, honesty is over-rated.

No conspiracy here, move along

[ZDRuX]

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?

[Darkness404]

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?

[Putr]

I agree with B and C but...

A: ... Do you know how easy it is to make a bomb? Google it if you dont belive me. Or just buyin a gun in america and going to a stadion and start shooting...

There were no more terrorists atacks because the funders behind them aren not interested in them atm. Who these people are, is a whole other disscusion.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[troll8901]

A) Terrorists are stupid. ... B) People are smarter.

You're so lucky to be surrounded by good people. But still, I can't help feeling you're blind to reality in the world. In particular, some things are nagging at my mind.

A) "motivated / months of planning", "you haven't seen the really good ones"

B) "self-centered", "not wanting to risk myself / let other people take the risk"

But I'm not smart like you, so what can I say?

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Darkness404]

Ok, its easy to make a bomb, easy to detonate unseen? Conceal it? Make it cause some damage?

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 because of three conditions:

A) A smart perpetrator

B) Unarmed people unable to defend themselves

C) Everything working perfectly according to plans, which is rare.

Its easy to make french fries, but to make french fries that taste indistinguishable from your favourite restaurant is a lot harder.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Putr]

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.

Detonate from afar, or preferably use a suacide bomber that will drive in the middle of the crowd and detonate.

Places: Parade, speaches, concerts etc

And presto, few hundred dead. Remember, terrorists do not care about consicuances or are happy to face them in order to achive their goals.

DISCLAMER: I am NOT or have i ever been a terrorist or a criminal. I have never planed or intended to plan a terrorist act.

If one whanted to kill people there is nothing stoping him/her.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Darkness404]

You mean like the "Times Square Bomber" which um, failed to detonate?

It sounds easy on paper but history tells something radically different.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[RobertM1968]

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:Ok, honestly?

[S.O.B.]

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:Ok, honestly?

[TheLink]

> Sure, its easy to purchase a gun, but to shoot it with accuracy? To stop a mob of people from taking you down?

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 people would have to look at you to successfully gun you down. And if they look at you, you might be able to blind them first (for closer range stuff you could carry a gun too, or have the laser divergence adjustable).

While it's not the same as shooting dozens of people, I suspect many people would rather be shot in the arm/leg and even lose a limb than be permanently blinded, assuming they survive either scenario.

Doubt these vans will help much in this scenario.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sjwaste]

My wife brought this up on our ride home yesterday, when we saw two officers get on our metro car. Basically said, we're not protected at all against people dressing up like cops and bringing a gun onto the metro.

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 to do that, there is very little to stop them. Our security counts on the idea that someone looking to do that is going to tell or tip someone in some way, or is already a strange enough character that friends/family have reported his/her behavior, or that if they're really serious they'll try to bring someone else in. Once communication starts, detection becomes much more likely. Someone would truly have to act alone. Otherwise, yes, it seems pretty easy.

Now outside of a few isolated incidents, how many terrorist attacks of this nature occur? Very few. It's mostly a group, or at least a few loosely organized individuals. So with the limited resources available for counter-terror, we probably need to cross our fingers and discount the former, focusing on the latter.

You definitely can't stop a true loner acting alone - especially one that does not fear for his own life.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Bert64]

The people who carry out the attacks are pretty stupid, the people giving the orders and making the plans are not.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sjames]

If we REALLY want to stop terrorists on a plane, we would ISSUE guns to all citizens at the security check.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sjames]

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...

And there's our proof! You just failed the terrorist test. You have to shine the laser directly into someone's eye to cause the damage. If you disperse the light such that many people can see it at once, it is harmless.

To add to that, short of arresting anyone with a flashlight-like device on sight, how will we control such devices?

Re:Ok, honestly?

[beaker8000]

Dude, it's 'incite' not 'insight'.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[slick7]

Doubt these vans will help much in this scenario.

A better scenario would be to reduce fire and security departments nationwide, then when crime gets so out of hand, call in the national guard, but wait, that would mean American soldiers possibly shooting American people. Better yet, call in foreign NATO forces who would have no sympathy in shooting anyone violating whatever martial laws are enacted.
Problem solved. Population reduction and the NWO.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[slick7]

You definitely can't stop a true loner acting alone - especially one that does not fear for his own life.

You mean a loner like Lee Harvey Oswald? If you believe LHO acted alone or at all, I have some fine bottom land for sale on the Gulf coast, honestly, and real cheap.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sznupi]

Don't forget giving some wonderfull recruitment opportunities to the "bad" ones (while accidentally push main scenes of events far away, in some places of lesser people).

It's almost a win-win for everybody, in a way...

Re:Ok, honestly?

[lgw]

Would you please stop with that crap. It's not funny as a joke, and it's too stupid for words as a serious consideration. Never go full retard.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Majik Sheff]

Score:-1, WTF?

Someone's been listening to the singing forest creatures again.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[fafalone]

Looking for drugs is a big part of it too. Terrorist is just the latest buzzword. Just like the PATRIOT Act sneak-and-peek thing, advertised for use against terrorists, is used FAR more against drug offenders.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[AnAdventurer]

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:Ok, honestly?

[stimpleton]

Re B).

No, people just have short memories. They are "smart" for as long as they remember. Ask an office junior what Entebbe means to them as they'd shrug and mumble dunno.

Entebbe was a big deal for me at school, similar to 9/11 is to todays kids. By the time the next generation rolls around 9/11 will mean what entebbe does.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[GrumblyStuff]

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

Politicians are doing their damnedest to terrorize the population as well.

TERROR BABIES! TERROR BABIES!

Re:Ok, honestly?

[stephanruby]

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?

[Jafafa Hots]

Another thing is... they screen all the passengers going on the planes.

But they don't screen the fucking MAIL being loaded into the plane's cargo hold.

Wanna have fun as a terrorist? Go in the airport, stand in line and watch all the passengers take off their shoes, show that their bottle of hair gel is only 3 ounces, no more, and have their jockstrap scanned... then wander over to the window and watch your first class USMail "present to Grandma" get loaded on the same plane.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Criton]

All three of those are correct the government lies to us and they are the real terrorists.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Criton]

Bin Laden's goals where to make life difficult for Americans and the government did just that for him. The government fighting it war on terror has killed 3 times more Americans then Bin Laden and done more economic damage as well. Every time a freedom is surrendered or a right sign away for security is a victory for Al Qeda.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[BiggerIsBetter]

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

Terror? Seriously? They've been inciting stupidity at best - I can't believe anyone is actually scared of those clowns, which makes justifying the public responses even harder.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[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 would pay for itself? How about Pakistan? Now is our chance to win hearts/minds to the Taliban and AQ don't have a stronghold there.

Fail to work on nuclear energy as a main source of grid power. Terrorists love foreign oil dependence. Then they don't have to penetrate the US borders to hurt the country.

Fail to educate our citizens, so they are easily controlled by terrorist-fed media like Al-Jazeera, where every loss by Americans is televised, but the victories are not.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[S.O.B.]

Of course, you're right. I guess my brain was in neutral.

I've made my share of spelling/grammar Nazi comments so I deserve this.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

There's only one reason. The U.S. government achieved it's goal. To fool US and international public opinion into supporting it's campaign to Afghanistan. They achieved that so for the time the US government sees no other reason to plan any more attacks.

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

Americans are stupid.

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.

ROFL.

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.

Terrorists are not RARE AT ALL. They're everywhere, just turn on FOX news, Fox & Friends or other republican-affiliated media outlets. They'll terrorize the hell out of you.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

D) Why bother spending your resources to instill fear in your enemies when they're perfectly willing to do it themselves?

Re:Ok, honestly?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

If you are incapable of action without a firearm, you are incapable with one.

The only thing issuing guns to everyone will do, will up the total number of accidental gun related deaths massively at best, to all out massacre where everyone assumes the other people are the terrorists.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[jvkjvk]

Nah, you create a standalone platform. Buy a few, maybe say, 12. And you set each one up with a nice 3 axis stepper motor and individual cameras.

Get some s/w for face & eye shape recognition and add in a targeting component that drives your steppers.

Have the beams scan back and forth across the eye area, maybe two per eye.

The system is then able to blind 3 people at a time.

Let's say that you get good lasers, so it only takes a few seconds or so.

That's ~100 people in a minute.

Take it and set it up in a major sporting event, in the rafters. Hell, hook it up to mains. There's so much stuff hanging from the ceiling at arenas that one more lighting looking piece of equipment isn't likely to be noticed.

AFAIK, you don't actually have to look at the laser to be blinded, although seeing a flash out of the corner of your eye may draw your attention anyway.

I wonder how many hundreds of people you could blind before anyone realized that anything was happening? Especially if you randomly target people around the entire seating area.

Regards.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sjames]

Just a bit of hyperbole there. It WOULD make terrorism really hard though.

More seriously, the point is that the security scanners and such seem to be really bad at stopping terrorists but passengers seem to be pretty good at it, especially now that they ignore their government's bad advice to do nothing and let the "experts" handle it.

Really, regulations for having guns on a plane should be about the same as elsewhere. You need to have the appropriate background checks and licensing.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sjames]

So what you're saying is it would be nothing like just buy one for $1.99 at the "put an eye out" laser shoppe and shine it around in a crowd.

If the objective is to harm a lot of people, the old gunpowder and nails bomb would be easier and more reliable.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[stonewallred]

Assuming you are an American, you make pipe bombs, which are simple and pretty reliable; You nestle them inside a couple of large shopping bags, filled with boxes, cleverly gift wrapped and filled with nails and ball bearings. Go to the local mall at xmas, and set down near the santa display and trigger bombs. Or go to the local substation and with a .22 rifle, shoot off the insulators of several of the transformers, blacking out larges swathes of a city. Or build and set several bombs, in a coordinated attack on several bridges on the interstate system in several states and detonate. Announce through media there are more. Another one is set off small packages of flour, coupled with a commercial grade fire cracker and announce this was anthrax, or a neuro-toxin or elbola or any other nice nasty disease or poison. For real fun, go around various cities and pop cops in the head while they are parked doing paperwork. Terrorism can be very ugly if a little thought is taken and the risk is often very low. And there is no real way to prevent it, if the attackers are determined enough. Blow up a school or two. Announce that other schools have bombs planted. All of these things spread panic far and wide, and the media is your ally. Five people, each planting two land mines on I40 in five states, with public release of a tape saying there is more, would shut it down for a while. All kinds of tricks that can be done.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[TheLink]

Just panning it slowly across a crowd could be good enough.

From the specs of one of the lasers:

http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html

You can get a spot that's about 16cm in diameter at about 200 metres which can cause damage after 250 milliseconds of exposure.

Given this example, I'm sure it is not difficult to build a hand-held laser that's better suited for mass blinding.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[sjames]

Next time you're at the mall, look around. Make a guess how many of the people you see are even vaguely capable of building their own hand held laser that's better suited to blinding.

It's worth considering that the safety specs on the lasers out there are not guarantees, they're based on the idea that blinding is bad, and so err on the side of caution (as they should).

You would still have to contend with someone headbutting you (while looking at your feet, not the laser) or just punching you in the back of the head or shooting you.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[TheLink]

If you're worried about headbutts, use an infrared laser then - stuff from 400-1400nm can get to the retina, and visible spectrum is 390-750nm. And people also conveniently sell 1-1.5 watt laser pointers in the 800-1400 nm range: http://www.amazing1.com/laser_pointers.htm

I doubt the blink reflex works for infrared lasers.

The people with digital cameras or video cameras might detect your laser (see for yourself with an infrared remote control).

Anyway, maybe they can treat some laser eye damage, with light! http://www.warp-heals.com/pdf/DARPA_Soldier_Self_Care.pdf
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA445026

Critically important

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Since over 95% of the population approves

[countertrolling]

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.

Re:Since over 95% of the population approves

[fey000]

Awesome, lets blame the increase of cancer on the terrorists too. That way you need the vans to scan for hidden terrorist cancer machines. (Jokes aside, what is the real danger of getting irradiated this way a few times?)

Re:Since over 95% of the population approves

[Dunbal]

Of course you get modded Troll, because on slashdot Troll means "I don't agree with you".

Still, all I can add is: "only in America".

We used to talk about these sort of invasive techniques being used in the Soviet Union when I was growing up. Still, we get the governments that we deserve.

A bad idea...

[Magee_MC]

"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...

[hedwards]

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...

[Darkness404]

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:A bad idea...

[mysidia]

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...

[blueg3]

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.

Re:A bad idea...

[future assassin]

>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...

[Exitar]

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

Re:A bad idea...

[Dunbal]

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

      How they cut costs by raising fees and inventing new fees is beyond me. I'd like you to re-examine your logic. Perhaps the "ticket price" has stayed the same, or even slightly declined, but the overall cost of flying is much more when you take into account the $25-$50 per checked bag, etc. On a $200 ticket that's 10% or more right there.

      Perhaps instead of "cut costs" you meant to say "cutting service". My personal favorite was an announcement one day on Continental, where they said you could "buy the headphones for $3, and you even get to keep them"...

Re:A bad idea...

[elsJake]

Radiation is cumulative , having "a lot less" added to the healthy dose you're already getting is not something you want.
Not counting what you get from flying up so high , scanning alone will add up if you fly frequently , enjoy your radiation poisoning.

Re:A bad idea...

[stephanruby]

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

No need to get so fancy. Just make me a cheap small device that can alert and detect accurately when an anonymous truck has a powered X-ray machine pointed at me, and I'll be sure to supply my own shot-gun.

PS: To the FBI, this is not a threat, unless you choose to come at me with such a device in my backyard or on the road without a warrant and without probable cause. Having such devices at airports, ports, and border control, I may not like, but I can accept those, especially since those locations are clearly marked. It's the places where you guys have no business scanning, with X-ray trucks that have no clear X-ray "Hey we're scanning you" markings, which in my opinion completely crosses my personal line in the sand.

Re:A bad idea...

[mysidia]

Yes, but I was suggesting a more passive method that many people could take on with minimal risk of putting lives in danger.

Most people are not willing to take a shot gun and go at a van, which could potentially lead to criminal prosecution for vandalizing the vehicle.

Trying to 'get fancy' to negate their stealth advantage, 'blind their fancy sensors', stop their privacy invasion, or make it as difficult as possible, without anyone getting hurt.

Re:A bad idea...

[ShakaUVM]

>>Radiation is cumulative

No, not really. The human body is used to dealing with low levels of radiation, with repair mechanisms to cope with DNA repair and the free radicals generated. It's when you exceed a certain threshold that real damage occurs.

Re:A bad idea...

[twidarkling]

I suggest you do a search for "cumulative radiation." Just that search alone gets you a lot of hits about issues with excessive radiation exposure over a period of time. Tack on poisoning and the picture gets a lot darker.

Re:A bad idea...

[ShakaUVM]

>>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

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...

[Wolvenhaven]

Rig up one of these on a rotating platform with an x-ray detector and you can fry the whole car.
http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm

Re:A bad idea...

[elsJake]

>> 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.

Your use of a logical extreme here is preposterous , sure 1 rad a day per year isn't as harmful as 365 rads on one given day but the effects of 1 rad don't just go away the moment you brush your teeth in the morning.
And further more you said it yourself , it's the best metric available , sure you can't quantify it really well but radiation _does_ add up.

Re:A bad idea...

[ShakaUVM]

>>And further more you said it yourself , it's the best metric available , sure you can't quantify it really well but radiation _does_ add up.

It's the best metric, but it's a bad metric. That's the point I'm trying to make. If you look at cancer rates from Hiroshima or Chernobyl, you'll see spikes in cancer, as you'd expect from high doses of radiation, but you don't see a linear effect down to the lower levels of exposure.

The main question is how to quantify it numerically, and there's a lot of debate on this topic.

Re:A bad idea...

[denzacar]

... and I'll be sure to supply my own shot-gun.

Well... led sure IS great for blocking X-rays.

Re:A bad idea...

[elsJake]

>> The main question is how to quantify it numerically, and there's a lot of debate on this topic.

Indeed,! And as long as we're debating the same issue on common ground , could you provide any more links to such research / opinions on this matter ? I'm genuinely curios as to what ideas are floating around the subject.

Re:A bad idea...

[ShakaUVM]

I've read papers on it on the past, but you could probably dig them up as fast as I could find them.

Re:A bad idea...

[stonewallred]

Hell, I can't fly. Seems for some reason I am on the famed "do not fly list". Fuck \'em, I would rather drive anyway, less BS security and more real security.

Re:Really?

[hedwards]

Hydrogen, Carbon and Nitrogen are common components in high explosives. Unfortunately, they're also common components in many other things as well. But I suspect that the technology could have detected the car bomb used in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma city. That is if I'm understanding things correctly.

I guarantee you that...

[KneelBeforeZod]

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

Re:I guarantee you that...

[sideslash]

And I "predict" that they've already been using a form of the technology for a couple of decades.

I'm going to make..

[Rivalz]

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.

Re:I'm going to make..

[Eightbitgnosis]

And so Jesus crawled into the microwave for our sins

Re:I'm going to make..

[rdnetto]

Forget lead paint - let's bring tin foil into fashion ;)

CopKiller

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Neat!

[zmollusc]

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

Re:Neat!

[blueg3]

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.

Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Re:Really?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hydrogen, Carbon and Nitrogen are common components in high explosives.

Likewise in people, plants, that sort of thing....

Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer

[Black Gold Alchemist]

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.

Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer

[ScrewMaster]

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:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer

[Black Gold Alchemist]

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

Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer

[ScrewMaster]

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

[sjames]

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?

Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer

[emarkp]

Actually, from what I understand, this range of X-rays has caused behavioral changes in mice. It's unlikely to cause cancer, but it would be irresponsible to simply dismiss all health concerns.

Viva la resistance!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Viva la resistance!

[GrumblyStuff]

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

Re:Viva la resistance!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a specialist engineer who worked on x-ray optics. Unfortunately, x-rays only reflect very weakly at anything other than grazing incidence. So a corner cube will give some signal, but not enough to destroy the equipment. Sorry, but I would advise against trying to thwart x-ray detectors by using corner cubes.

how long until....

[st0rmshad0w]

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

Re:how long until....

[neuro-commando]

Although a bit extreme, and probably illegal way to fight this, it would probably work. If they started turning up false positives all over the place, people wouldn't be very happy at all.

Can't wait for...

[geogob]

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

If they exist they can be used

[mysidia]

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?

Re:If they exist they can be used

[Walt Dismal]

I wonder how effective lead-based paint is in dealing with backscatter? I frankly would not want to be sitting in a livingroom in a brownstone building and having regular street sweeps by these vans. Oh, but with a glass front window, paint would be useless. What kind of insane level have we reached when the government X-rays us at their whim and we have no recourse?

Re:If they exist they can be used

[insertwackynamehere]

Not if the glass is made in china!!
Cause its leaded. Probably.

Re:If they exist they can be used

[mysidia]

Oh.. I said 'they can be used'... not that we have no recourse, or that it is legal. The problem is they can do a lot of spread out harm in the mean time / interrim until someone reacts to try to fix this wrong.

Seems like a textbook case for a class-action suit though.

The problem is it needs to be proven in court that the X-rays harmed a lot of people, or legislative action, before anything gets done. Which is hard when they are allowed to operate these things in secrecy, and the harmful effects are so spread out, that nobody can prove The gov't X-ray is the one thing that caused cancer or sterility for them; since there are so many other variables involved.

The problem with lead-based paints is they are illegal, are they not?

You could put the barrier behind the glass front window.

Re:If they exist they can be used

[RobertM1968]

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. :-)

I can think of a good use

[sideslash]

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. 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:I can think of a good use

[mysidia]

I personally would love some backup protection against accidentally leaving a young child in the vehicle on a hot day

That sounds like a vehicle feature.

Use infrared-based detectors intersecting with each seat to monitor for living beings being present in the car.

If the temperature gauge is too high or too low, the vehicle is off, and nobody is in the driver's seat, then sound a dedicated alarm tone for 5 minutes, audible from outside and inside the vehicle.

Re:I can think of a good use

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:I can think of a good use

[sideslash]

Yes, I've thought about that, too; it solves a lot of problems with the "external" solutions. It's not too far-fetched to imagine it as a standard vehicle feature.

Re:I can think of a good use

[sideslash]

Sounds like someone who hasn't read the article I linked to; there was a reason it won a Pulitzer prize this year. As Gene Weingarten painfully documents, this happens to people from all tiers of society, with all levels of intelligence, and from all ethnic backgrounds. If there is anything it is not, it is "some sort of joke".

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.

Re:I can think of a good use

[Black Gold Alchemist]

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:I can think of a good use

[thetoadwarrior]

I've had pets my life as a child and adult and the thought of being able to forget where my dog is simply is not conceivable even after week on week of overtime and a lack of sleep. I can only imagine me being even more cautious not less with a child.

I certainly wouldn't want to give up numerous freedoms just so a government x-ray van *might* stroll by and catch my kid in a hot car. Keep in mind unless we're all under constant surveillance you're still relying on the luck of the van being in the right place at the right time while completely giving up your privacy.

Sorry, but I just don't believe I should give up my privacy for bad parents.

Re:I can think of a good use

[sideslash]

I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering to interact with you on this issue, since you're too lazy to go read the article. I suppose I'm doing it just so the permanent record here provides useful information to people, and corrects the misinformation you posted. So let's take your errors one at a time, shall we?

1. You incorrectly assume that I would put up with blanket surveillance. However, I listed that as a hurdle to be overcome. I don't want to be spied on.

2. You keep erroneously saying that this is about dumb parents / bad parents / lack of intelligence / people deserving to be neutered. But if you read the article I linked to, then you would see that this kind of tragedy has happened to all kinds of people, even to people of the highest intelligence levels. It has even happened to pediatricians. It also has nothing to do with a lack of caring for the child -- it frequently happens to people who really love their kids.

3. You have a wrong view of how the human mind works. You say you would always know where your dog is. That's great. But I bet you don't drop your dog off at daycare every weekday morning at 7. Consider that to the parent in this situation, he really believes through the workday that he did drop the kid off at daycare. If you don't think the human mind is capable of playing tricks on you, think again. If you think parents are never tired and under-performing in the mornings, think again.

4. You see this as a difference between individuals, like one person would never make the error, and another person might be susceptible to it. But given the same "vulnerability surface area" (i.e. opportunities for error, like the daily daycare thing), I'm not sure that's true. I think it's more like a problem that affects the human race. We weren't designed / evolved / what have you for mission critical multi-tasking operation.

5. You make this about me. Actually, this doesn't affect me personally. I have a low "vulnerability surface area" because I work as a software engineer from home, and my spouse cares for our kids when I'm working. We have never used daycare. My interest in the problem is pretty much out of horror at the fact that it happens to other people all the time, and an ethical-geekish belief that it's a solvable problem. But the solution does not lie in badmouthing the bereaved and mourning parents. It lies in recognizing human limitations and coming up with creative solutions to compensate for them. (Like the other guy's reply suggesting that an in-vehicle IR-based alarm would be a lot more effective, which is undoubtedly true.)

Re:I can think of a good use

[Vegeta99]

Damn, dude, that's one sad, sad article. The end actually brought a tear to my eye, props to Lyn Balfour for being an immensely better human being than her Commonwealth prosecutor.

Re:I can think of a good use

[PPH]

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.

Re:I can think of a good use

[Kyusaku Natsume]

A better technical solution would be special alarms/monitors for parents, similar to the common baby monitors for home but with a motion sensor to detect the presence of a baby. They could be even 3G so they could phone a series of preset numbers and, in the case there is no response from parents then autodial 911. I remember reading a /. Story one or two years ago about the mayor car makers researching an special alarm for these cases.
       

Re:I can think of a good use

[sideslash]

Good points. The 3G option would be more $$$ than a simple car alarm, but would have the benefit that it isn't simultaneously a convenient notification to would-be pedophiles and child abductors.

Re:I can think of a good use

[sideslash]

we are trying to figure out why you posted the link

Let me spell it out for you. When I said...

Spying on me without a warrant is a non-starter... problems might be ... narrowing down the scope of the search such that society would both desire and trust the process

... I did not mean that we should allow government to spy on us in order to keep our babies safe. What I did mean was that technology such as we're discussing could have a role in preventing the commonest situation of infant heat deaths. Challenge in any such deployment of this technology would obviously include ethics and legality. Probably that would mean doing it with the "consent of the surveilled".

I can imagine, for example, private lots and parking decks using technology like this. Membership in such lots would be "opt-in", and would involve signing a contract. Besides payment terms, etc, the contract would undoubtedly be for the protection of the lot owner, so that there would not be an expectation of liability if their good faith "baby sweeps" failed to detect a child. But for many professional commuters with small children, such an arrangement would be a really nice perk of a parking lot, for which they'd be willing to pay extra.

Romantic liaisons in such a parking lot would be ill advised, unless you're one of those... oh, nevermind. But I don't see how it would violate anybody's civil rights, because they would have decided to allow their vehicles to be monitored in this fashion. If you somehow snuck your car in past the gates without a contract, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.

Is that clear? (Man, it is a lot of work to contribute to a Slashdot thread if you aren't moo-ing in perfect chorus with the rest of the herd.)

Re:I can think of a good use

[PPH]

Besides payment terms, etc, the contract would undoubtedly be for the protection of the lot owner, so that there would not be an expectation of liability if their good faith "baby sweeps" failed to detect a child.

My local parking lot isn't liable for dead babies. In fact, they have a sign to the effect that they are not liable for any objects left in customers' cars. I'm pretty sure that includes babies.

But for many professional commuters with small children, such an arrangement would be a really nice perk of a parking lot, for which they'd be willing to pay extra.

Now I've got to wonder if you read the article. Particularly the part about the people who devised a simple gizmo that would alert people to the presence of a kid in the back seat. Its difficult to sell such a device in the aftermarket because of the psychological implications. Nobody is going to voluntarily buy a product (or sign up for a service) that implies they are too careless to raise a child.

Re:not only that

[Anarki2004]

I know this discussion has taken place here numerous times, but please...substantiate your claim. What real concrete evidence do you have to support that?

modest proposal

[kylemonger]

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, there's no Fourth Amendment concern.

Different device, same theory

[davmoo]

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:Different device, same theory

[dkleinsc]

I fail to see how this would be any different in the eyes of SCOTUS and that ruling.

Well, we've recently replaced one of the "no" votes (Justice Stevens) with a potential "yes" vote (Kagan). That would make it different.

Re:Different device, same theory

[Cyberllama]

Based on what previous rulings do you suppose Kagan is likely to support this?

Re:Different device, same theory

[antonymous]

The case was Kyllo v. United States - the ruling was that use of a thermal imaging device is considered a "search."

Re:Different device, same theory

[blueg3]

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:Different device, same theory

[dkleinsc]

Obviously we have no rulings to go on, since she's never been a judge. All we have are Kagan's arguments to the Supreme Court as Solicitor General in cases regarding spying and torture, in which she sounded an awful lot like John Yoo. Now, that could be viewed as merely zealous representation of the Obama Administration, except that most cases are not argued by the solicitor general themselves.

Re:Different device, same theory

[boarder8925]

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

And that is why you are not a lawyer, judge, and/or politician.

guess what

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anybody even thinks of defending this technology they should at least study it's affects on pacemakers. seriously.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[future assassin]

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.

Re:Vancouver olympics

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

This is awsome for the police!

[durrr]

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.

"Vehicle-based bombs"

[leromarinvit]

Car bombs? Seriously? I can't remember the last time anyone blew up a car in a socially stable society.

Did they hold a contest for the lamest excuse? Or is it April Fool's Day already?

Re:"Vehicle-based bombs"

[PPH]

Oklahoma City ring a bell?

Re:"Vehicle-based bombs"

[leromarinvit]

Yes. That was more than 15 years ago. Somehow, intruding on everybody's privacy and spending millions in the process for catching something that might happen maybe once every ten years doesn't seem like a great deal to me.

Re:"Vehicle-based bombs"

[PPH]

The WTC was hit with a bomb in a truck back in 1993. Thank goodness nothing happened after that.

Point taken about surrendering rights to solve the problem of infrequent attacks. Had we implemented vehicle bomb scanners back then, it would have had no effect on the 9/11 attacks.

Hey, Mr. Glass-Half-Empty. . .

[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.

Re:not only that

[imsabbel]

It uses ionizing radiation, which is known to cause DNA damage, in constrast to cell phones, wifi, etc?

Spouting a lot of bull

[SmallFurryCreature]

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 ones. 9/11 got lucky, very lucky. 3 planes hit their target, one didn't. That is NOT exactly a high success rate but it was high enough. But can you bank on that? Never had a fire in my adult life != do not need the fire department.

People are smarter? Doubt it if you are the example. Not exactly blessed with logical thinking skills are you? You go on how about 9/11 could only happen because the terrorists did something DIFFERENT and then completly assume a next attempt will be foiled because we know what to do now... so the terrorist are not capable of changing the rules YET again? Who says the NEXT 9/11 will be the same? Madrid, London and the fort hood shooting were not. Why touch the airport at all? I can think up of thousands of different attacks especially if the attacker doesn't value his own life. No doubt so can the terrorists.

They are rare? Yes... getting rarer all the time with the thousands of suicide attacks. Odd that they don't seem to be running out at all. Could it be that with a population in the billions, any fraction of a percentage still gets you tons of people? And yet all these billions of people who are not terrorists did NOT stop 9/11 or London or Madrid or Fort Hood or the countless attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan or the attack in Mumbai and god knows how many more.

There is a very real risk that in the fear of terrorists we do exactly what the terrorists want, which is to life in terror.

But sticking our head in the sand like you do is NOT the answer either. You are a silly person who has banked his entire idea that there is another group of a dozen muslim men waiting with box-cutters to fly aircraft into buildings and that you, you who cower already on a forum at the thought of a terrorists, will fight them off with the old lady next to you.

The people in the fourth plane tried that. Why don't you ask them for tips... oh wait, they ALL died didn't they? So much for your brilliant plan to foil the evil terrorists. Maybe we should leave it to someone smarter. Shouldn't be hard, by my estimate there about 6 billion smarter people on this planet then some guy who thinks terrorists have to strike in the same place twice in the same way.

Re:Spouting a lot of bull

[sznupi]

That what it was all about in the end, to stirr up some places & push there even the small bits of action getting through to us, no?

Out of sight, out of mind...

Re:Spouting a lot of bull

[witherstaff]

I agree with some of your points, that terrorism isn't over with. Except you can't count Iraq. If only Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. So we go into Iraq based on known lies, for a war that was only going to cost a few billion, with the army we had, not that we wanted. Then we're surprised when our boys are being fought tooth and nail and killed because we're invading another country just because our president was cleaning up his daddy's mess?

Let's look at movies for an example - There was the Patriot, Mel Gibson as the swamp rat, fighting guerrilla wars to protect his land. Or we have Red Dawn, it's even being remade, showing youth doing terrorism to stop the invaders. All movies Americans loved when it's defending our country. When the natives are defending against us invading is it right to call it terrorism?

But when the terrorists are attacking our way of life because we have too many freedoms (and not just blowback from the US being the US), and we get rid of these freedoms... who's won?

Re:Spouting a lot of bull

[mcgrew]

FOUR at least. (Shoe-bomber, nigerian via dutch airline, car on times-sqaure, fort hood shooting)

Terrorism targets civilians. If all you kill are soldiers, it's an act of war, not an act of terrorism.
citation

(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

The people in the fourth plane tried that.

They succeeded. The plane didn't hit any buildings, now did it? The passengers that kept the plane from killing anyone not on the plane alive were heros.

Factor 50000?

[DaRanged]

So its time to buy that chain-mail underwear/cloak you've been meaning to get from but never could justify it.

Simples!

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot protect the rights of the people by violating the rights of the people.

FUD

[dwillden]

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.

some history and the future...

[Kane3162]

if someone would like to see an almost uncanny chain of events from start to finish (and its scary how closely it is to reality in both past and future events) the need only purchase (legally) the movie or better yet its origin the comic "V for Vendetta"... Not joking in the slightest... some of its past matches our own recent history, and while sans "V" our future... of course reality is without the happy ending provided by the movie/comic... feel free to imagine an ending since "V" doesnt exist... (I am sure its dark/dreary or apocalyptic) IMHO, all I can say is that since we wont have a "V" to wake people up and help take back our humanity, I hope 2012 is the end because I certainly dont want to live in what I am sure at least some of you can see coming (but suicide is for pussys even as a martyr)

Good job team!

[Simmeh]

When are these available for the public and will someone point me to the nearest police station/strip club? thanks! ;)

Well, welcome to the 21st century

[Shivetya]

We just have been happily ignorant of what much of the world has gone through because we had distance from the terrorist. While in our modern society that doesn't mean as much as it did fifty years ago it does make for quite a bit of work for overseas groups to get here. Just reading the news for many years, if not decades, shows than Europe and other areas haven't had that "safety". The terrorists didn't win or continue to win because of 9/11, time just caught up with us. European nations already have heavily guarded transport terminals and have given up rights we smugly thought we never had to worry about losing.

So while it would be nice to turn the other cheek, the terrorists don't care. Even if we act with security they will still come because they need to. It is what keeps their organizations going, if not the nation states that sponsor them. The enemy over there is a far more convenient target to let them vent than at home. Better to blame the infilled than the leadership one lives under. The common trait of any nation suppressing its people and abusing it for the betterment of those who lead - give your people an opponent. Give them one you can portray as the cause, if you can wrap it up in religious based hate then by all means.

We live in a world of bad people. Trite as that seems its true. The problem with a modern society is that it tends to come with some enlightenment. The problem is that those enlightened are the perfect targets because their own belief in their superiority checks their hand.

Re:not only that

[lgw]

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.

xkcd

[AliasMarlowe]

What - no xkcd references yet???
http://xkcd.com/779/
Gotta look your "best" for the backscatter scan!

Re:not only that

[blueg3]

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 technician leaves the room when she takes your X-rays is that medical X-rays are actually quite a respectably-large amount of radiation and the technician does quite a lot of X-rays per year.

Re:Really?

[blueg3]

If you measure the relative quantities of these, you can get a pretty good idea of the type of chemical an object is made up of.

Re:not only that

[Anarki2004]

So it isn't really particularly dangerous as long as you aren't getting zapped by this thing on a regular basis is what you're saying?

This is what Bin Laden wanted.

[Criton]

Every time a freedom is surrendered is a victory for the terrorists. They know they can't kill us all or even .1% of us but they can make us live in fear. Bin Laden's goals where to make life difficult for Americans and bankrupt the US stuff like this conveniently does both.

Re:This is what Bin Laden wanted.

[Stihdjia]

Mod parent up.

I am not afraid of terrorism. I do not care at all. It doesn't matter how prepared we are for terrorism, they're not going to attack a building that's bristling with insurmountable security. They're not trying to destroy our infrastructure, they can't. They want to scare us. If they want to attack us, they will. (Maybe if we hadn't killed the fathers of those terrorists in previous wars, they wouldn't be so angry at us.)

There are plenty of other, more effective things that the government could do to protect us, such as encouraging citizens to not weigh 300 pounds. Being fat is undeniably a luxury, why not tax it like other luxuries? Or changing this ridiculous education system we have in which the schools that perform the best (and obviously don't need much help) are rewarded with substantially more federal funding. This plainly only serves to increase disparity.

Again, I am absolutely not afraid of terrorism. If it happens, so be it. We should look into the cause, and try to remediate it; but it's impossible to prevent terrorism. If we are afraid, that is PRECISELY WHAT THEY WERE GOING FOR. I am, however, afraid of the government that uses a single act of terrorism nearly a decade ago as a threat to its own people.

Come on guys

[cheekyjohnson]

Seriously, guys. People need to stop making such a big deal out of this! It's just so silly. The constitution wasn't made to be followed. It is merely a set of recommendations, and the government can ignore parts it doesn't like for any reason it likes. At least until someone does something. A lot of people.

Re:Ok, real honestly?

[sonamchauhan]

D. The terrorists have been stopped by better security?

The border is now a 100-mile buffer zone (link)

[Burz]

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Re:not only that

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The effects are well studied to a point. However the "linear damage model" verse the "threshold model" is still very much contested. The latest data tends to support a threshold model.

Guide lines typically follow a linear model simply because its more conservative. Don't forget places like Denver get much higher background doses that most places yet we don't in fact see any increass in --well anything. Living in Denver would be like some from a sea level city getting a *lot* of xrays every year...

Re:not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a background level of environmental poisons 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 poisoning that are negligible compared to environmental exposure.

There is a background level of pain 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 pain that are negligible compared to environmental exposure.

This is why it's ok for me to spike your daily coffee with minimal amounts of poison and lightly slap your face every other month. Moderation is all.

Proper rules for amendment

[mangu]

The problem with treating the constitution as something holy and unchanging is that this isn't 1787

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.

New Science Project for 12 Year Olds

[LifesABeach]

I can only wonder at how many 12 year old's are going to quietly 'barrow' mom's and dad's keys for the mini van, after they finish their 'science' project in the basement.

The Z Backscatter Van (ZBV)

[antdude]

There's a short promotion/advertisement (ad.) video of this technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGCd0KPJcMs from http://educatedearth.net/video.php?id=4170 ...

Re:not only that

[lgw]

In other words: consensus is it's unsafe, but some would like you to believe it might be safe. Excuse me if I err on the side of not nuking children, eh?

Re:not only that

[TheTurtlesMoves]

No this is false. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to xray children now would you. Or live in Denver, or fly, or be an air hostess or etc.... When the dosage is *below* the background what risk is there? And what part of conservative (liability is the main reason for that) don't you understand. There is no consensus.

Wait a second, these can see through cars?

[kalirion]

So these x-rays are powerful enough to see into a car trunk, but will not have any unhealthy side effects on people? WTF???

Re:not only that

[lgw]

X-Ray damage is cumulative over your lifetime, per the current consensus. Yes, there are soruces that you can't do anything about, and sources for which the medical benefit exceeds the harm, but the harm is real.

The X-Ray backscatter device hits you with radiation equivalent to a 5-hour plane trip, IIRC. That's not negligable. If used in the airport, it would double the radiation hazard of people who fly every day, and there's already worry about max lifetime workplace radiation exposure for pilots and flight attentands. If used in other public places, it represents a nontrivial new radiation hazard.

Any plan to expose people to non-trivial radiation should have a regulatory review cycle establishing health benefits that exceed the negative consequences, much like each use of medical X-Rays.

Re:not only that

[TheTurtlesMoves]

-Ray damage is cumulative over your lifetime, per the current consensus.

NO there is NOT a consensus on this. Thats my point. Read the bloody literature.