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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

"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

[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

[herojig]

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

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

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

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.

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...

[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: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

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.

Neat!

[zmollusc]

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

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

[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?

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?

Can't wait for...

[geogob]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! ;)

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: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.