Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

46 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. If it violates an amendment by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:If it violates an amendment by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:If it violates an amendment by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

    3. Re:If it violates an amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If" it violates an amendment?

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

    4. Re:If it violates an amendment by crankyspice · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...)

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    5. Re:If it violates an amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    6. Re:If it violates an amendment by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:If it violates an amendment by sjwaste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

    8. Re:If it violates an amendment by canadian_right · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like what? Ron Paul wants a minimal government so the "worse things" would mainly be a complete lack of a government "safety net", ie welfare state, as opposed to actively doing bad stuff.

      Moderation is often the best policy. Pure socialism or pure capitalism are both bad ideas.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    9. Re:If it violates an amendment by Ruud+Althuizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    10. Re:If it violates an amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If history is any guide, most people on the outside rail against the "system." They promise to bring change, to root out corruption, to make government smaller, etc. etc. Once they get in, all of a sudden they think that certain subsidies are all right, that some compromises need to be made, etc. etc. Funny how those exceptions happen to benefit themselves or they campaign contributors.

    11. Re:If it violates an amendment by johnhp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:If it violates an amendment by johnhp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re:If it violates an amendment by rhook · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

      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-

    14. Re:If it violates an amendment by crankyspice · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    15. Re:If it violates an amendment by johnhp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    16. Re:If it violates an amendment by johnhp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:If it violates an amendment by johnhp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:If it violates an amendment by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    19. Re:If it violates an amendment by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why when they wrote it, they made it so it could be amended, but not easily. They amended it to give the feds the power to outlaw alcohol, for instance; history shows it was a stupid decision but at least they did it legally. Not so when they outlawed other drugs.

      But the fact is it is NOT unchangeable. But there's a proper way to go about changing it. Ignoring it is anarchy.

  2. Ok, honestly? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Ok, honestly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are missing:

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

    2. Re:Ok, honestly? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Ok, honestly? by S.O.B. · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    4. Re:Ok, honestly? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This space available.
    5. Re:Ok, honestly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The terrorists win every time we:

      Add another search and seizure method.

      Add anti-Muslim (or any religion) propaganda.

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

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

    6. Re:Ok, honestly? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. Since over 95% of the population approves by countertrolling · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  4. A bad idea... by Magee_MC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:A bad idea... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:A bad idea... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:A bad idea... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    4. Re:A bad idea... by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  5. I'm going to make.. by Rivalz · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  6. Re:Really? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  7. Viva la resistance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    Send their radiation right back at 'em!

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

  8. Can't wait for... by geogob · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Different device, same theory by davmoo · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  11. Re:I can think of a good use by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Vancouver olympics by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They were using the x ray vans in Vancouver. I know one person who works as a delivery driver and he got pulled over downtown Van for having several 24L bottles of liquid in his van. Also they were looking for other things too as I also know of one person busted for having 10+ lb of weed in the car while driving through an area where the vans patrolled.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  13. This is awsome for the police! by durrr · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  14. Re:Why we Should Say these Cause Cancer by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  15. FUD by dwillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  16. Re:not only that by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no minimun safe threshhold for ionizing radiation. The danger is cumulative across your lifetime. Radiation-related workplace safety regulations all take this into account. Some of the full-body scanners for airports use microwaves instead of X-rays, and so don't have this concern (though there may still be cause for concern).

    This isn't some debatable area where there's no good evidence, but more reasearch might be helpful, like cell phone radiation. The effects of ionizing radiation is well-studied, and never safe at any level. There's a reason the dental technician leaves the room when she takes your dental X-rays, you know.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  17. Re:I can think of a good use by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other hand, if you are posting as a teenager in your mom's basement, please just ignore this for another 5 or 10 years. Someday it will be important to you.

    As a teenager living in his parent's house, I find the issue extremely important to me. The preservation of free society against incursion of moralism and safetism is one of the most important aspects of sustaining oneself. In fact, as a parent, it should be more important to you than it is to me, because your child's life depends on it. The ultimate progression of a non-free society (which these vans and your idea are) is the genocide and killing of the undesirables. Wether your non-free society is based on the worship of government, race, health, the environment, or the greater good over the rights of the individual, the ultimate result is the killing of the undesirables. Your idea might save 100 or 1000 children in the short run. However, it, combined with all the other ideas for protecting people will lead to a genocide killing millions, as well as the war to overthrow that genocidal government. The most dangerous people are those that seek to protect us.

    --
    Responsibility is an addiction
    Virtue is a temptation
    Community is a cartel