Slashdot Mirror
Inside a Full-Body-Scanning X-Ray Van
Velcroman1 writes "In August, Slashdotters learned that full-body scanners were roaming the streets in vans: '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. Fox took a ride in one of the $800,000 vans, videotaping the entire event — and continues the debate about security, privacy, and health risks."
Come on, tell me, what's the real purpose of this stuff? 8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11. All attempts either simply failed or were prevented using pre-9/11 technology, yet we still get these naked body scanners.
Now we also need them roaming the streets? "Hey Joe, hottie on your six, make a turn and flip the switch boy, let's see what she's got!". Anything else doesn't come near a justification.
It's definitely a dumb idea to have these things just roaming the streets, and that's without even considering the privacy concerns. It's absurdly hard to actually identify items that only rarely occur, say weapons, in samples like this. The human eye just isn't that good at it. It gets worse the more samples you take. The only place I can see for this is scanning at the border where people being smuggled in would be pretty obvious. At the border, a search like this makes sense since by law it's necessary to declare many items that you bring into a country. Otherwise, not only is it mostly a waste of time, but a dead ringer for an unreasonable search. The article was light on just how prevalent their use is outside of ports and points of entry, so it's hard to say if there's any serious danger to the average person on the street. Also, health concerns are probably overblown. If the dose is in micro Sv, that's a small fraction of the regular background dose.
I got a catholic block.
Fox took a ride in one of the $800,000 vans, videotaping the entire event -- and continues the debate about security, privacy, and health risks.
The Government's new definition of debate: you keep talking amongst yourselves, we'll keep implementing.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Remind me again why we haven't burned DC to the ground yet? How can ANYONE, of ANY political affiliation, see this shit and not be completely outraged?
Why is this not considered an illegal search? How can the government get away with just x-raying people now?
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
This blurb in the article basically says it all...
While many dismiss / marginalize the threat of the drug war on people's freedoms, it's happening nevertheless. For example, there was a time when local police busting down doors was virtually unheard of - now it's common practice in all sorts of situations. Another is that people are now subjected to all sorts of demands, such providing government id / signing a form, to buy over-the-counter cough medicine. All in the name of the drug war - which is really a war against citizens.
For anyone who believes use of such technology to search people / private property will be ruled unconstitutional, think again - drug sniffing dogs are often allowed to search one's private property, such as one's vehicle, that's accessible from the street despite no "contraband" being in plain view.
One can practically count on such vans roaming the streets all throughout the U.S. in the near future "for your protection", but of course, much of the time, that won't be the real motivation.
Ron
Never said they were evil, just hypocritical...just like every other right-leaning and left-leaning news org.
The reason Fox gets so much flak is because it bills itself as being "fair and balanced", when it is neither. MSNBC says "We're full of shit. What're you gonna do about it?" There's no difference in their presentation or intention...the only difference is one admits it and one attempts to paint itself as the opposite of what it is.
Living With a Nerd
When the organization itself contributes to the Republican party, all "news" is suspect.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Ever heard of Alberto Gonzales? Look hard enough, and you can get a yes-man who will sign off on anything.
That guy would have stripped any and all provisions in the constitution under the provision of "we're allowed to because we say so".
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Slippery-slope comes to mind. Since when did one relinquish their rights at the airport? -it wasn't always that way. And furthermore, such searches are now becoming routine on long-haul passenger trains (ie. Amtrak) and buses (Greyhound) too. And even one's own vehicle at some select locations, such as tunnel entrances.
You're assuming the government will protect one's rights - sadly, that's often not the case. Watch some episodes of COPS for a reality check on how policing really works in the U.S. - the police state is already here.
In addition, home monitoring technology has greatly improved and hence, the number of people under court supervision is rapidly expanding so, in turn, there's little in the way of stopping the police state of expanding ... it's easily conceivable that upwards of 10% of the adult population could in the next decade or so be under some court mandated supervision.
Digressing, but don't think for a second, that the courts alone are going to stop technology, such as the vans, from being used for searching people / property - only a revolution, or more ideally, some power-elites, choosing to put freedom of citizens ahead of profits and power will. Anything else is wishful thinking. In the meantime, about the best one can do is be aware of these things / educate others and navigate the system best one can.
Ron
What really pisses people off is not the bias of Fox. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS all are biased. The real problem about Fox is that people watch it. No one watches the others.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Reporters and news operation executives are NEARLY unanimous in contributing to Ds and not to Rs. >80% typically. (Plenty of documentation on that is available, thanks to campaign finance reporting laws.)
You appear to be confused. The OP was discussing the organization itself (that is, who ultimately controls things), not the private citizens employed by the organization. You then quoted statistics about private citizens giving.
If you can't see the difference, consider what it would mean to an employee that the organization that signs their paycheck, and determines whether they'll be employed tomorrow, is invested in one party winning over the other.
You're comparing apples and oranges.