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."
You know we're in trouble when FOX is complaining about invasion of people's privacy, instead of cheering how this will help track down "dirty terr'rists".
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.
people's paranoia about ominous large white vehicles is going to skyrocket again. but as Google did beyond everyone's eye by harvest wi-fi data and keeping it, again here, what will they do with these scans? "it was learned today that a city employee had started a p0rn website with the harvested body scans called ambiguousbodies.com. privacy advocates... don't exist." btw, what does the EFF even do these days?!
You know those wrist watches that measure UV and tell you when you've been in the sun too long? Add x-ray.
AS&E says the system is safe for operators and subjects, and that "one scan of the ZBV is equivalent to flying in an airplane at altitude for two minutes."
and my general understanding is even if you were exposed to a dosage from one of these machines, it would be equivalent to a chest x-ray or less," McCabe told FoxNews.com.
The above two are not the same. Assuming normal airline altitudes, it takes hours of flying to get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest x-ray.
"It was a secondary screening mechanism for trucks going into a loading dock
So if your job requires you to drive a truck into the loading dock every day, it better be much lower than "chest x ray" levels.
Some related discussion here: http://ask.metafilter.com/142917/Cumulative-backscatter-Xray-risk
[A public service announcement for the benefit of the slashdot community]
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
OUCH MY SPERM...expect the population to drop in a few years lol
I guess a tinfoil suit is not going to work, eh?
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?
I'm gonna start carrying a mannequin in the trunk of my car.
Forget the hat, it's time to start wearing tinfoil underwear!
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
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
The video includes several images of cars, showing suspicious cargo. No pictures of a scanned house, however.
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
In totally unrelated news, statistics show that tall, slender and well endowed women are more prone to being terrorists, not young middle-eastern bearded men.
~Syberz
... With tinfoil clothing? (or substitute your favorite x-ray opaque material)
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Of course, private business could generate just as much fear as the government, but with much lower cost to the private citizen...
Support deprivatization of the fear industry!
Brilliant. Truly brilliant
...tinfoil underwear?
Expectation of privacy. You implicitly allow search by entering an airport, but a billion court rulings state that the authorities cannot look inside your house or car without probable cause.
X ray tech counts as a search. What kind of legal advisor could ever sign off on this?
Besides, it's totally impractical. 15 seconds per scan? Useless in open traffic. Useless at a major event (15 sec x 10000 cars = 2 days in line to be searched).
Useless expensive and illegal. Thanks DHS!
Maybe its a good thing people shoot mainly digital today.
Would a real film photographer need a lead lined box for his film now?
You're thinking of terahertz waves which are between IR and micro. They are also used in security imaging devices including whole body imaging. X-ray backscatter is a different technology unrelated to t-wave devices. Terahertz waves cannot provide useful imagery through metal, but x-rays can, depending on the alloy involved and its thickness (and the potential for intelligent resolution compensation in the x-ray's imaging software).
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
So, let me get this straight... only people that have $800,000 or so to spend on these nifty trucks deserve privacy?
-chris
There is no ideology for which the masterminds and the Richelieus don't feel more surveillance is always well served.
Stereotypically:
Conservatives? Got to catch those criminals, protect property and keep an eye on the dregs of society
Liberals? Got to expose those miscreants that threaten social order, cohesion and unity
Religious? Got to find those sins against God because He prefers that we punish them instead of doing it Himself
Green? Got to be able to find out when someone pollutes or damages Nature
Fascist? Got to rule society and kick the ass of those antifascists
Antifascist? Got to control society and kick the ass of those fascists
Communist: No shirking on the job unless you can't help yourself
The I-don't-believe-in-surveillance-party: Got to... oh yes, this one, actually. Number of this party in existence in countries across the globe: 0
It's not about what the goon in the street wants, its what the masterminds at the top wants. Because we WILL get more surveillance we should rather find out how to deal with it. Maybe actually tin foil in walls is not a terrible idea.
If you RTFA you will see that this is all for your benefit. "state privacy laws would prohibit individuals or private companies from abusing the vans, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing the same."
See? Now calm down and get back to work, peasant.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
When I clicked to read the slashdot comments for this article, the quote at the bottom of the page reads:
"I consider a new device or technology to have been culturally accepted when it has been used to commit a murder. -- M. Gallaher"
Equivalent to a chest x-ray? No thanks.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
They don't show homes probably because they know they would be destroyed in court if they did (Kyllo vs. US). The cars are on a public street so it is fair game.
I suppose now we will need tin foil underwear too
Yup. Drive up to a school, now it becomes CP View, for your protection.
When the organization itself contributes to the Republican party, all "news" is suspect.
Does that apply to the Democratic party and news operations other than Fox, too?
Be careful how you answer: 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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Watched the video. Fox didn't get any pictures of actual scans taken while they were there. The pictures shown are from AS&E's usual set of demo pictures.
They should have had scans of the reporters. But the mobile system isn't certified for personnel scans.
It's not a significant radiation hazard beyond the recommended 9 foot approach limit. But there are reasonable questions about someone close to the scanning vehicle. The Hickam AFB study did not measure the exposure directly in line with the scanning fan closer than 7' from the vehicle. At that distance, the exposure is 35mRem/hour. Driving by a parked car equipped with standard dosimeters returned a zero dose reading.
I thought it was a little overly fearful when I first read it. But it seems he may not be far off the mark...
The Right to Read, by Richard Stallman:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Given that the 2nd photo in FOX's slideshow shows the driver looking into a laptop screen WHILE DRIVING, all I have to say is give me my tax money back!
Oh, and nice choice of propaganda photos, Fox "News"
Look, I work in medical imaging, which includes X-ray imaging. I don't care what they say, the backscatter radiation imaging they are using is dangerous. Mark my words, if the tech become ubiquitous in airports, those with the most frequent fliers miles will have a greater incidence of tumorous growths.
Is there any type of official restriction as to who can buy these? As these become more common, it will be harder to keep track of all of them. How long before some pedophile/voyeur gets a hold of one of these and manages to convert it into an Ice Cream truck?
Won't someone please think of the children.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
Judge Judy is a nasty Jewish woman who plays a judge on TV.
The fact she is jewish is relevant somehow?
To you, evidently.
Dave
Trump card: It'll catch them damn moslem terr'ists who are trying to destroy your freedom.
"Hey, what happened to our backscatter van?"
"Well, we drove by a container full of parabolic satellite dishes, and our input stages were fried."
It's a dream I have...
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
If someone drives an X-ray emitter past me they are going to find my boot up their ass.
Though the detectors are perfectly capable of detecting boots, due to the low penetrability of the electromagnetic waves I think you should be reassured your boot will remain well hidden.
Remind me again why we haven't burned DC to the ground yet?
Because you're afraid that the Canadians will take the credit?
Judge Judy is a nasty Jewish woman who plays a judge on TV.
The fact she is jewish is relevant somehow?
Probably as relevant as any of the other descriptors in the sentence.
Judge Judy is a nasty.
^^ FTFY
Am I the only one seeing the huge health hazard here? Give it a year and all hot women on earth will be dead from radiation!
multiply that by how many vans could eventually be in a city, and depending on your commute, soon the US public will be getting a few chest x-rays a week.
There has been considerable talk about using private services to house prisoners. Private prisons run about half the cost of government-run prisons. However, in order to be profitable, they need prisoners. Consider what kind of lobbying might take place to not only make laws more strict, but to allow more ways to catch people breaking the law. If this sounds far-fetched, it has already happened with immigration.
Wonder if Dave would have had a problem if she was described as a nasty Muslim woman? Maybe he's a Megaphony
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
My sperm
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Actually, I don't have a 'problem' at all, especially not in the sense you mean- I'm not reacting because someone is 'picking on the jews, but if it was a muslim fuckit, that's fine by me'.
I am wondering what your problem is, though.
Whenever I hear someone described as 'jewish' or 'muslim' or 'black' or 'hispanic' etc. and it has nothing to do with the discussion, I ask 'why'.
So, do you have a problem with that?
Dave
in the video the interviewee claimed that there was no more radiation than in "a chest x-ray". well, In a chest x-ray I get lead underwear to keep things from going too far, and I don't get x-rayed all that often. what happens when I get constantly chest x-rayed for the rest of my life? nothing good I wager. Use it on trucks going through the border, where you can stop and have the driver wait outside. Use it on checking shipping containers, use it on suspicious, driver-less cars and bags, but for the love of God(gods, Alllah, or lack thereof, etc) don't x-ray my junk indiscriminately.
Did no one else, when reading TFS, picture the Norsefire Finger vans roaming the streets eavesdropping on the citizenry?
Well Dave. The original question was "I am wondering what or who Judge Judy is". The response from AC was that:
All are valid pieces of information, and valid answers to the question, although clearly one of them bothers you.
I'm guessing that it's because AC used the description "nasty" in the same sentence, but then... are all religious people good? If the bone of contention is that the AC is somehow inferring that all Jews are nasty, then shouldn't we be standing up for women, judges and "people on TV" who will no doubt be offended because "obviously" AC is inferring that all women are nasty?
No. Because most people are intelligent enough that they will realise that AC was asked "tell me about JJ" and was just reguritating everything that he/she knew about her (including the opinion that she is nasty - not an unreasonable one imo). The type of people who would suddenly conclude that all women (or jews, judges or TV people) were nasty are chronically stupid, have likely been this way since birth and always will be, so you really shouldn't worry too much about them - you won't be able to "fix" them.
Sometimes asshats try to smear minorities by association, but this certainly wasn't one of those times and you're jumping the gun.
Calm down Dave. Good boy.
No, I'm not jumping the gun because I didn't assume a purpose.
Luddite is the one who assumed a purpose.
I was asking out of curiosity as to what was relevant.
Dave