Slashdot Mirror
DHS Eyes Covert Body Scans
CWmike writes "Documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggest that the US Department of Homeland Security has signed contracts for the development of mobile and static systems that can be used scan pedestrians and people at rail and bus stations and special event venues — apparently at times without their knowledge. Under consideration: An Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance platform; an X-Ray Backscatter system that could detect concealed metallic and high-density plastic objects on people from up to 10 meters away; a walk-through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest, which could be installed in corridors and likely scan people walking through it without them knowing it, EPIC said."
What these guys clearly want is the right to search any and all persons without their knowledge and without anything remotely resembling probable cause. Right now, they can at least claim that you consent to being searched when you decide to board a plane. But this is something different, because you do not consent to a search when you walk down a street.
Now show me your papers please.
I am officially gone from
But the safety of the machines is still somewhat in question. The government says they're fine, but researchers in the field aren't quite so sure. You can't just go around radiating people. Beyond the obvious privacy concerns, there are health concerns as well.
"Safely" is the key word, imho. There's no reliable data (ie, not provided by the manufacturers of the devices themselves) as to the level of x-ray exposure and the long term effects of repeated exposures. There's no way to know how "safe" they are until longitudinal studies can be completed and that takes a long time. In the mean time, it's "take our word for it." I'd rather not.
Okay, let's just consider this for a bit. Storage costs are dropping like a lead balloon. Chip costs as well.
Soon the idea that people are filming their lives constantly will be a fact rather than a story.
Image processing of said films and audio will allow us to ask our devices where we put our keys, and they will answer (think cheap massive storage meets IBM's Watson).
Our cars will drive themselves (seriously, 40,000 deaths per year because people can't drive well consistently WILL be converted into less than 400 deaths per year because automated cars have limits). First the cars will just kick in when they have to to save our lives, then they will just take over the job. And they will be able to record where we have been, and be able to discuss where we want to go within that historical and geographical context (car meets Watson).
But then things get sinister. The TSA/FBI/CIA/... will be able to record all sorts of things, and ask about what people have been doing. (Video surveillance meets Watson). And there is going to be piles of video for "Surveillance Watson" to think about. Think traffic cameras, hummingbird sized drones, parking lot cameras, etc.
People are going to go into a rage here about the radiation. But what happens when we figure out how to simply understand the changes to the background radiation just because people are walking about? We have all sorts of RF to use, all materials give off a certain amount of radiation, and we are walking through all of it. We have all sorts of sonic sources to process. The bottom line is that passive sensors will *at some point* be able to do what requires active radiation sources today.
Today the limits on processing random data streams limits what government can do with all these sources of information that produce tons and tons of junk for each ounce of "useful-to-three-letter-org" information. The law is increasingly irrelevant when it comes to restraining what these organizations do. What has saved us is that it is just too hard to process that much data.
But at some point it will NOT be too hard to process that much data. We need to make the law RELEVANT in restraining how we are observed, because even if I am wrong about the details I gave above, I am not wrong about the trend. The fact is that technology is going to be increasingly on the side of those that want to know everything about us even if they have no right to gather that information. And we will increasingly see this used to punish those that oppose those in power.
So who says someone couldn't just walk up to the giant gatherings *outside* a stadium and blow those people up? Or release a highly poisonous chemical into the water system for the stadium? I doubt such a system would actually do much to increase security. I know they haven't done much for the air-based transport in the US.
I agree - that's why I said "If... safely and securely". Privacy concerns in this respect wouldn't worry me. Living in the UK I'm aiming to go to several Olympic events in 2012 - and I'd much rather know that there was no way anything was getting in to the stadium that shouldn't be there.
Need I actually point out that these machines will NOT allow you to know that 'there was no way anything was getting in'? They may make you think this is true and make you feel happy and warm and fuzzy about how safe you are, but nothing really changes --- except that a lot of people carrying a lot of innocuous things will get hassled and have their personal belongings confiscated, all in the name of making stupid people feel safer. Not actually BE safer, mind you, just feel that way.
It should not be a surprise to anyone here that installing such a system at any Olympics venue will simply be viewed as a challenge to act by any nefarious types, even those whose sole goal is to bypass challenges like this and not actually harm you.
Additionally with 'concealed' scanners you would be receiving and unknown and uncontrolled level of dosage. Where a paranoid nutjob that never leaves there home until they go on a killing spree will get no radiation zaps from these toys, the home team supporter may get hundreds or more in a year. Can you find any competent radiologist who would say that's acceptable? I really doubt it. Heck, I had one balk at giving me a fourth x-ray that year (it was still spring), how do you think they'd feel about someone getting zapped 5 times in one football game or court hearing? (Imagine the units were installed in stadiums, airports, bus/rail stations, malls, government buildings, schools, etc. Invisible things are place more than the same visible item because people don't raise a fuss since they don't notice them.)
Worse yet, what if someone stopped and stood in the scan location. Yes, the scan location will be unmarked. You don't employ a 'covert' scanning device and put up a big flashing sign that says "stand here to be covertly x-rayed". And yes, people will do it if it's an entryway, they'll even do it in a doorway. You want to know how many people I've seen get hit by automated doors closing because they stood in the doorway itself where the sensor couldn't see them? Let's just leave it at a lot. Think about it, how often do you see people standing in entryways and the like, not caring if they are blocking the way for others. Even though you might like the idea of a little revenge on them, is possible death and other somewhat less serious health issues an appropriate punishment for being obliviously impolite?
That was how the recent Moscow bombing happened. The terrorist in that case simply got into the security queue and blew *that* up. -.-
There is no way to be 100% safe. People somewhere forgot that freedom means being willing to take the risks associated with it.
You can't just go around radiating people.
Indeed. The laws of physics, specifically concerning the creation and destruction of matter and energy, would indicate that in order to "radiate people" you'd have to have not only one hell of an energy source on your person, but something akin to an insanely cool energy-to-matter converter capable of creating atoms in the precise configuration as to generate a person.
Now, on the other hand, you may have meant "you can't just go around irradiating people", as in the verb irradiating, which means "exposing to radiation."
The American College of Radiology and the Radiological Society of North America have already expressed concerns about the levels of radiation given to patients in the normal course of medical practice. They've already recommended limiting scans to cases where absolutely necessary, where you can justifiably state "getting this scan is worth increasing the odds my patient will get cancer."
Of course, the reality is worse. Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research is reporting the machines are likely to routinely emit 20 times the radiation reported in the spec and are flat out a major public health risk. Dr. John Sedat, Professor of BioChemistry and Biophysics at the University of California San Francisco and a member of the National Academy of Sciences sent a letter to the White House with the following:
“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”
By the TSA's own numbers, which are undoubtedly low, they calculate more people will die from the eventual cancers than have been killed by all the terrorist acts in the world put together.
OK, so that's one side of the argument. What does the DHS have to say? Where are the medical professionals willing to certify these machines as safe?
Turns out, there aren't any. No medical professional of any kind has yet been willing to sign their name in public stating that these machines are safe. The only people saying so are the vendors who won the contract, and even they refuse to state unequivacably that the machines are safe, falling back instead on "We've built the machine to your spec and they should perform as ordered."
No one, not even the maker of the machines, is willing to certify them as safe.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Mod parent up.
As someone who worked in medical imaging, I'll add there is no documentation of what exposure you are getting, when you got it, etc. At least in a hospital, they make sure they don't X-ray you too much.
TSA does not have your health in mind, else these scanners would be FDA approved. Unlike a hospital which would get sued into oblivion if they ever used something not FDA approved.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
You know those WiFi-sensitive T-Shirts from ThinkGeek? Maybe it's time for something that responds to X-radiation...
New Clothing Line Reminds TSA of the 4th Amendment - http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/07/new-clothing-line-reminds-tsa-of-the-4th-amendment/
Not thrilled with the Transportation Security Administration's new touchy-feely pat down techniques and full-body scanners? Now there's a line of underclothes that offer a friendly reminder of the Fourth Amendment during controversial searches.
It's called 4th Amendment Wear.
Metallic ink printed on shirts spells out the privacy rights stated in the amendment and is designed to appear in TSA scanners.
Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
The US government spent the 7 years following 9/11 keeping people terrified. If you read that as the government doing the terrorist's job, you possess properly working higher brain function.
/. crowd, but these high tech electronic gizmos don't work. People have made it through screening with handguns. And as people have said since the get-go, people don't even need to get past the security check to terrorize at airports (presumably all terrorist targets are air travel centric).
In fact, the US reaction went way beyond anything "the enemy" could have hoped for.
The alleged mastermind said directly that the attack was intended to bring financial harm to the US. The US responded with trillions of dollars of wartime debt. As a token of appreciation, the US threw in recruitment benefits that will help terrorist organizations for decades. While they were at it, the US government stomped all over rights of the its citizens. Heck, why not? As if that wasn't enough, they also work very hard at keeping the terror of 9/11 alive, playing with "threat levels" whenever the people don't seem terrified enough.
The truly astounding thing is how much money they are continually throwing at things that do not improve security at all.
This will not play well with the
Maybe gizmos act as a deterrent, "Ooh, surely their superior technology form an impenetrable barrier, lets just give up trying" but I doubt it.
Many people have been arguing for more effective, lower tech solutions that actually will work. Dogs and pigs can detect an enormous range of aromas, don't need to see a nearly undressed image of your body, don't need to physically touch your naughty bits, and don't expose you to radiation.
If the government goal was effective security, wouldn't they use the very inexpensive and very effective dogs rather than the machines that cost millions and are not effective?
What would be more intimidating, a refrigerator-sized machine or a pack of hungry looking German Shepherds sniffing at your pant leg?
Performance must be inherent in every aspect of the system. It is not an afterthought, but always thought. - me