Slashdot Mirror


DHS Tries To Hide Mobile Scanner Details

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request last year (PDF) with the US Department of Homeland Security, whose Transportation Security Administration has been investigating the use of x-ray scanning technology for covert use in more public places, like train stations and even ordinary city streets. TSA has tested interesting devices like the Z Backscatter Vans both privately and on members of the general public. EPIC recently received new documents from DHS. Some of the documents are almost completely black from redactions."

201 comments

  1. Doing a good job, too by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The YouTube video in the first link is already yanked.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Doing a good job, too by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you repeat the same lie enough, people will start to believe it.

      - We are doing this for YOUR safety. There is nothing here you need to worry about. Everything is OK.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Doing a good job, too by cultiv8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    3. Re:Doing a good job, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      v for vendetta

    4. Re:Doing a good job, too by slick7 · · Score: 0

      If you repeat the same lie enough, people will start to believe it.

      - We are doing this for YOUR safety. There is nothing here you need to worry about. Everything is OK.

      Brought to you by the people who believe in truth in advertising and truth in government.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    5. Re:Doing a good job, too by ldobehardcore · · Score: 2

      Just like THX 1138
      police bot: we're here for your safety. You have nothing to fear. No one will hurt you
      Jabs THX with riot prod.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    6. Re:Doing a good job, too by prowler1 · · Score: 2

      So if they are using backscatter technology, does that mean they are spamming everyone?

      (sorry, really bad attempt at humour, need more coffee).

    7. Re:Doing a good job, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that American Sicence and Engineeringing Inc are claiming they breached their own copyright?

    8. Re:Doing a good job, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saved offline! If this vid is taken down I'll put it on a torrent site or something.

    9. Re:Doing a good job, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... move along, nothing to see here...

  2. I don't condone this by milbournosphere · · Score: 1

    in trucks running around in the general public, but this might help to alleviate congestion at already borked up Mexican border crossings. I'm in SD, and I regularly hear of 2+ hour border waits during local traffic reports. Maybe this will help to speed up checks for vans and trucks. -- Oh, and Fuck the TSA.

    1. Re:I don't condone this by mellon · · Score: 1

      Won't help—this stuff penetrates clothes, not car bodies.

      It seems like it would be really easy to build detectors for millimeter-wave radar. There's probably money to be had here—I'd want one, so I'd know to get off the street to avoid the radiation. It won't penetrate the walls of buildings, nor (I suspect) the glass in windows, so you'd be pretty safe just stepping into a shop when the detector goes off.

      Of course, if they see people noticing and avoiding the scanner (i.e., opting out), they'll probably want to do precautionary pat-downs... :)

    2. Re:I don't condone this by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware South Dakota had an international border =p

    3. Re:I don't condone this by psyclone · · Score: 4, Informative

      This looks like it scans cars, containers, and even buildings if they chose:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iABPKd0vFxQ

    4. Re:I don't condone this by mellon · · Score: 1

      Holy shit! If that's for real, the people running this should be jailed for mass assault with a deadly weapon. Watching that video was like watching that movie someone shot of a person being X-rayed for several minutes. You basically knew the person in the picture had to have died of cancer, if they weren't hit by a truck or something first. This is supposed to save lives? At what cost?

    5. Re:I don't condone this by Cwix · · Score: 2

      Have to keep the nebraskans out.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:I don't condone this by bendodge · · Score: 2

      Seems like it would also be easy resist electronically. Get a vacuum tube and make a high-powered, messy x-ray emitter and just hose the van with it. (Also, carrying an x-ray detector to ensure you have the right van would probably be courteous to innocent van drivers.)

      I'm guessing the effect of an x-ray blaster on a van like this would be to wash out the image and maybe induce some concern in the operators about personal exposure. It could also get you in trouble if you just stood there and held it, but I'm sure some enterprising chap could make cheap, unattended units that one could simply embed somewhere.

      I wonder - if powerful enough, could an x-ray emitter possible damage the van's sensors?

      --
      The government can't save you.
    7. Re:I don't condone this by firex726 · · Score: 2

      Man, that's right out of some dystopian scifi story.

      Next thing you know they'll be "Freedom Checkpoints" to make sure you have you "Freedom Pass" to be allowed through.

    8. Re:I don't condone this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      could an x-ray emitter possible damage the van's sensors?

      Quite possibly. I have yet to hear of a sensor that doesn't have a high treshold. The proposed SDI gamma lasers from 1981 will surely have no trouble incinerating the van alongside with the sensor, for example. That being said, I wonder what just a small DIY EMP generator would do to the van.

    9. Re:I don't condone this by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      Minnesota is basically the same thing as Canada, just 10 degrees warmer.

    10. Re:I don't condone this by halowolf · · Score: 1

      Better stop eating bananas and brazil nuts. Its good to know its safe, I mean when people are being scanned without their knowledge an unknown amount of times I'm sure it will mean they can monitor and control their radiation exposure that much more effectively.

    11. Re:I don't condone this by man_ls · · Score: 2

      A 1B3 (an early high-voltage rectifier) running a few thousand volts over spec cold-cathode will crank out enough X-rays for DIY x-ray photography and similar hobby experimentation, but they're not very high energy - I doubt they'd make it through the metal.

    12. Re:I don't condone this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're onto something with the detector, but the ones that currently exist (and could pick up that frequency) are prohibitively expensive.

      The part that I don't understand is how they can justify firing weapons of mass destruction (this qualifies under the UN definition) in our own cities, at our own citizens.

    13. Re:I don't condone this by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Nothing is "prohibitively expensive" when you've got taxpayer money to spend.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:I don't condone this by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      In one part they say the radiation is similar to 15 minutes on an airplane, but throughout the video they show this thing seeing the insides of dumpsters and shipping containers. The X-rays penetrate this thick steel but are safe to an unshielded person? Does not compute!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:I don't condone this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, this will see those kilos of drugs located in hidden vehicle compartments. Solution (for those nefarious scoundrels trying to bring these things across): flood the border crossings with kilos of *non-drugs* located in hidden vehicle compartments.

    16. Re:I don't condone this by wwphx · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't help me, I can't avoid it: they have one at the border patrol check point East-bound between Las Cruces and Alamogordo, NM, and I go to 'Cruces every two weeks or so. I didn't see one at the West-bound point between 'Cruces and Demming on I-10, but I'm sure they'll have one eventually.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    17. Re:I don't condone this by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The detector mentioned is for you to carry so you can avoid being spammed with x-rays. Therefor it would be a personal purchase, not government.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    18. Re:I don't condone this by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Maybe I need to look into buying some lead underwear...there is a reason they cover your crotch when giving you an x-ray. Also, medical x-rays don't penetrate metal, so these must be of much higher energies...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Take a look at the FOIA doc by RCC42 · · Score: 2

    http://epic.org/foia_notes/foia_doc_20_snap.PDF

    Apparently "(5)(b)" is the only thing we're allowed to know about this project. What the hell?

    1. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      It's actually (b)(5). I think we know what that means.

    2. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You sank my battleship! :(

    3. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by sjames · · Score: 1

      We must sink their Battleship?

    4. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Tom Ridge and Janet Napolitano are actually Morden and Anna Sheridan, respectively?

    5. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by magarity · · Score: 1

      Does the original file have the "undo" history so we can see what's there before it was blacked out?

    6. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is where you file a FOIA complaint and they get to sit there in front of a judge and explain why they deliberately attempted to evade a properly filed FOIA request with such a ridiculous response.

      Unfortunately, as far as I know, FOIA has no teeth, i.e. there's no way to prosecute these clowns for even such flagrant abuse. However, if a judge forces the information to be released and it is legally actionable information, they could potentially be charged with obstruction.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

      Responding to myself: from the full version of the release, it looks like (b)(5) was an annotation added on top of some blacked-out sections to cite which section of the FOIA justifies blanking out. Some other more limited redactions on later pages have a box saying (b)(6) next to them. So it's not that they blacked out a whole page except for a section heading; they blacked out the entire page and cited (b)(5) as the reason.

    8. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reading the letter, what that is is the reason they redacted it - in this case because those (in fact completely redacted) pages (good grief, what a waste of toner!) are "opinions, conclusions, and recommendations included within inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters". That is, it appears all decision-making processes are exempt from your FOIA requests (which I frankly find to be quite bizarre from a UK perspective, but that's apparently in the FOI Act, the reason behind this being that the "release of this internal information would discourage the expression of candid opinions and inhibit the free and frank exchange of information among agency personnel").

      That seems like kind of a shame. That sounds to me like exactly the kind of thing - the discussion underlying the decision-making in agencies - which perhaps ought to be more subject to public oversight, but ... hey, whatever.

      I note the brochure compares the background radiation per day with the radiation exposure (of different wavelengths?) "per exam", which would presumably be about a second or so. Stop me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember from the discussion surrounding the Fukushima incident, that's not a useful comparison, even if you multiply by the number of second per day, because radiation exposure just doesn't work like that. Ah, marketing...

    9. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Points for the epic Babylon 5 reference!

    10. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by sjames · · Score: 2

      Translation, we wouldn't want our government to avoid making decisions the people wouldn't approve of. Next thing you know, the people might get the idea the government exists at their pleasure and to serve them. Then democracy breaks out, OH NOES!

    11. Re:Take a look at the FOIA doc by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Nope, I've checked it out. It actually looks like they blacked it out, printed it, and then scanned it in again. Smart.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  4. So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm walking down the street with a concealed handgun (perfectly legal in 30+ states) and the DHS van shows I'm packing heat. Next thing I know I'm on the ground with a knee in my back and automatic weapons pointed at me. Is this how it's going to work? Because if that's how it's going down, I see no reason not to overthrow this government now before it gets much worse. I'd rather live under anarchic self-rule than this nanny-state bullshit.

    1. Re:So what if by flaming+error · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I see no reason not to overthrow this government now
      Some things are easier said than done, friend.

      But if you want government unlike the status quo, a potentially significant start would be to elect Ron Paul President. Whether he'll really be able to accomplish much I don't know, but he's not your typical republicrat.

    2. Re:So what if by mojo-raisin · · Score: 2

      As a fellow believer of the 2nd Amendment, I think talk of "overthrow[ing] this government now" is quite premature and irresponsible.

      We are still working through the courts to (re)gain our right to carry outside the home. Once that is gained and exercised by citizens in the North East and California, much of this 4th Amendment violation will simply disappear. It will no longer be practical.

      Insurrection is silly.

    3. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if you're white or .. "other"

    4. Re:So what if by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hear, hear!

      He's the only anti-war candidate in the race, and he's the only one who doesn't equivocate about the fact that the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting that I can't have an Xray machine in my office unless I have trained and certified Xray personnel, but the DHS can go irradiate people without their consent whenever the hell they feel like it without any certification, expertise, or evaluation of the equipment.

      This country has gone to hell.

    6. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet for all his hollow claims about liberty, he doesn't give a crap about your right to control your own body. Fucking hypocrite.

    7. Re:So what if by http · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not nanny state. The aim is interference, not nurturing.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    8. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you want government unlike the status quo, a potentially significant start would be to elect Ron Paul President. Whether he'll really be able to accomplish much I don't know, but he's not your typical republicrat.

      Good morning,

      I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions but the popular vote doesn't elect presidents the Electoral College votes for who is to be president. So, it really doesn't matter who individual people vote for.

      Aside from that, carry on.

    9. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus they'll try their damnedest not to let him get elected. If in fact it does happen, he'll be killed.

    10. Re:So what if by skr95062 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if you want government unlike the status quo, a potentially significant start would be to elect Ron Paul President. Whether he'll really be able to accomplish much I don't know, but he's not your typical republicrat.

      Funny, I thought that was what Obama was going to do. After all he ran under the "Change you can believe in" and the "Yes, we can" slogans.

      So far I have not seen any change in the way the assholes in DC operate. Same old bullshit from politicians "I will make a difference in DC". Although it looks like he finally figured out that "Yes, we can" is really "No, we can't"

      What really blows my mind is how many people actually bought his bullshit and voted for the lying SOB. Yes, he is a lying SOB. There are numerous instances that prove it. This country would be much better off without 546 lawyers in DC.

      Democracy is a government that is afraid of it's citizens, Tyranny is the citizens afraid of the government.

      Which one we have is an exercise left for the reader.

    11. Re:So what if by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      What? He's for the end of the war on drugs, and legalization of more than a few. Or are you talking about abortion?

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    12. Re:So what if by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > he doesn't give a crap
      If you're needing some, I can refer you to other politicians who'll viritually bury you in the stuff.

      In the meantime, I think you'll find no human being will ever make a perfect POTUS except for you. But once in a while a POTUS comes along that accomplishes good things nonetheless.

    13. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it'll also read your concealed gun certificate X-ray backscatter form #3275/800, conveniently attached to your gun's holster. Our system is not only super-safe, it doesn't raise false alarms. To be 100% positive, you can also use one of our DNA backscatter identification system modules, also priced very reasonably.

      Total security and total safety at your fingertips, now. For just a pittance.

    14. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was some guarantee that all weapon toting thugs would be off the street, I might consider it. But of course drug gangs are "too powerful" to take down, so only mostly-harmless people will take the brunt.

    15. Re:So what if by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > I'm walking down the street with a concealed handgun (perfectly legal in 30+ states) and the DHS van shows I'm packing heat. Next thing I know I'm on the ground with a knee in my back and automatic weapons pointed at me. Is this how it's going to work?

      Of course. And if you cooperate fully and have all the proper documentation on you, and don't have the bad fortune of being in "the right place at the right time", they will probably let you go, and depending on the state and the precinct you might even get your weapon back. Whee.

      But seriously, there are certain political factions that have been looking for something like this for decades. This could get really grim really quickly.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    16. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extending the scenario a little bit, what happens if you managed to block the scanner? Will you be arrested? If not what is the point of scanning?

      Either way it is a slippery slope.

    17. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Abortion isn't YOUR body being killed. Asshole.

    18. Re:So what if by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I don't like this one bit, either, but in all honesty the scenario where they just SWAT down anyone carrying a concealed handgun is extremely unlikely.

      Mainly, because there are too many of us.

      I think it's worth remembering that generally, speaking, the people doing this stuff do not think of themselves as the bad guys.  Quite the contrary--they're not going to mess with  you unless they really think you're up to serious no good.

    19. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no human being will ever make a perfect POTUS except for you

      So elect me.

    20. Re:So what if by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      We are still working through the courts to (re)gain our right to carry outside the home. Once that is gained and exercised by citizens in the North East and California, much of this 4th Amendment violation will simply disappear. It will no longer be practical.

      I'm interested in how concealed carry laws will stop the government from spying on your communications.
      Will these court decisions also undo the retroactive legalization of telecom spying?
      I don't think you're looking broadly enough at the 4th Amendment.

      Best case scenario, more people carry guns.
      Most likely scenario, more people carry guns and shoot at/get shot by the cops.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    21. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      silly, they're not going to be looking for weapons. they'll be looking for dangerous shit like pirated music and movies and marijuana.

    22. Re:So what if by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      "no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'"

      - Bill Hicks

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    23. Re:So what if by Baron_Yam · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'm mostly anti-abortion. I think that except in unusual circumstances (pregnancy started by rape, screening shows significant birth defects, pregnancy's going to kill the mother, and probably a few other situations I haven't thought of) a woman who has the emotional ability to have an abortion has something wrong with her. I'm NOT going to condemn a woman because of that belief, or even try to prevent her from getting an abortion.

      The problem is that abortions are usually performed long before the brain is up and running. Hell, a full term newborn doesn't have much going on mentally compared to, say, a cat. Every day, fully grown adult animals with far more mental capacity than a 12 week old fetus are slaughtered to put fresh meat on my plate. How could I possibly be against abortion when I'm OK with that?

      And I would say that calling someone a hypocrite because they take conflicting stands on two different subjects is perfectly valid. Calling the person who points that out an 'asshole' is not exactly a persuasive argument...

    24. Re:So what if by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And the alternative - that's some Tea Party?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    25. Re:So what if by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      I'm walking down the street with a concealed handgun (perfectly legal in 30+ states) and the DHS van shows I'm packing heat. Next thing I know I'm on the ground with a knee in my back and automatic weapons pointed at me.

      Let's see if we can get the other side of the aisle on board as well:

      "I'm walking down the street with a bong in my pocket (none of the gov't's damned business) and the DHS van shows I'm packing illegal paraphernalia. Next thing I know I'm on the ground with a knee in my back and they're pinching my herb." :)

    26. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love comments like this. "I'd rather live under anarchic self-rule." Bullshit. You could do that right now. Go move to an uninhabited island. Or some African country with a non-functional government. Why haven't you done that? Because living in a place like that would be horrible.

    27. Re:So what if by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      There are apparently vans out there scanning completely oblivious and innocent people, with technology that is extremely suspect for the risk is represents to ones health, possibly causing cancer, and your problem with that is you might get halted/arrested for walking around the street with a gun?

      Honestly, with the airport shit you can at least chose not to fly in order to not expose yourself to those porkbarrel scanners, these vans driving out there exposing completely oblivous people to radiation sounds like something out of 60s anti-commie propaganda.

      As for the gun thing, i understand the US is a different place from europe, but all this concealed-carry stuff doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    28. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if that's how it's going down, I see no reason not to overthrow this government now before it gets much worse.

      That's exactly what needs to happen: The US government is in desperate need of being overthrown. But you don't do it violently. You just vote the bastards out.

    29. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the world do you assume they'd be content with merely pointing the weapons at you? This is the same government that has no problem with assassinating its own citizens.

    30. Re:So what if by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Because if the DHS is using it, it is a security device. If you were using it, it is a medical device that must be carefully regulated as improper use could cause serious health problems. See the difference?

    31. Re:So what if by black+soap · · Score: 2

      So, they'd be stopping him without any probable cause? They had no reason to believe he was carrying illegally, and now he gets to eat asphalt, play nice, answer all their questions, wait 20 minutes while they check his ID, and be thankful he is cooperating with national security, plus the added benefit of undocumented X-rays?

      That's the same as pulling over anyone you see driving a car, because if they don't have a license it would be illegal for them to drive, so you have to be sure. Except you treat every stop as a felony stop, maybe PIT maneuver, guns drawn, etc., except while you are checking their ID you also give them cancer.

    32. Re:So what if by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So you know not all second amendment supporters are like the GP and want to start a revolution. I recently got my carry permit for the specific purpose of hunting but not handgun hunting. As it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm when on a public road (like when walking down one to go out to the deer stand) unless one has a carry permit I decided after my run in with a wolf last year (It's not the one in front of you that you have to worry about) that it would be worth getting one so I could carry a loaded large caliber revolver. I have it for personal protection from dangerous animals like wolves, bear, and moose but don't carry it otherwise.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    33. Re:So what if by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Possibly that, or gay rights.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    34. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you could learn about the US and how government works, and just vote in people who won't allow this kind of thing.

    35. Re:So what if by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Every one of Obama's campaign slogans has turned into a punch line.

      Also it's understandable that anyone who hadn't pre-judged Obama to be a lying SOB would have bought his bullshit.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:So what if by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If a dumpster wall can't block the scanner I don't think anything you can wear will do the job. Maybe hide behind a dumpster filled with lead?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    37. Re:So what if by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      It's hard to tell the difference most of the time (to most people).

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    38. Re:So what if by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > So, they'd be stopping him without any probable cause?

      I understand what you're saying, but the probable cause will be that he was detected carrying a weapon. You can't be too careful. If it saves just one life etc etc.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    39. Re:So what if by black+soap · · Score: 1

      If it is even a fair possibility that he was carrying legally, that isn't probable cause. See the analogy of pulling over anyone caught driving, in case they don't have a license to drive.

    40. Re:So what if by nmos · · Score: 1

      As a fellow believer of the 2nd Amendment, I think talk of "overthrow[ing] this government now" is quite premature and irresponsible.

      Agreed. If enough of the population can be convinced that freedom is worthwhile we can still make progress via the vote. If not then a revolution is likely to make things worse rather than better.

    41. Re:So what if by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I happen to agree, but then how does one explain the legality of sobriety checkpoints?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    42. Re:So what if by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Anybody who runs for POTUS has to know they're a target, and if they think their security is infallible they're stupid.

      If we elect somebody as radically different as Ron Paul, who has a consistent life-long record, and his administration ends up being nothing like his past, then we'll have pretty strong evidence that action beyond the ballot box is necessary.

      But so far we haven't elected strict constitutionalists. We elect corporate-sponsored butt-kissers, and we coincidentally have a government which acts like a corporate-sponsored butt-kisser.

      It may be that correlation != causation, but we have to change the kind of people we elect to find out for sure.

    43. Re:So what if by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That would not surprise me in the least. There are some people in this world who have so much money that there is very little they cannot accomplish.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    44. Re:So what if by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I loved how his position on telecom immunity was that it should never happen, then when the bill came up for vote in congress, he voted for it and changed his web site. This was exactly when I realized that Obama was just another charismatic liar.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    45. Re:So what if by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      And this is why this debate will never go anywhere: the two sides aren't debating the same thing.

      "Abortion is murder" vs. "It's a woman's right to choose" aren't even part of the same argument.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    46. Re:So what if by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      One of the differences between the two is that Obama had virtually no record to speak of. Ron Paul has a long and consistent history of voting based on the same principles he talks about in the debates. I have no doubt that he would continue to act based on principle.

      He's the only one of the whole bunch who would, upon getting into office, put an end to the abuses of executive power that have been built up over the preceding decades, and you can bet that he would use his status to push for the repeal of bad laws (such as the PATRIOT Act) in the Congress.

      Think what you like about his views, there is no one as consistent or as apolitical as Ron Paul. You can see this in the debates--other candidates spend the majority of their time giving bullshit examples of how they voted for X which created Y jobs, and Go USA. Paul, despite having the most consistent record, rarely points to it, instead explaining why and how things should be done differently. That's how every campaign ought to run.

    47. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Declaration of Independence FAIL.

    48. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One happens to believe they are an ilelgal attempt to catch bribes and fine money. Also that they are political payment to the insanity orginizations(MADD et al) in reciprocal agreement to support election attempts.

    49. Re:So what if by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok, that works for me.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    50. Re:So what if by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      a woman who has the emotional ability to have an abortion has something wrong with her.

      A woman who has the emotional strength to make her own decisions despite other people attempting to impose their religious values on them has something right with her. Forcing someone to carry a fetus to term is slavery, and giving birth is then literally "slave labour."

      FTFY.

      We don't live in a perfect world. The women who decide to have abortions are acutely aware of that. They don't intentionally get pregnant so they can "experience the joys of abortion and the opprobrium of others."

    51. Re:So what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I thought that was what Obama was going to do.

      Really? I *knew* he was lying. After all, while giving lip service to civil rights and putting an end to the type of BS Bush and gang were doing, he voted FOR telecom immunity for warrantless wiretaps, he spoke out against the war while having no problem voting for war spending, and so on.

                Ron Paul? This is in fact who I intend to vote for. Frankly, the full-scale libertarian ideal may go too far (stripping gov't to the point there is no income tax whatsoever is probably unfeasible in the short to medium term. ) Nevertheless, that is who I plan to vote for, he would push hard for a smaller, less intrusive and less expensive government, while the checks and balances will keep him from going too far.

  5. Security Through Obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because It Kept You Safe on 9/11!

    1. Re:Security Through Obscurity by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      One important factor here is that I have heard from an unconfirmed source that the TSA personnel isn't permitted to wear radiation badges anymore - but that the body scanners do use radiation to scan, so this is a bit interesting.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  6. Who would have thought? by mr1911 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The government agency responsible for eroding the Constitution would not be open about what they are doing? Preposterous!

    Write your congressional leaders today and demand the TSA be 1) immediately defunded, and 2) disbanded all together. If you really care, expand your note to include the entire DHS.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  7. How to tell? by man_ls · · Score: 1

    Is there a sensor that could detect if one of these technologies is in use? I'd love to outfit my vehicle with a TSA Detector so I can know when my rights are being violated on the go, so I could post a photo of the offending scannervan on the Internet.

    1. Re:How to tell? by orangesquid · · Score: 3, Informative

      See http://www.techlib.com/area_50/xraydefender.htm -- tho techlib.com isn't resolving right now (server down, I'll bet), so you'll just have to try an alternate source:

      http://www.techlib.com.nyud.net:8090/area_50/xraydefender.htm coral cache says gateway timed out...
      http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/www.techlib.com/area_50/xraydefender.htm wayback machine doesn't have it archived...
      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SErH8Fhj52cJ:www.techlib.com/area_50/xraydefender.htm+site:techlib.com+backscatter&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8&source=www.google.com -- you can at least read the text on google, and get thumbnails of the images on the page:
      http://www.google.com/search?oe=UTF-8&q=site:techlib.com+backscatter&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
      Too bad the schematic isn't readable at thumbnail-size, but maybe techlib.com will be back up soon?

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    2. Re:How to tell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your nards shrivel up and turn black.

    3. Re:How to tell? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Ow, my sperm!
      .
      huh, didn't hurt that time.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. The DHS should be abolished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All of this has gotten out of hand. This is a major over-reach, not to mention creepy as hell.

    1. Re:The DHS should be abolished by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Ya think?!?!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  9. Backscatter detectors by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    Are there any backscatter detectors? Or should I just assume that every black van on the road is there to irradiate me?

    1. Re:Backscatter detectors by n5vb · · Score: 1

      I suppose good questions to ask might be:

      Is it X ray or millimeter wave? (There seemed to be some confusion on that.)
      If X ray, what wavelength and intensity?

      With that information, it wouldn't be *that* hard to come up with a detection sensor that would at least pick it up. Wouldn't stop them scanning you, but you'd at least know you'd been scanned..

    2. Re:Backscatter detectors by n5vb · · Score: 1

      This might be a good component to check out .. :)

    3. Re:Backscatter detectors by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Black vans means black body radiation.

      Time to build an EMP device. They can be made in the size of a suitcase, just walk by van and fire it. But don't wear any electronic device since it will be toast.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:Backscatter detectors by danlip · · Score: 1

      You can build a small EMP that is driven by high explosives, but if you are setting off high explosives in a public area you can expect to end up in prison and have very little sympathy from anyone (well, if you are holding the suitcase, as you suggest, you'll end up in pieces, not prison). I don't think you are going to build an EMP that small any other way.

  10. Do I get paid? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much do I get for participating in these medical experiments. Better yet, how can I opt out?

    1. Re:Do I get paid? by imidan · · Score: 1

      Er... actually, President Bush toured the country in a bus from the same company.

    2. Re:Do I get paid? by danlip · · Score: 1

      yes, it fun to watch the Repulicans and Tea baggers freak out every time the government pays for some security for a democratic president. They did it for Clinton too. Somehow it never bothers them when it is a Republican president.

  11. They suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God I hate the DHS.

  12. Patdowns? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Are they also planning to have pat-downs in major cities? Pretty soon, everywhere you go you will either have to go through an X-ray or get patted down, all for "security."

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Patdowns? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      Since Clinton doesn't have access to interns any more, he can get his trills by working as a TSA agent.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  13. KGB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Go and look up what KGB stood for, in translation to English. The Department of Homeland Security is it. In Soviet America, jokes tell Yakov Smirnoff. (probably to lie face down in the "party position.")

    1. Re:KGB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is the Committee for State Security. The Homeland was left just as insecure as it was before KGB.

  14. From the youtube video... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The ZBV produces electronically generated xrays that detect substances containing low atomic number elements such as carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen.

    These elements are often present in explosives and other contraband..."

    not to mention lumber, tofu, soil, cucumbers, coal, ice cream, books, mayonnaise, ham, and blankets...

    1. Re:From the youtube video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention lumber, tofu, soil, cucumbers, coal, ice cream, books, mayonnaise, ham, and blankets...

      You forgot air.....

    2. Re:From the youtube video... by rdwulfe · · Score: 1

      Most people I know also contain a combination of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen too.

    3. Re:From the youtube video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And human bodies.

    4. Re:From the youtube video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all organic material contain some combination of C, H, N and O

    5. Re:From the youtube video... by black+soap · · Score: 1

      And, as pointed out a few years ago, fruitcake has the same proportions as some of the common explosives they are looking for - and density.

    6. Re:From the youtube video... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      ... squirrels, birds, trees, cats, gasoline, diesel, small children, ants, dogs, large children, nylon, foam, rubber, paper money, credit cards.

      This sounds like an interesting way to get some "reasonable suspicion" and be able to search anyone any time.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:From the youtube video... by danlip · · Score: 1

      Most living things are mostly water, which is mostly oxygen (by weight). You can't tell from the silly publicity video, but I am guessing it mostly responds to dense materials with certain types of C-H or C-N bonds.

  15. exposing random citizens to x-rays? by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is simply unacceptable. I wouldn't be surprised if people started carrying personal x-ray detectors. If you expose my children to x-rays while they're just walking in a public place, I have a serious issue with this. I can't even imagine what's gonna happen if a parent discovers their children have just been exposed.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:exposing random citizens to x-rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety is an issue. An important one. However, whenever "radiation" or "x-rays" come into the discussion people tend to go completely senseless and reactionary. You are exposed to radiation AT ALL TIMES.

      Just because they are scanning you with x-rays does not mean it is any sort of a health hazard. It depends on the details.

      Everyone's exposed to varying background radiation of around 2-4 mSv.
      Flying from NY to LA gives you an extra does of less than 0.02 mSv.
      This machine (from one scan) gives you something like 0.001mSv (if their video is to be trusted).
      That's a really low dose. You might get more from living on the top of a hill.
      Meanwhile a chest x-ray gives 0.1mSv.

      So, in terms of radiation, if they start running these around all over the place scanning everything constantly, that's a problem. But unless you're getting scanned almost every day it's not going to significantly effect your overall radiation intake.

      Privacy is another issue though.

    2. Re:exposing random citizens to x-rays? by Greymalkin99 · · Score: 2

      The figures given assume a properly maintained and operated machine though. There's a reason medical x-ray machines are required to have properly trained personnel and a very strict maintenance regime. Also riding around in the back of a van doesn't sound like the best place to keep a carefully calibrated machine working in top shape. What happens when they hit a pothole?

  16. simple by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    coat a photo-diode in zinc sulfide. voila! detector

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:simple by delt0r · · Score: 1

      The photo diode on its own is not bad either. Or get a proper PIN diode for the job, they are cheap enough.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know if I have that. but I have plenty of Cesium Iodide (CsI) will that work? Or is Zinc Sulfide a better scintillator for that wavelength/amplitude

    3. Re:simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check here for a more verbose description of the above suggestion

  17. Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yawn. (b)(5) refers to:

    (b)(5) EXEMPTION - Privileged Interagency or Intra-Agency Memoranda or Letters

    This exemption protects "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums of letters which would not be available by law to a party ...in litigation with the agency." As such, it has been construed to "exempt those documents, and only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context."

    so, it's probably information that's irrelevant to the FOIA request.

    1. Re:Yawn. by AVee · · Score: 1

      so, it's probably information that's irrelevant to the FOIA request.

      Could well be. But I can't help but wander what kind of request would be required to be able to check that.

  18. the reason by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    your safety comes second and the governments ability to detect terrorists comes first, is because the death of US citizens is well known to be uncontroversial and tolerable, even on large scales such as katrina.

    What is absolutely intolerable is terrorism, because terrorism undermines the governments control of the populous. its one thing if an earthquake kills three thousand people, but its entirely different when a single terrorist accomplishes it...the terrorist draws unwanted attention to the united states government, its foreign policy, its structure and its members position in the class system.

    this is also incidentally why governments are loathe to negotiate with terrorists, regardless of the validity of their positions; a single person or idea should never be allowed to upset the balance of power as it stands.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the reason by evanism · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The days of "the united states" seem well and truly over. Economically, politically and socially it has turned to despotism, desperation and an absence of morals.

      time to turn our attentions elsewhere while the poor old US eats itself alive with hate and fear.

      Wonder how long it will be before the hate mongers generate a war with China?

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    2. Re:the reason by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Well, the TSA really needs to do something to catch someone. They've spent billions so far, and have not caught a single terrorist. So they now have to expend even more money in an attempt to widen their search area.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    3. Re:the reason by inviolet · · Score: 4, Informative

      your safety comes second and the governments ability to detect terrorists comes first, is because the death of US citizens is well known to be uncontroversial and tolerable, even on large scales such as katrina.

      What is absolutely intolerable is terrorism, because terrorism undermines the governments control of the populous. its one thing if an earthquake kills three thousand people, but its entirely different when a single terrorist accomplishes it...

      Not quite. The real death toll from Katrina, for example, is still classified. Were it published, it would significantly undermine public confidence in their government.

      The published death toll involved a great deal of 'creative' counting. Oh yeah, lots died from electrocution, and from falling objects, and from heart attacks, and from lawless violence... but those aren't Katrina deaths, you see.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    4. Re:the reason by Omestes · · Score: 1

      You have me with politically and economically, but I don't know about socially, especially when it comes to "morals". Whose morals? "Morals" is generally just an excuse for totalitarianism, and enforcing arbitrary religious and social views on others who don't hold those views.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    5. Re:the reason by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I think you give them too much credit.

      They do it because terrorism scares the hell out of a lot of people, including people in government.

      I really think that as time passes, the mania for anti-terrorism will pass, as the manias for anti-communism, anti-liquor, etc. have passed.

      Or we could all be subjected to continuous control.  Robots will enable that.  That's what scares me, but I think we've got some time.

    6. Re:the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorism it the "tool" they use to introduce these tools. Anyone with half a brain can figure this out.

    7. Re:the reason by dbIII · · Score: 2

      That's right, Reagan didn't negotiate with terrorists, he just put it to them straight.
      Here's $7 million for the hostages, take it or leave it. Got enough guns? Poindexter and North have some at a good price.

    8. Re:the reason by acidradio · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time for some of the "United" States to leave the union. This is getting ridiculous.

    9. Re:the reason by evanism · · Score: 2

      Morals in good form are always found, even in the most despotic society. East Germany, Zimbabwe, China, NKPR... its how the "authorities" act that determine the tenor of the society, even if its citizens are moral themselves.

      I agree with your assertion of what is moral, is not, and judged by whom. Morals are an extension of ethos and ethic. The problem lies here for the USA is that both its ethos and ethic are made up to suit the situation at hand. They are not true convictions but mere reactions to external influences (like a bad politician who is trying desperately to be all things to all people... it always fails, as the politician that lacks conviction makes up policy on the spot)

      My comments were not meant to construe that all people, or even most people, in the USA are immoral, just its government, its state machinery, the legal system (police and judiciary) and the various legislatures. If one is to stand back and cast a critical and impartial eye on the society as seen from the outside, the conclusion is of empire in severe and precipitous decline and the subsequent decimation of "the good".

      Stories on /. seem to justify this. People being torpedoed by police who don't want to be filmed beating people (yesterday), immoral corporations acting in even their own shareholders best interests (MPAA), senior executive/judiciary/lawmakers who act against the interests and benefits of the people.. etc etc.

      While much of this holds true of any country and indeed most, the US has deliberately cast the spotlight of "justice" upon itself (as the leading light) and its now shown not to be a showcase, but a tattered, sad and rather decrepit clown standing alone on a big stage. Its magic is shown up to be mere cheap tricks and its rabbits and doves are dead in the hat.

      There is no real coming back. That is just an illusion. What the citizens seriously need to contemplate is what to do next. This is a question for the people, not outsiders like me.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    10. Re:the reason by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real death toll from Katrina, for example, is still classified.

      Classified?

      Are you saying the number is extremely hard to calculate perfectly, and so it is something other than 1836 (current number listed on Wikipedia), and depends on your definition, and nobody really knows?

      Or do you mean that the actual number including proximate deaths is well known and clearly documented by the government, significantly higher than the 1836 cited on Wikipedia, and has been intentionally prohibited from public view?

      If the latter, I am very intrigued by your supposition. Do you have a source?

    11. Re:the reason by black+soap · · Score: 1

      When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    12. Re:the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despotism is a form of rule where the chief executive (the "despot") is considered to be a deity.

      The United States has not become a despotism.

    13. Re:the reason by Omestes · · Score: 2

      Thank you for the clarification. Generally when morals come up in a conversation about society it is meant as "people don't believe the same stuff I do, and that is bad". This raises my hackles, obviously. Not that I don't think we have some problems on that front, we've become a bit too callous to the plight of others, a bit too quick to assign blame, and wish the maximum level of punishment on others without minimal actual knowledge of them or the events. We put almost no emphasis on empathy, and instead ponder only "how will this benefit me?", completely uncaring about potential consequences to others. This is evident in 90% of discussion of "rights", where all that matter is MY rights, the downward tickle of consequences don't matter one bit. These "moral" aspects (or rather, I suppose, ethical) don't come up when people talk of morals usually, though. It generally is more along the line of "my religious upbringing told me that these people are evil, therefore we should find a way of barring them from acting these ways".

      I agree with your premise, though. Our larger, systemic, morals are wanting. Generally we can toss them aside when we utter one of two words though, "security", or "profits". These are magic words that allow us to cast aside all expectations of causal decency, and basically do what ever is expedient for the power-elite. A bigger problem is that somehow us plebes have been sold on this idea. We, for some reason, support the, as you call it, immoral actions of power, against our own well-being and benefit.

      As for there being no turning back... In fear you may be right, but I withhold a modicum of hope. The U.S. isn't alone in this trend, both the UK and Canada seem to be drinking from the same troth, as is much of Europe. And looking at history tells me that many trends like this are cyclical. Before WWII there was the competing rises of both fascism and communism, both of which completely took over the world. There was the desire for tyranny in the post WWII communism scare. In the 20's the world was gripped by pretty much the same desire to put aside human dignity for the will of corporations, which was also trend that gripped most of the West. I'm hoping that the current situation in America, and the West, is also some cyclical instance of mass hysteria, and will eventually pass leaving us wiser, and our future historians a bit richer.

      On the other hand we might have hit the point where our decay becomes a feedback loop (I already see this with the state of education), where our own decline is inevitable.

      Sorry for the lengthy reply.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    14. Re:the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it happens more effectively than the people I still meet who are anti-red/pro-amurican and madd/sadd/decided that I can't get off of work, purchase liquor, and go home(mandatory no liquor sales times/dry counties/drink limits) or liquor licences. The flip of that is easily addressed. Whaere are the nutrition labels?

      Take a strong look around and think critically.

  19. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 0

    It is particularly silly since you know his pussy ass won't actually do anything, he just wants to whine and play tough guy on the Interwebs and act like that accomplishes something.

    Personally I'm not worried. There is no way my state government would play nice with that shit, since state law does allow for carry and that is their right to decide. I also doubt the TSA would be quite that stupid to try, because they know they'd get all kinds of sued for it by the state they tried it in.

    1. Re:No kidding by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      He is just using it as an extension of the penis. He probably has pictures and/or video of himself waving his hand gun around posted on the internet so everyone can see how tough he is. I have a carry permit but don't carry most of the time, and when I do it is for protection from dangerous wild animals.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  20. I dunno by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    That looked a lot like PBS's Pledge Enforcement Van, too.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  21. So what if your an armed terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm walking down the street with a concealed handgun ... I see no reason not to overthrow this government now before it gets much worse.

    I really hope this contraption picks thwarts your plot. We've had enough dipshits with guns "overthrowing the government".

    One of you gun-toting lunatics already shot a congresswoman in the face and killed 10 innocent bystanders. Wasn't that enough for you people?

    We live in a democracy, moron. If you don't like the government then vote for someone else. And leave your gun at home >:-(

    1. Re:So what if your an armed terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We live in a democracy, moron. If you don't like the government then vote for someone else.

      Democracy? Really. It looks more like Tyranny everyday. Every time I vote for the lesser of two assholes the other one wins.

  22. Time to wear tin-foil outfits. by ad454 · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a cancer survivor, it appears that I will need to start to wear tin-foil outfits from head-to-toe for health reasons whenever I use public transit or visit government buildings and other "risky" place. Thank you Obama, this will really encourage me to reduce my car usage and carbon footprint.

    Doctor Oz does not consider these scanners to be safe for the following 4 groups: cancer survivors, pregnant women, children, and elderly, and he recommends that they should avoid being scanned at airports.

      http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/dangers-radiation-exposure-pt-4

    Check around 4:10, also at 1:30 as well.

  23. Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eek! I don't like receiving radiation! For the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens against this new X-Ray attack by the DHS, how does one remotely disable an X-Ray backscatter machine? Focused beam of high intensity X-Rays directed at the backscatter's receiver?

  24. So what do i coat my car with? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what am i to coat my car with so that these scanners cant see thrrough it? Im sure there has to be something is it lead just like an x-ray?

    1. Re:So what do i coat my car with? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Lead would be your best bet, but remember this thing sees through container walls with no trouble, which is about 1/4" steel. Newer cars have beefier frames but the metal on my old lightweight cars ranges from about 1/8" to paper-thin, depending on where it is.

      Of course dramatically increasing your car's weight will cause a huge increase in consumable use, and even some things you might not consider consumable, like shocks and suspension bushings.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  25. shout: WTB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTB lead lined EVERYTHING!!! pst

  26. water washes away the hardest stone by decora · · Score: 2

    it's from the Tao Te Ching, and it applies to the FOIA.

    you dont get what you want, but you get pieces of a puzzle, and slowly, over years, you piece the puzzle together. we are still finding out things about Nixon and the Pentagon Papers, we are still finding things out about war crimes in Vietnam, we are still finding out things about the Nazis, and about Stalin and the soviet Gulags and the NKVD.

    the FOIA is a tool. its not perfect, but its one of the best tools we have.

    forgive me for paraphrasing Carl Sagan about science in that last sentence.

    1. Re:water washes away the hardest stone by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And the problem with that is that Nixon (and others) should probably have been punished for many of the stunts he pulled, but cannot be because (ignoring the pardon for a moment) he died before people were able to extract enough information to pull a case together. Similarly, a solid black page with nothing more than a section number suggests that the government has something to hide that is sufficiently depraved that they have to cover it up. If that's the case, then the responsible parties should be tried and convicted, but they can't be if the truth is not known for twenty or thirty years.

      Ultimately, if a reasonable amount of information cannot be obtained in a timely manner, then the government can no longer usefully be held responsible by the people. When corrupt government officials cease to fear the public, you can no longer have a government of, by, and for the people. Thus, if FOIA is the best tool we have for discovering information about egregious abuses like this, we need better tools. If we don't get them, it's only a matter of years or decades before our government degrades far enough that the public can be incited to open rebellion. I, for one, don't want to be living anywhere near this side of the world when that happens.... Then again, with our nuclear capacity, I think I would prefer to be living in Mars Colony when it happens....

      Either way, a stronger FOIA is absolutely necessary for proper functioning of a free society. More specifically, in order to black out content under FOIA, someone should automatically have to appear before a judge and defend it, and it should be mandatory to disclose the nature of the material in question sufficient for an ordinary citizen to understand why it was necessary to black it out, and the content must disclose a declassification date that must be deemed reasonable by a judge. For example, "this was blacked out because it contains names, locations, and other information that could lead to the disclosure of an operative in another country. The reference to the content requested is tangential, and essentially states that a particular event could have been prevented if the technology in (b)(5) had been available to the party in question. This content will be declassified on December 31, 2016 unless extended due to continued covert operations in the region."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  27. Nothing to see here, move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the Germans X-ray the Jewish men standing in line at the post office in the 1930s? Perfectly harmless my behind.

  28. Some things cannot be negotiated by sjbe · · Score: 1

    this is also incidentally why governments are loathe to negotiate with terrorists, regardless of the validity of their positions; a single person or idea should never be allowed to upset the balance of power as it stands.

    Exactly how is one supposed to negotiate with a person or group who has no clear or rational motivation or who's goals are something horrible like genocide? There is no one who has been able to clearly articulate why some crazy people flew a pair of planes into the World Trade Center. We know *what* they did. But there is no clear answer to *why* because it was not a rational act by people with rational goals. Furthermore, if the demands of the terrorists are something that plainly cannot be accommodated or condoned (for example kill all non-muslims) then there is no basis for negotiation. For negotiation to occur there has to be a middle ground and with terrorists there almost never is one.

    Nation states may be complicated but their behaviors are typically rational or at least comprehensible. Terrorists on the other hand typically have little clear purpose beyond the barbaric acts they commit. They may say they want something but it's almost always something either impossible or psychotic. A suicide bomber pretty much never accomplishes anything productive unless his/her sole goal was to become a murderer.

    1. Re:Some things cannot be negotiated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      For negotiation to occur there has to be a middle ground and with government false flag ops, there almost never is one.

      United States may be complicated but their behaviors are typically rational or at least comprehensible. False flag ops on the other hand typically have little clear purpose beyond the barbaric acts they commit. They may say they want something but it's almost always something either impossible or psychotic, then later used to crack down with more unconstitutional shit. A government paid agent provocateur pretty much never accomplishes anything productive unless his/her sole goal was to become a murderer, and justify another filthy check to the unconstitutional DHS. With all the secrecy, the sheeple will never know until it's too late.

      I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone, "It's too late."

      There fixed if for you.

    2. Re:Some things cannot be negotiated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But there is no clear answer to *why* because it was not a rational act by people with rational goals."

      Sure it was. Just not according to *your* system of rational goals. From Al Qaeda's (possible) organizational point of view:
      - For less than $1 million and fewer than a couple of dozen staffers, they cost their enemy at least $50 billion in economic losses. Much more if one considers the ongoing costs of the pointless Iraq war they suckered us into.
      - They established themselves and their organization as a power to be reckoned with on the world stage.

      From the individual attackers' perspective:
      - They gave their lives in a remarkably effective attack on their designated enemy. How is this different from a US soldier who goes out on a mission he/she knows is a one-way trip?

      The 9/11 attack not only looks rational, it may have set a new standard for operational effectiveness in terms of money and lives spent vs. damage inflicted on the enemy. Not saying I like that. Am saying that it doesn't advance our cause to minimize, misunderstand, or demonize our enemies and their rationality, goals, courage, or effectiveness.

    3. Re:Some things cannot be negotiated by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Osama Bin Laden wanted to draw us into war in the middle east. We sure showed him!

  29. papers, please! by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    any day now... any day now.
    ---
    "gee, I feel safer already."

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  30. Credibility by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Doctor Oz does not consider these scanners to be safe for the following 4 groups: cancer survivors, pregnant women, children, and elderly, and he recommends that they should avoid being scanned at airports.

    Doctor Oz is also on record as promoting homeopathy and other unproven "alternative" treatments. Just because someone says it on TV doesn't mean they know what they are talking about or that it is accurate.

    Personally unless I see some studies from extremely reputable journals like Nature, I don't consider them proven safe for any group. They may be reasonably safe but they may not be as well and DHS just saying "trust me" isn't good enough. I'm actually glad I rarely need to fly anywhere these days.

    1. Re:Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't see those ads for constantly recalled drugs? Not just the weight-loss-risky drugs but actual drugs they prescribe by a real doctor....... IMHO you're asking for it with the diet drugs.

      You are really negative in your views about medicine. Find a doctor who can properly treat severe tendonitus/tendonosis...... Everything including surgery did NOTHING for me. NSAIDs, injections, you name it. Through my own research I discovered the power of MSM, Fishoil, Spirulina, and various peppers. Cured.

      Open your mind a bit. It's not by accident the media has the public thinking anyone who even remotely challenges accepted thought labeled as some complete whako who thinks Bush consipired with Aliens who happen to live on the moon we never visited that's actually created from cheese. That's not the case at all...... It's rather uneducated to assume medicine never misses anything 100% of the time. Rational thought says both areas will discover their own unique treatments that have varying levels of success.... with medicine and otherwise.

    2. Re:Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a study from Nature or Science wouldn't convince me. I'd want to see long-term studies showing no correlation between exposure and, say, several types of cancer.

    3. Re:Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter the device, it will be as safe as the people building it, and those operating it.

      DHS agents arent radiologists. Do you trust that mr minimum wage "my job is basically welfare" properly calibrated that machine this morning?

      MRI machines kill people when the guy running them fucks up.

  31. protecting "our" citizens from "their" terrorists by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    the government is seeking to protect the citizens from the terrorists by killing the citizens first by irradiation, before the terrorists can kill them, thereby dealing a crippling blow to the terrorists' plot.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  32. Meh by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should be easy to find. Just look for an SSID of 'DHS_MOBILE_SCANNING_VAN' to pop up in your wireless access point list.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  33. How many lawyers... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many lawyers have already figured out that any suspect that has evidence brought against them, evidence obtained with this technology, already has in hand an admission by the authorities that the suspect was subjected to x-rays against their will? Hell, even a probable cause statement for a warrant would require the admission of use of this technology.

    Every prosecution could mean a reciprocal civil lawsuit for damages associated with X-ray exposure. I think it would be justified. If nothing else, it would bring the issue to into the realm of public awareness.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray#Health_risks

    There is a huge difference between this tech being in place at an airport, where the person going through it knows the risks, and mobile scanning--there is no consent with mobile, covert scanning.

    It should be illegal to even MAKE these things, let alone use them.

    1. Re:How many lawyers... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many lawyers have already figured out that any suspect that has evidence brought against them, evidence obtained with this technology, already has in hand an admission by the authorities that the suspect was subjected to x-rays against their will? Hell, even a probable cause statement for a warrant would require the admission of use of this technology.

      There's no risk for having the lawyers sticking their noses in. The PATRIOT act and Guantanamo are still alive, you know?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:How many lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. They didn't get the warrant because of the van. They got it because of an "anonymous tip".

      Problem solved. You lose.

    3. Re:How many lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should be illegal to even MAKE these things, let alone use them.

      Just wait until *one* malfunctions and irradiates thousands of people with much higher intensity doses of radiation. Intentional malfeasance with a device like this would be unimaginable in the consequences. Park outside a major pedestrian traffic point and blaze away. Repeat at several different subway stations over a week and condemn much of a city's population to early death.

    4. Re:How many lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They won't use the evidence from the machine in court, they'll 'randomly' stop people on a hunch and find the evidence they already know is there.

    5. Re:How many lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that terrorists are no longer subject to due process. Any 'interesting' person 'detected' by these spy vans will be deemed a 'terrorist' and given a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

  34. keep voting the way you always have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and you'll get more of the same. want a change? want your freedoms back, or at least want a start back down the road to freedom? vote for Ron Paul, and every other libertarian candidate running that you are eligible to vote for, otherwise, democrat or republican, you'll get nothing positive.

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Lucky it wont last much longer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An asteroid is going to hit us and the era of modern man will be over for those that survive.

  37. Insanity by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Are you an undercover cop? No? So your weapon is for "protection" and not merely to make you feel like you have a ten foot long penis - why then don't you have it where it can been seen and let that help with protecting you?
    Oh that's right, the tinfoil hat defence of "that's what they expect you to do so I have to hide it to keep them guessing". That's not going to make any sense unless you live in a bad spy movie.
    As for part two - the weather in Somalia isn't bad at this time of year if you want to see some anarchy but concealing weapons there is just as insane if not more so.
    Yes I know in the USA a gun is a substitute flag and any discussion of guns hits politics and patroitism instantly - but if we could consider it on the level on the tool itself civilians (ie. not law enforcement in addition to military for those with a poor education in English) legally carrying concealed firearms around is fucking stupid.

    1. Re:Insanity by jelizondo · · Score: 1

      Sorry pal, you got it wrong on several counts:

      • If someone out to mug you sees that you are armed, then he shoots first and robs you after;
      • Where I live, you will get 7 years imprisonment for carrying a gun, however criminal bands not only have guns, but assault rifles (AR-15 A2 is the most popular here) and even grenade-launchers (Federal Labs)

      Now suppose that instead of pulling my wallet, I pull a gun: a) I might get killed or b) the thug may run away. Without a gun, I'm likely to only get killed.

      Unlike you, I do work for the Police Department and I can tell you, most people will risk a sentence than go around unarmed.

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    2. Re:Insanity by black+soap · · Score: 1

      You may find this hard to believe, but in many places law-abiding citizens are required to conceal lawfully-carried firearms. The only people who can legally have a gun visible are the police. In fact, it may act as a deterrent, as a potential attacker doesn't know who is and is not carrying. Long gone is the old west attitude of "only a criminal would conceal a gun, honest men should carry them out in the open."

    3. Re:Insanity by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well very often when I am carrying my handgun I also have a rifle or shot gun slung across my back as I am out hunting. I do open carry but not to advertise to everyone that I have a weapon, but so that if I need to get it in case of bear, wolf, moose attack (I hunt in areas where these animals are fairly common) I don't have to fuck around trying to get it out of the holster. I carry it since it is illegal to transport a loaded firearm on a public roadway unless it is a handgun and you have a carry permit so the shotgun or rifle is unloaded and slung across the back. Other than that my handgun sits in the fireproof gun safe that is bolted to the floor with my other firearms and only comes out when I go hunting or down to the range.

      There are some good reasons for concealing a handgun. Most people only view of a handgun is that it is used for criminal activity or are so overcome with panic that it is highly recommended that you conceal it. Additionally if you don't want to be stopped and questions by every cop for open carry it is recommended that you also conceal it. The vast majority of people who legally own firearms show the proper respect and responsible ownership for them and you never hear of them, it is only the crazies and the illegally owned ones you hear about. Part of the problem is many people have John Wayne or Clint Eastwood fantasies, I just hope that I don't have to ever use mine as a bear attempting to maul me doesn't sound fun.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Insanity by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Are you an undercover cop? No? So your weapon is for "protection" and not merely to make you feel like you have a ten foot long penis - why then don't you have it where it can been seen and let that help with protecting you?

      Because my concealed carry permit does not apply to open carry which is largely unlawful in my area.

    5. Re:Insanity by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Deterrent? Ah, you didn't read paragraph two about keeping them guessing. Good luck in your bad spy movie - you may stop the bomb and get the girl!

    6. Re:Insanity by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Your hypothetical ranting is not as convincing as real world experience and knowledge of actual laws. Good luck, though.

  38. Which murderers are we referring to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be honest here. There are 2 types of terrorists/murderers. Foreign, and Domestic.

    If a foreign terrorist can bypass our MASSIVE Defense and Intelligence budgets and get to US soil and commit an act of terrorism, or murder, we've gone in the wrong direction somewhere along the way to allow that to happen. I view this as entirely different from a US citizen disgruntled with the state of our society and Government, and committing an act of murder, or terrorism.

    It's convenient to blur the line between foreign and domestic terrorism, especially when it comes to funding and policy, but what exactly are these roaming 'x-ray vans' intending to identify or stop? They're essentially radiating the public, probably increasing cancer rates along the way, under the guise of security from a threat advertised as foreign by nature, but domestic in its implementation for discovery and thwarting. They're essentially stating that every US citizen is a potential terrorist, and as such, we must scan you for your own protection.

    The level hypocrisy and violation being displayed here would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I'm actually surprised we aren't seeing physical backlash about these steps. Are people really that daft when it comes to history?

  39. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What really blows my mind is how many people actually bought his bullshit and voted for the lying SOB. Yes, he is a lying SOB.

    ...You think we would've been better off with John McSenility and his crazy Ice Bitch?

    Gods above and below. You know why people voted for Lolbama? Because if they hadn't, the economy would be worse, equality for all Americans would've been set back a hundred years, and instead of randomly bombing Libya, we'd be in a fucking ground war with Iran.

    You betcha.

  40. How many are already in DC ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they already have 4 of these roaming dc, & 2 running around wherever the president is going to be.

  41. Entire premise behind government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can see through the billion-dollar smokescreen, what you just stated is the entire premise behind government: if you repeat the same lie enough times (and loudly enough), they will believe it.

  42. Have to keep the nebraskans out. by helios17 · · Score: 1

    At all and at any cost. Oh, the humanity....

    --
    Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
  43. Also gives you cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It also gives you cancer, if you happen to be one of the people whose houses are permanently monitored for a long time, thus eliminating the threat you might have posed.

  44. Re:DHS Foiled by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Damn right the TSA is about rapping! TSA Gangstaz in da house!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7AWw7t5zj0

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  45. project camden by mehtars · · Score: 1
    After reading the email-- project camden stood out.

    I did a quick google search and came up with this

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=bd97a8f9b4c3bf8393ff69b58026ffb1&_cview=0
    "The NexGenCI project seeks to significantly upgrade existing x-ray backscatter, whole-body-imaging, bulk detection portals already in use by the TSA"

    /tinfoil hat...

  46. Why opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, D-503, welcome to the One State! A brave new world where wall of buildings are made of glass so that people are under constant watch, and free medical care (removes the imagination by striking a certain region of the brain with X-RAYS) are given to disobedient people. Don't we all have to give up our liberty for happiness?

  47. psycho yankee gun mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you gun loving americans are the real problem. just shoot yourself in the head. it's your human right....