Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DHS Tries To Hide Mobile Scanner Details

Posted by Unknown on from the the-new-black dept.

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."

41 of 201 comments (clear)

  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

      Here 'tis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iABPKd0vFxQ

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    3. 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
    4. 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).

  2. 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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    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 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.

    4. 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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    5. 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!

  3. 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 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."
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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." :)

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    7. 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.

    8. 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."

  4. 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?

  5. 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...

  6. 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 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?

  7. 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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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?

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    6. 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
  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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?