Slashdot Mirror


EPIC Uncovers: Mobile Scanners Not 'Certified People Scanners'

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center received more FOIA documents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding mobile x-ray scanners (a.k.a. Z Backscatter Vans). We've discussed these devices before. Perhaps the most interesting part is slide #11 ('Disclaimer About Scanning People') on page 6 of this PDF explaining that the radiation output of these devices is too high to comply with ANSI N43.17. In other words, they output too much radiation even by TSA's questionable standards for airport body scanners. Regardless, the slide ends with the author stating that the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.' What might that assertion have meant to the presentation's intended audience?"

27 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Enforcment of Secret Law by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is not subject to the constraint of public law.

    Consent of the governed is not required or desirable.

    Carry on.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  2. Take It by newsman220 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cancer in the defense of freedom is not cancer at all.

    1. Re:Take It by Shemmie · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a good old de Freedom Lump!

    2. Re:Take It by S.O.B. · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we don't get cancer then the terrorists win.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  3. Gee, what a shock by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Nobody saw that coming, right?

    Here's a better question to ask: which official is going to wind up taking the fall for these wastes of tax dollars? So far, we know the following about these machines:
    1. They are very expensive
    2. Tests of the machines have shown that most knives and even guns can sneak through the machines undetected
    3. They are outside of what the TSA itself considers safe

    This was an obvious sweetheart deal, and someone is going to have to get in trouble for it. Obama or his successor will probably pardon that person, since it will just be a fall guy and nobody wants to start an investigation that would keep expanding until half of capitol hill was implicated.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Gee, what a shock by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You left out the fact that terrorism is so rare that even if they worked as described, the machines would kill more people than they save.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Gee, what a shock by SomeJoel · · Score: 2

      You left out the fact that terrorism is so rare that even if they worked as described, the machines would kill more people than they save.

      Yeah, but not all at once.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
  4. Endanger people? Can't prove it! by NReitzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that backscatter scanners use X-rays in amounts that can't meet national standards isn't even an issue.

    In point of fact, as long as nobody can prove that they have had a large radiation dose - tough with "nothing in pockets, etc" - then the TSA is off the hook. Time has taught us - those who listen - that politicians don't mind endangering or even killing people, as long as it can't be traced directly back to them, and as long as it doesn't actually apply to them, themselves.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

  5. Does someone have the original? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    "the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.' " parses alright. Still, for certainty of context, I'd like to read this in the original German language.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Does someone have the original? by OverTheGeicoE · · Score: 3, Informative

      ANSI standards documents are copyrighted. You can buy them, but you can't freely redistribute them, unfortunately.

    2. Re:Does someone have the original? by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      Funny. I believe I heard a similar one once, about targeting communications infrastructure. To be interpreted as, you can shoot at his cellphone while he's using it. Any resulting deaths will be regarded as collateral damage.

  6. Re:So it's good for you? by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We irradiate meat to make it safer, so why not people?

    Because 'safer' in this context means "Killing everything else that's not just dead meat". The dead cow can't get cancer.

    Now I'm thinking about it.. whoosh?

  7. Oh, please by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who are you, you think you are a citizen, a person? You think you have rights? Liberties? You must have read that silly document from 1787 or whatever. That doesn't apply anymore, didn't you know?

    Didn't you know you are now property, an asset that is used as collateral for more government borrowing on the one hand and on the other you are a piece of meat to be used fighting in conflicts that help the bona-fide persons - real people with government connections.

    Your silly notions of rights and liberties are of no concern anymore, and you, yourself agree with this every day. Every day you want government to do something for you, to tax somebody and to borrow from somewhere, to print more money so that your special interest gets the tiny crumbs of the royal table, those are you 30 pieces of silver to sell your soul (obviously nobody will be paying you in silver, that's too fat. They have US federal reserve notes for that.)

    What, you think it's too harsh? Trollish? A flamebait?

    How about you listen to this short radio episode, the guest is Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars. You will find out how a classic American company became an enemy of the state by providing 1200 jobs IN USA, that's right. The reasons? Who knows. The government doesn't have to tell the reasons, you peons, not even peons in the sense that you do work. You are just a number in the line up that they can use for displaying the meat mass, how much there is there to "count the votes" or whatever they need you for, and you aren't too good for organs anymore, being on FDA approved drugs and department of Agriculture subsidized foods.

    You don't like the machine scanning through your body, your flesh and bones? Who is asking you?

    1. Re:Oh, please by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, here is the LINK

      If you only care about the guest of the show, the CEO, then scroll to minute 40.

    2. Re:Oh, please by Montezumaa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wrong, on the Gibson front. Their problems have nothing to do with the wood, itself, being illegal; it has to do with the relatively recent changes to the Lacey Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900), and how the US Government is enforcing Indian law. The wood that was taken, on two different occasion, mind you, was completely legal.

      Prior to commenting on a subject, make sure you know what you are talking about. Your post just perpetuates blatantly false information, because you "heard/read it somewhere". As far as the raid that occurred this year(2011), it has to do with the wood that Gibson obtained was not finished by Indian workers, which is a violation of Indian law, not US law. As far as the 2009 raid is concerned, Gibson states that it obtained an affidavit that the exported wood was within the law that Madagascar had in place, at the time of the export(http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8780-feds-raid-gibson-guitar-to-save-endangered-foreign-trees)

      The Lacey Act, as it currently stands, is extremely unconstitutional. The US has no business, or authority, to enforce foreign law. Gibson's only fault is that it attempted to provide jobs to workers in the United States, and the United States has a law that bans such jobs, in this instance. We have too many restrictions on manufacturing, well, really, business as a whole, in this country.

      The biggest problem I have with this, which is really equal to the whole illegal seizure issue, is the fact that the law enforcement agents were dressed in tactical gear and presented themselves as a unit going after a well armed foe. This only gives credence to the people that continue to shout about how the United States is become more of a "Police State" everyday. As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I disagree with the way the "raid" was handled.

      If Gibson had been made states to the tune of, "Fuck the police, we will kill any that attempt to seize our property", then I would say that the armed and tactical response would be warranted. As I doubt that occurred, or anything similar to that, the response by the engaging agents was unprofessional and unwarranted.

    3. Re:Oh, please by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about you listen to this short radio episode [schiffradio.com], the guest is Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars. You will find out how a classic American company became an enemy of the state by providing 1200 jobs IN USA, that's right. The reasons? Who knows. The government doesn't have to tell the reasons, you peons, not even peons in the sense that you do work. You are just a number in the line up that they can use for displaying the meat mass, how much there is there to "count the votes" or whatever they need you for, and you aren't too good for organs anymore, being on FDA approved drugs and department of Agriculture subsidized foods.

      I have been following the Gibson Guitar story for a few days now. At this point, it appears that there is one of two reasons why Gibson is under this investigation. The first is because Gibson employed Americans to finish the wood rather than workers in either India or Madagascar. The second possible reason is because the CEO of Gibson is a Republican contributor.
      Martin Guitars imports the same sorts of woods from the same locations, but they are not being investigated. Martin Guitars CEO is a Democratic Party contributor.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Oh, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's completely disingenuous. The ongoing case against Gibson involves ebony blanks from Madagascar. It is illegal to harvest ebony in Madagascar or export unfinished ebony from Madagascar. American law requires American companies to only use wood sourced legally under the laws of the country of origin.

      If you're "following" the Gibson story, it's only to read in what you want to read. You're ignoring that they've been caught with contraband, and now the process of a complicated multinational case is underway.

      It's stupid beyond belief to suggest the current admin hates American jobs, and hates a minor Republican contributor enough to trump up charges against a popular American company.

  8. What could it mean? Obviously... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Regardless, the slide ends with the author stating that the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.' What might that assertion have meant to the presentation's intended audience?

    It means, "what they don't know won't hurt them."

    1. Re:What could it mean? Obviously... by gknoy · · Score: 2

      "what they don't know won't hurt us" I think was the intended correction. ;)

    2. Re:What could it mean? Obviously... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      To the intended audience, yes, that's pretty much exactly what it would mean...

  9. How do you destroy one of these machines? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    I mean, if you put a wad of foil in the microwave, you can get the thing to fry itself.

    Would clothing with ceramic magnets in it do this to a backscatter xray or a tetrahertz mw scanner? I'm sure there's something short of an EMP that would at least deny service by such a device. Perhaps even scatter the same harmful radiation back on its operators?

    This is an interesting line of inquiry. Like most forms of security, there are unexplored use cases that were never properly modelled for threat. I'm thinking this seems like an excellent practical topic for something we'd expect to see at DefCon - like this year's defeat of the CLIQ technology electro-mechanical high-security locks, mandated by Federal government.

    I don't advocate this - simply applaud the ingenuity and sentiment.

    Thoughts, anyone?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:How do you destroy one of these machines? by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      Giant axe.

    2. Re:How do you destroy one of these machines? by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      We should ask Derrick Smalls.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  10. ZBV at the border by Windrip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comments so far are missing a salient feature of these things: they are in use at the U.S. border.

    Trucks drive past them at the border (oh, they're just mezkins...)

    They are located north of the border, by approx. 30 miles (DHS calls it "defense in depth"). See them in my neck of the woods in Arizona on: northbound I/19, eastbound Hwy 82, northbound Hwy 83, northbound Hwy 90

    To the assholes who have no problem with this: how many checkpoints do you drive through on your way to work?

    You can see a picture of these vans via the earlier /. link

  11. Re:Here's who to blame - with names by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I never knew anyone who ever desired the DHS or anything similar to it. I knew several people who thought that airplanes should have doors to the pilot's cabin that were locked during the entire flight, but that's a rather different matter.

    The DHS was created by those who wanted to increase the "police state" nature of the country, and they were successful. The fact that all it's approaches are security theater is just what it was designed to do, not happenstance or bad management. Security theater keeps people feeling threatened, so that they are easier to manipulate.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  12. At what point ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... does being irradiated become a threat against which I am permitted to defend myself?

    Some unmarked van with a couple of creepy guys pulls up alongside me. Then my X-ray detector pegs. It could be a lethal dose, so I'm going to use whatever force I have available to stop them.

    A couple of rounds from my M107 should do the trick.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:Z backscatter detector by Animats · · Score: 2

    Is there a way to detect these, like a wifi signal?

    Yes. Nuk Alert. This is a keychain-sized sealed radiation detector with a 10-year battery life. It beeps from 1 to 10 times, based on the log of the radiation level. You can test it with a dental X-ray machine. Price about $170.