Slashdot Mirror


The NYPD's X-Ray Vans (theatlantic.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A few years ago, we heard tales of vans outfitted by the U.S. government to hold giant X-ray scanners, which they'd use to drive around and inspect vehicles. Now, it turns out similar vans have made their way to police departments, including the NYPD. The police are unwilling to explain (PDF) how they're used, or how often. "A state court has already ruled that the NYPD has to turn over policies, procedures, and training manuals that shape uses of X-rays; reports on past deployments; information on the costs of the X-ray devices and the number of vans purchased; and information on the health and safety effects of the technology. But New York City is fighting on appeal to suppress that information and more, as if it is some kind of spy agency rather than a municipal police department operating on domestic soil, ostensibly at the pleasure of city residents."

190 comments

  1. Liberal NYC spying on it's citizens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ah yes, the lovely liberal capital of the US east coast, Deblasio and Schumer heaven, spying on their liberal base! WOW, color me SHOCKED!

  2. America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These vans are just the latest in a long line of law enforcement abuse and complete disregard for the Constitution. The government classifies volumes of information to hide evidence of their own wrongdoing. They're "fighting on appeal to suppress information" in this case regarding potential serious public health hazards posed by their tactics. They use secret tools like stingrays to gather secret evidence which they attempt to present in secret, sealed and off the record. And in the event that an "activist judge" calls them on it, they withdraw the evidence so as not to have it revealed. They lock people up in secret detention facilities in Chicago, in America, without booking them, no Miranda rights, no access to a lawyer, such that no one but the police even knows where these people disappear to for days or weeks on end. Police are shooting and killing people weekly if not daily, acting as judge jury and executioner, and they face zero consequences.

    The police state isn't coming, the police state is here. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

    1. Re:America the Police State by networkzombie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Every time I'm in the airport and hear instructions over the PA to report suspicious activity I feel like I'm playing Half-life 2.

    2. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Police are shooting and killing people weekly if not daily

      So are criminals.Except backwards ass deluded radicals always seem to take their side.

      Fuck off you hill billy moron.

    3. Re:America the Police State by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, that is something I would think we can all appreciate.

      That on-duty police offices are murdering people at a lower rate than the general population.

      It's all good then.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that law enforcement anywhere else behaves different, you are delusional.

      I'm sorry that you think that behaviour where you live is normal and so anywhere else must be the same.

    5. Re: America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the police state is jews with 100 trillion in weapons.nano chip chemtrails, 'wireless' 'smart grid'. the police are tools how better realize who owns them. disposable. 'useful idiots' the jew's label for their 'military' and 'police' tools. they're not as 'inside' as they think they are. the chiefs are all jews or work for them. they've also been chipped by the chemtrails. virus next.
      thezog.info
      holodomorinfo.com

    6. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd mod you up, but you're already at +5.
      Please stay scared and report anything suspicious, citizen.

    7. Re:America the Police State by swb · · Score: 2

      Obviously justified cases? How would we ever really know?

      In some jurisdictions there is a reasonably sane process led by reasonably honest people to investigate police killings, but in all jurisdictions we basically rely on the police investigating the police. That's a setup for confirmation bias at a minimum and a huge loophole for all manner over cover ups and dissembling to create justification.

      Further, the prosecution of police is controlled by the same prosecutors who work hand in hand with the police 365 days a year. You don't think they have the motivation to give the police every possible break?

    8. Re:America the Police State by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Pick up that can!

    9. Re: America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Due Process, deprivation of life without conviction, illegal search and seizure.
      Any of that ringing a bell ?

    10. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot really needs a 'NotFunny' or 'Sad' mod option.

    11. Re:America the Police State by dywolf · · Score: 1

      reread the 4th

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re: America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are either one of the best trolls I have seen in a while (bravo), or you are in need of physical and chemical restraints. I mean, how much freon do you have to huff to get that worldview?

    13. Re:America the Police State by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      4th Amendment about "Unreasonable search and seizure." I don't know about you, but I think irradiating the general populace in the course of executing a search without a warrant from behind the veil of an unmarked van is unreasonable on multiple levels.

    14. Re: America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the police did not cover up each others crimes there would be no animosity towards them. Even if your force only has one real bad apple, the others covering form him make them just as culpable to his behavior.

      The police can fix their own image and protip, its not going to be cracking down on the public more.

    15. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to read the constitution again, while it may not say "x-ray" I think this sounds like a violation of the 4th. You know searches without a warrant. Even if the courts decide its not, its a reasonable conclusion to come to, so your belief that people are "bleating" is wholly unfounded.

    16. Re: America the Police State by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Supreme Court ruled the government could not use nascent IR scanners to "see" through house walls without a warrant, and that's a freaking passive scanner.

      An active one like X-ray is a clear and blatant violation. This one is not even close. These people should literally be sent to jail.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >impulse 101

      That "pick up the can" jackass was the first one to die. Unfortunately, picking up the suit charge he drops usually soft-locks the game later when you get the HEV suit. (Because you already have the suit, you never lose the suit, and the "get your suit on" script is just for show. But it includes a "full charge by giving you 100 points" portion that will never end if you pick up even a tiny morsel of energy before the script runs.)

    18. Re:America the Police State by fnj · · Score: 2

      So you believe this is unreasonable search. The 4th Amendment and the Constitution: when the key, overriding piece of the legal code is written in such vague language, it doesn't matter what you or I think it means in detail. It matters only what judicial process decides to think it means in detail.

      The Constitution is purposely vague because it is not supposed to hamstring the process; it is supposed to be used as a guide by intelligent, well-meaning people to point the way in governing. It presupposes that the people involved in the legislative, executive, judicial, and bureaucratic process are receptive and respectful to its spirit. As these systems gradually [were allowed by the electorate to be] turned against the people and went out of control, we lost our country because we weren't paying attention.

      What has happened is only fitting and deserved on the whole, though it is an evil imposition on those of us who never bought into the cynical, corrupt process. Weep not for the lazy and stupid electorate. Be angry. Be outraged.

    19. Re:America the Police State by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The United States: it's safer here.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    20. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "These vans are just the latest in a long line of law enforcement abuse and complete disregard for the Constitution."

      You need to get up to speed on what has been going on... Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski wrote the following.

      "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

      This is the natural outgrowth of private property + military industrial complex coupled with allowing small groups of people unlimited accumulation of wealth. It's the rich and corporations vs everyone else. We're seeing the true face of class war, aka the cold war never really ended and anyone who isn't rich is being impoverished in a one sided class war where the rich are going for full on slavery. See what happened to greece here:

      "American historian D.F. Fleming, writing of the post-World War II period in his eminent history of the Cold War, stated that “Greece was the first of the liberated states to be openly and forcibly compelled to accept the political system of the occupying Great Power. It was Churchill who acted first and Stalin who followed his example, in Bulgaria and then in Rumania, though with less bloodshed.”

      http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY&feature=youtu.be&t=11

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

      States experiencing serious systemic "handicaps":

      https://youtu.be/0kmUS--QCYY?t=246

      Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

      Crisis of democracy

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

      The Citibank memo

    21. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The police state isn't coming, the police state is here. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

      And yet we need to ban guns and confiscate all guns in private hands, or so the Liberals who run New York would have you believe. I submit that this is precisely why private gun ownership is needed. These people need to be afraid of us, not the other way around.

    22. Re:America the Police State by peragrin · · Score: 1

      In the words of Adam savage

      Well there's your problem. There is no such thing as well meaning intelligent people. If there is a legend it will be abused and worked around no matter it's intent. Remember people we have a law making it illegal to murder someone and another law making it illegal to hire a third party to murder someone for you. Because that was a loophole that needed to be closed.

      Doesn't matter if it is tax law to murder charges someone will find a loophole.

      For the programmers think of law as the basic programming language with lots of goto statements. And a shit ton of manual error checking , and sometimes error checking the error checking.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    23. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love it when people bleat about "disregard for the Constitution". Where in the Constitution state that police can't use xrays? In the Xray Article? Give me a break. The police shouldn't have these things, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit it.

      Right here:
      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things..."

      If you've got a Warrant, there's no need to use a roaming X-Ray machine to spy into vehicles. If it's a mobile lab which is only used when a Warrant is obtained, then I don't have any Constitutional objections, but I do have some serious concerns regarding exposure to the X-rays themselves.
      The problem is, they're not saying when, how, why, or where they're using them, or what kinds of risks of radiation exposure there are.

      Also, the Courts have already ruled against the broad use of various "see-through" types of technology, most notable passive infrared sensing. Considering an X-Ray is active scanning, they can't even argue that they're "just recording what is already being emitted into public space". Something doesn't have to be specifically prohibited in detail to be Unconstitutional.

    24. Re:America the Police State by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you think that law enforcement anywhere else behaves different, you are delusional. The US has been busy catching up with Europe, but we aren't quite there yet.

      Europe is a continent and includes countries with varying attitudes from Sweden to Russia. Which, as it happens, incarcerates a lesser (450 vs. 698 per 100,000) fraction of its citizens than US does. In fact, in this race the US is second only to Seychelles.

      I dunno if you're a police state, but you sure as hell are a jail state.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    25. Re:America the Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These vans are just the latest in a long line of law enforcement abuse and complete disregard for the Constitution."

      You need to get up to speed on what has been going on... Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought.

      Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski wrote the following.

      "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

      This is the natural outgrowth of private property + military industrial complex coupled with allowing small groups of people unlimited accumulation of wealth. It's the rich and corporations vs everyone else. We're seeing the true face of class war, aka the cold war never really ended and anyone who isn't rich is being impoverished in a one sided class war where the rich are going for full on slavery. See what happened to greece here:

      "American historian D.F. Fleming, writing of the post-World War II period in his eminent history of the Cold War, stated that “Greece was the first of the liberated states to be openly and forcibly compelled to accept the political system of the occupying Great Power. It was Churchill who acted first and Stalin who followed his example, in Bulgaria and then in Rumania, though with less bloodshed.”

      http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

      The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY&feature=youtu.be&t=11

      Brezinski at a press conference

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

      States experiencing serious systemic "handicaps":

      https://youtu.be/0kmUS--QCYY?t=246

      Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

      https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

      Crisis of democracy

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

      WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

      http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

      The real news:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/

      http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

      http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

      http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

      The Citibank memo

    26. Re:America the Police State by KGIII · · Score: 1

      "We've always been at war with East Asia." (Or was that one word? It's been a while.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    27. Re:America the Police State by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Most of us don't feel the need to cheat that early on in a video game. It takes a special kind of person to cheat that soon.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    28. Re:America the Police State by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The US is a collection of independent states that vary widely in attitude and environment, from the fly over states with their minuscule populations to the East and West coasts with large population densities and many different people put together.

      Don't act like Europe is really any different than the US, they are roughly equivalent. The EU is more akin to the US than the US to any single country in the EU.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re:America the Police State by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Considering that IR scanners were ruled to be a search and seizure, why would you think that x-ray scanners used in the same way would be allowed?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re: America the Police State by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It is not a violation if they use parallel construction to prevent standing to challenge it in court.

      Setup the van to surreptitiously irradiate and inspect people as they pass by. When they stop and search someone based on what they saw, make up some other reason.

    31. Re: America the Police State by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is a violation. It's just not detectable usually. It should be illegal.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    32. Re:America the Police State by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I agree completely.

  3. Have to turn over procedures, training, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No they don't. The police do whatever they want, with any oversight, repercussions or scrutiny from the courts.

    Because terrorist you will be randomly irritated while minding your own business.

    Murica. Fuck yeah.

    1. Re:Have to turn over procedures, training, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will be considered a terrorist for posting this.

  4. the NYPD is a criminal organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    everyone involved in stop and frisk should be in prison, or just executed for treason.

    1. Re: the NYPD is a criminal organization by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      should be in prison

      But NYC *is* the prison. The mistake would be assuming that most residents aren't happy about being frisked and irradiated.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re: the NYPD is a criminal organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, that's the whole *point* of stop & frisk!

    3. Re:the NYPD is a criminal organization by fnj · · Score: 1

      everyone involved in stop and frisk should be in prison, or just executed for treason.

      Unfortunately you've got a problem in the Constitution. It defines treason very narrowly. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

      The problem is that the Constitution does not define an offense for those sworn to uphold it who in actuality flout it. Nor a process for dealing effectively with these evil, lawless bastards. Once the entire bulk of the government has turned to using the Constitution for toilet paper, you are SOL.

  5. Government X-Raying You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because FREEDOM!1!!!

  6. x-ray van.. by ranpel · · Score: 2

    I would totally download that.

    --
    \r
    1. Re:x-ray van.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but would you steal one.

    2. Re:x-ray van.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't download a car.
      Not when you can get you one of these!

  7. I can see... by surfdaddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...what they did there...

  8. Cancer by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually I'd be less worried about the spying and more worried about the radiation dosage. X-Rays are ionizing radiation and exposure to them increases the risk of cancer. I don't know what the dosage you would get from one of these things is but if it can penetrate the metal bodywork of a car to look inside it will probably be a lot more than a typical medical X-ray.

    1. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Adding to this, if their platforms are covert vans, that implies the imaging systems are backscatter devices, meaning they are detecting a reflected signal and not a transmitted one. To the parent, x-rays won't penetrate metal, but reflect. However if they are imaging things like people, and since x-rays aren't deflected well by us (except for our bones), then they are having to pump more radiation out of their aperture to collect enough reflected signal for an image than they would if they (like medical x-rays) were making a transmission measurement.

      Of course if word got out that they were cooking people with ionizing radiation in the name of national security, the terrorists will have won.

    2. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are, indeed, backscatter devices. See source here.

      The summary is actually wrong in claiming that these vans are just now making their way to police departments. According to this link, the NYPD acknowledged using these vans at least as early as 2010. I'd really like to know how they've been used over the last five years or if there's any evidence of any additional security being provided from this surveillance.

    3. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure if you pointed a large x-ray scanner at an NYPD building you'd be arrested for grievous assault on a police officer...that's assuming you're not shot on sight. Soon we'll all have to start carrying Geiger counters to protect ourselves from the police. Not that it'd help you though - even if you could prove exposure it'd be hard to prove where the source was if it's buried inside a van. Sure, you can approach the van but chances are some other random cop will show up and demand to know what you're doing checking out vans and arrest you on suspicion of "illegal van checking-out behavior". Can't win this one.

      The RHB seems to control a lot of the license requirements here (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/RadiologicHealthBranch.aspx)
      X-Ray machines are mostly medical grade devices - The devices have to be registered.
      Construction site radiation sources are presumably more strict.
      Anyone operating these machines must also be licensed.

      I'd assume the police have the requisite licenses as it's extremely unlikely there's any police exemption for this sort of tech. On the other hand we have Stingrays which probably violate all kinds of FCC emissions regulations and warrantless wiretap laws. They mostly seem to be getting away with that on the grounds of national security though and they could pull the same stunt here.

    4. Re:Cancer by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The police feel much more secure. Does that count?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Cancer by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      So . . . I now need to upgrade my tinfoil hat to a lead hat?

      I'd like to have a little pocket X-Ray detector to keep with me when I am wandering around public places. The results might be frightening . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Cancer by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      This. Cops were dumb enough to give themselves testicular cancer by constantly irradiating their testicles back when laser guns first came out (by holding the gun between their legs while it was on). They will certainly be dumb enough to blast people with much more radiation than necessary with these devices. Cops are, after all, selected for low IQ.. Let's give them a ray gun that can give people cancer! What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Cancer by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Radar gun, not laser gun. The mind wanders as one gets older.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were actually X-Ray devices, they'd need two vans. One radiating and the other detecting. Nothing about this story makes sense if they were really working with X-Rays.

    9. Re:Cancer by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New York City isn't a nation. The NYPD isn't a national security organization. They're a police department. They can't hide behind a national security justification for this.

    10. Re:Cancer by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be interesting if the vans were non-existent? The equivalent of a sticker from a security company plastered on your living room window. "Speed monitored by aircraft signs".

      --
      I come here for the love
    11. Re:Cancer by donaldm · · Score: 1

      The police feel much more secure. Does that count?

      Actually the police that use these vans should be more worried since they are the ones being exposed to X-Rays more than the general public. If you ever had an X-Ray for medical or even dental reasons the radiologist usually makes a point of exiting the room or stands behind lead shielding. Of course I am quite sure the police using these devices have been properly trained and all potential issues have been laid to rest, after-all the higher ups know best. \(^;^)/

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    12. Re: Cancer by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      And the companies that sold this security snake oil to the NYPD . They feel more secure as well.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    13. Re:Cancer by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Radar gun, not laser gun. The mind wanders as one gets older.

      Probably due to police radiation vans driving down your block.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re:Cancer by donaldm · · Score: 1

      So . . . I now need to upgrade my tinfoil hat to a lead hat?

      I'd like to have a little pocket X-Ray detector to keep with me when I am wandering around public places. The results might be frightening . . .

      I think you many need lead underwear more than a tin-foil hat, assuming you are thinking of having children in the future.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    15. Re:Cancer by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I care more about the spying. Because if I get cancer, I die and that is it. If they are allowed to spy, the whole society gets cancer and then that society dies.

      That is what they mean with "Give me liberty or give me death."

      It is a pity that you think you are more important than the society that you are part of. The fact that you choose between the two means you allow them to spy. They will spy on you. They will spy on your kids. They will go further and dictate what you can and can not do.

      And all this because the risk of cancer might be a little bit higher compared to what you inhale in NYC right now?

      When a mobster asks you what knee you want to be taken away, does not mean there is a choice. You should say NEITHER!

      But please: do not say you are less worries about spying, because that makes it discusable. That makes me want to negotiate terms. And the terms of spying should not start with wether or not it will give you cancer. It should start with NEVER!

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we were in Iraq they had a couple of vans parked near the entrance that we heard were high tech vehicle x-ray machines that scanned all the vehicles entering the FOB.

      We never found out if that was true or not, but when we'd drive past we'd pose like that scene in robin hood men in tights.

    17. Re:Cancer by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      If technology like this us being used to detect terrorists, it should be under DHS control, to be deployed under logged circumstances when there is a security threat. Local police have no business using it.

    18. Re:Cancer by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Nah, that one I'll chalk up to old age :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re:Cancer by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      My mother was an X-Ray Tech growing up. On the day she started (back well before digital filmless x-rays) she was told "by choosing this profession, you are choosing to take 3 years off your life"

      The key is the inverse square law. The exposure is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

      Mom occasionally still chuckles at people's reactions with portable units. She would roll one into the ER, set it up on a patient, and walk outside the little room with her remote button.... and people would clear out 5 feet behind her. She always laughed "at the distance I was standing, it was perfectly safe"

      Though, for mom to operate x-ray equipment, she had special training and had to have a masters degree (well she had to work towards it since it was a new regulation) and had to be recertified on a regular basis.... you think they have similar requirements? I doubt it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    20. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your knee-jerk need to insult people is mildly interesting, but nothing Roger said in the post you replied to and quoted is incorrect.

    21. Re:Cancer by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It's called backscatter. They're detecting the reflected x-rays, not the ones that make it through. Which of course means the dosage has to be much higher if the want to detect people, since we don't reflect x-rays very well.

      One of those lovely little technologies to come out of the anti-terrorism theater.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re:Cancer by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd be less worried about the spying and more worried about the radiation dosage. X-Rays are ionizing radiation and exposure to them increases the risk of cancer. I don't know what the dosage you would get from one of these things is but if it can penetrate the metal bodywork of a car to look inside it will probably be a lot more than a typical medical X-ray.

      Maybe it's time to wear radiation detectors when you go outside?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    23. Re:Cancer by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Nor should the police department be fighting this. Have they completely forgotten who they work for? It's not my money they're spending, but I'd be pretty pissed if they were and were then unwilling to tell me what they're doing with it. That's above and beyond the idea that they have some sort of right to keep information from the people who are paying their salary.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:Cancer by NoSalt · · Score: 0

      The terrorists DID win.

    25. Re:Cancer by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are owned by the bomb squad and used to x-ray bombs to determine how to proceed? Until they get back to the FOIA request, none of us know.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    26. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then they are having to pump more radiation out of their aperture to collect enough reflected signal for an image than they would if they (like medical x-rays) were making a transmission measurement.

      That's if you assume they are bouncing them off the person. They could just be bouncing it off metallic objects carried by the person. Not that I like this practice, but they really only need to scan for the reflection off a knife or a gun.

    27. Re:Cancer by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      To the people engaging in this spying and other things, they are trying to protect their society from an invader that has learned to hide among the general populous. They feel they are protecting the very thing that you feel they are destroying. The question is, which is more tolerable to most people, and it sounds like most people don't give a damn about the spying, but don't want small incidents like 9-11 to happen every 100 years.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    28. Re:Cancer by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If, as asserted, these are "backscatter machines" that "see through metal", then you can expect that there is considerably more radiation than your mother experienced. Of course, X-Rays are highly directional, so *PERHAPS* the exposure near the machine is less. That, however, is not the way I'd bet.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re:Cancer by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That would be justifiable, but barely fits with the publicly revealed information. (I.e., if it's just used by the bomb squad, someone is being intentionally misleading.)

      I would still expect it to be dangerous to the people around it in operation, but probably less so that trying to defuse an unexamined bomb.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re:Cancer by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, they need a beam strong enough to penetrate the vehicle and still be strong enough that the x-rays that reflect from things inside can again penetrate the vehicle and register on the detector.

    31. Re:Cancer by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Nor should the police department be fighting this. Have they completely forgotten who they work for?

      It's the NYPD, so yes.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    32. Re:Cancer by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that, not only do we not reflect radiation very well, but they're trying to detect radiation reflected from within a metallic enclosure. So they need to be LOTS more powerful.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    33. Re:Cancer by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Or at least that's what the public officials tell us. I haven't heard very many people supporting that "most people want" from either the left OR the right. (Of course I don't listen much to the right, so I could have missed it, but it's certainly not the libertarian wing. And tech discussion groups don't exactly exclude right wingers...certainly not the free marketeers.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:Cancer by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      To the parent, x-rays won't penetrate metal, but reflect.

      Oh believe me they'll penetrate metal quite easily if they have enough energy - we have a calorimeter to measure photon energies in ATLAS which consists of lead and stainless steel plates. That's at an extreme energy but it's no problem to generate X-rays that will penetrate the thin sheet metal in a car if you wanted to hence the concern. You could certainly imagine building a back scatter device using higher energy photons which could penetrate the sheet metal of a van although I've no idea whether these devices do that.

    35. Re:Cancer by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Actually the police that use these vans should be more worried since they are the ones being exposed to X-Rays more than the general public.

      Same with the police using radar guns. Since they're relatively heavy and holding them up each time you want to tag a car rapidly gets painful, some cops will open the car door, rest the gun on their laps, and fire it from there. Eventual result: Fried eggs.

    36. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That Geiger counter looked like a gun" will be the justification for you being shot for having one.

    37. Re:Cancer by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      True, though, to be honest, I care a lot less about the health concerns than the liberty ones. Id the operators get cancer.... its a life they chose and if they didn't choose it with knowledge, that is between them and their management; not my problem.

      What is my problem is how this can be abused. Because any power in the hands of people gets abused, so creating these things and putting them on the streets guarantees abuse.

      All I need to do is go back to my mothers own examples of when famous people came to the hospital and employees would gratuitously look up their records and gossip about them. That is why today, the single most common reason for the hospital to fire people (I later worked in their IT): Inappropriate records access.

      Police are never subject to even firing for this sort of thing. Our government has proven itself over and over to NOT be responsible enough with our liberty to be allowed such powers to peep.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    38. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least I can sleep securely in the knowledge that the operators of these vans will die of cancer before I do.

    39. Re:Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be missing the part of your brain that reasons, so let me do the reasoning for you. NYPD has guns, you dont. NYPD can do literally anything they want, including entering your home under false pretense and murdering you and your entire family because someone "reached for their waistband". And if you dont believe me, do a few google searches.

    40. Re:Cancer by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd be less worried about the spying and more worried about the radiation dosage. X-Rays are ionizing radiation and exposure to them increases the risk of cancer. I don't know what the dosage you would get from one of these things is but if it can penetrate the metal bodywork of a car to look inside it will probably be a lot more than a typical medical X-ray.

      There seems to be at least three issues here and little data to sort them out with.
      One data point is $$:
      "The technology was used in Afghanistan before being loosed on U.S. streets. Each X-ray van costs an estimated $729,000 to $825,000."
      This price point is high enough that a manager is needed. Sort of like the officers that drove automobiles in the early days when the
      military thought autos special.

      X-ray imaging techniques based on Compton backscatter is likely the one involved here.
      Backscatter is not astoundingly efficient so a lot of energy may be involved.
      Sensor technology has also improved so much that it is difficult to know what the
      modern truth here is.

      http://www.icdd.com/resources/...
      The above tells me that a single scan dose seems low.
      For the general population, the is 500 mrem above background radiation in any one year. However for
      long term, multi-year exposure, 100 mrem above background radiation is the limit
      set per year.

      My concern with imaging tricks like this is that if the dose was so low the medical community
      with their unbounded deep pockets would be jumping on this.
      Consider a topic in the news of late. Mammograms.... the recent changes in recommendation
      are a result of efficacy and induced cancer numbers on the population.
      On average the total dose for a typical mammogram with 2 views of each breast is about 0.4 mSv
      or 0.004 REM and these backscatter tools imply a lot lower levels but are they. The dose reported may
      have a lot to do with resolution however the point tissue does could be very high. A 1x1mm beam resolving
      a 1x1cm area could be reported two orders of magnitude less than the true beam intensity.

      This tells me that mammograms are being done wrong or we are reading the data with
      regard to these mobile backscatter trucks all wrong.

      Any excitation beam with enough energy to scan into and through a loaded van and can
      also produce detectable returns from the internals of that van is not a trivial beam.

      In part I think some serious marketing is happening.
      The near million dollar price tags combined with NDA and security letters
      may may make it difficult to scan through all the red tape.

      Modest home made detector blocks should be able to detect these scans in passing
      and let folk discover the numbers and intensity of these scans for real.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    41. Re:Cancer by swalve · · Score: 1

      So you believe that some douche from Long Island who got a 2 year degree in criminal justice and passed the test to get onto the NYPD is capable of running an XRay? Every other concern aside, these men and women have no idea what they are doing. You should be afraid of cops with XRay machines.

    42. Re:Cancer by swalve · · Score: 1

      I think the PATRIOT act changed that.

    43. Re:Cancer by swalve · · Score: 1

      Radar uses ionizing radiation?

    44. Re:Cancer by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I was having a dental X-ray yesterday (required for work) and chatting to the dentist after they came back into the room. I'd recently heard that what probably injured Marie Curie wasn't the extraction of radium, polonium etc, but running a mobile (and poorly shielded) X-ray machine in the front lines of World War One.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    45. Re:Cancer by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I agree with the rest, but 2 year degree in criminal justice? Detectives might have such. The people using these things are lucky high school works like a positive displacement pump or they would have never graduated from it. I guarantee that a large portion of them would have no chance of passing the GED test.

    46. Re:Cancer by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      No, they haven't forgotten who they work for, we have. They never worked for the good of the average citizen. Their job is, and always has been, to help maintain the separation between the rich and the poor, to include protecting the rich from the poor and never the other way around.

  9. No worries here citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    No worries here citizens, we're just going to let untrained people wander around shooting a giant x-ray machine at whatever they want. This is nothing to be alarmed about, please go about your daily routine as if nothing is happening. Thank you for your time.

  10. New toys and such by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I go to NYC, I'm finally going to have an excuse to buy one of these: http://www.berkeleynucleonics.com/products/model-1621M.html

  11. First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YAY

    1. Re:First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail.

  12. Silence Citizen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're being X-ray'd for your FREEDOM!

  13. Slashdot moderators owned by NYPD by gavron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every story is modded down.
    - NYPD violates constitutional tenets (0)
    - NYPD violates FOIA rules (0)
    - NYPD thinks they are a terrorist fighting organization (0)

    Dear /. editors: whomever moderated this thread shouldn't get mod points for another 30 years. I know you think you have checks and balances. So does the NYPD.

    E

  14. When you let LEO play "Counterterrorist" Org. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    Don't be surprised when they get an exaggerated sense of self-importance and begin to think they're above the 4th amendment.

    1. Re:When you let LEO play "Counterterrorist" Org. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The NYPD, tasked with protecting the citizens of NYC from a repeat of one of the largest terrorist attacks on US soil (and by all reports the city is still high on the list of targets), has been willing to push the envelope as far as they can. It is a typical response to the mindset that has, at its core, the phrase "never again". And you will find quite a few people who are more than willing to give up liberty to achieve safety (or at least the assurance of safety from their public officials).

      Now, to be fair, you do not tell the potential robber where you hide the valuables and how to unlock the safe. Some operational details may make sense to be held back from the public at large, even as the general procedures should be able to be shared, and the details should be available to be reviewed by (truly independent) boards to insure that individual rights are not being stomped on. To say that balance is tricky is an understatement.

    2. Re: When you let LEO play "Counterterrorist" Org. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said

    3. Re:When you let LEO play "Counterterrorist" Org. by Holi · · Score: 1

      The NYPD, tasked with protecting the citizens of NYC from a repeat of one of the largest terrorist attacks on US soil .

      Well until the NYPD get's it's own air force, I am not sure how they expect to deal with planes flying into buildings. Somehow I don't think X-Ray vans are going to be much help.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:When you let LEO play "Counterterrorist" Org. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're working on better crash survivability and armor for the planes is how.
      Just a matter of time before they start using them as breachers to disgorge goons right on top floors!

    5. Re:When you let LEO play "Counterterrorist" Org. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They could just go out and buy some AA turrets, it would be far cheaper.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  15. X-Rays by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

    They aren't X-rays, they are Freedom-Rays.

    1. Re:X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they cause Freedom-Tumors which give you 6 months till you become a True Hero to the Nation.

    2. Re:X-Rays by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      They aren't X-rays, they are Freedom-Rays.

      Or F-Rays for short.

      *Officer fires an F-Ray at a pedestrian*

      Pedestrian: Ow! My sperm!

      *Officer fires the F-Ray again*

      Pedestrian: Hmmm... It didn't hurt that time.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm my head the pedestrian sounded like Fry from Futurarama.

    4. Re:X-Rays by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Cancer would be renamed Freedom Ray Fry.

  16. Move to Holland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't do that here.

    1. Re:Move to Holland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would Holland take an american refugee like me?

    2. Re:Move to Holland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't do it yet. The Dutch authorities are increasingly copying American civil rights abuses and introducing their own as well.

  17. A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) If something is in plain view, it can be evidence used to justify a search. I suppose it's a plausible interpretation that the heat something gives off could be considered in plain view when looking through an infrared camera. However, an x-ray scan is hardly plain view because it's an active scan, relying on backscatter in the case of these vans. Can any evidence collected from these vans, or evidence collected on the basis thereof, be admissible in court?

    2) Is this safe? X-rays pose a health danger, which is why precautions are taken when medical and dental x-rays are taken. What will be done to ensure that people aren't exposed to harmful radiation, especially without notice or consent?

    3) The NYPD is refusing to say what these vans are used for. If the NYPD won't say how they're being used, how do people know their privacy isn't being invaded and they're not being exposed to harmful radiation?

    4) Because these vans are being paid for with tax dollars, don't people have a right to know how they're being used? How do the people know this is a necessary expense and the taxpayers aren't being ripped off?

    5) At what point is it no longer acceptable to justify any and every form of surveillance under the excuse of terrorism? This is a tired refrain that has already been used to justify far too many abuses. Terrorism is the new communism, and I hope one day we'll be able to ridicule many of the things we've done just as we find McCarthyism and the red scare laughably absurd.

    1. Re:A few important questions... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re: "Can any evidence collected from these vans, or evidence collected on the basis thereof, be admissible in court?"
      Drive around and the screen shows something 'different' for a substance/material on an existing detection database.
      The legal question is the long term risk of "the computer did an aggressive alert" as the only evidence could been questioned in open court. That could make defence lawyers very interested in every aspect of the methods used in open court. Computer source code requests, amount/type of radiation, why that area/person was selected... more methods could be exposed by even considering the traditional open court system.

      Re "What will be done to ensure that people aren't exposed to harmful radiation, especially without notice or consent?" and "exposed to harmful radiation?"
      If the project does not legally exist any extra public health testing/comments could leak operational details and be commented on in public by the wider scientific community/health/legal experts.
      Defund/give busy work to any pathologists, epidemiologists who ask questions/suggest study funding :)
      If no health data exists, no medical/legal questions in open courts can really get commented on, no health problems will get to the press.
      Keep all experts out of open courts and its all just fine.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I suppose it's a plausible interpretation that the heat something gives off could be considered in plain view when looking through an infrared camera.

      It's not. This has already been decided by the courts.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

      > Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.

    3. Re:A few important questions... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      4. People have a right to know what their government authorities are doing regardless of whether something is paid for with tax dollars. It's not a funding question. Government in a free country exists to serve the public. They can't be allowed to hide what they're doing. The police department isn't the CIA. Secrecy is unjustifiable.

    4. Re:A few important questions... by houghi · · Score: 1

      1) It will be used to start looking for a plausable cause. e.g. if they see you have something in your car that you should not have, they will stop you, say they smelled beer and do a seach and then find whatever they saw in the first time without all the problems of proving that is ho they found it.

      2) It is to keep people safe. If some people get killed, so be it. The people are safer, because we say they are safer

      3) Your privacy is invaded. That has been clear. The thing is that nobody realy cares enough or is powerfull enough to change it. It is like the bully in school. "Stop hitting yourself." We all know what is going on, but nobody does anything.

      4) It is necessary because they say it is. The people pay, but those are not the ones they protect and serve.

      5) The point goes back many years to at least pre-9/11 but it goes back much, much further. McArthy-era would be a good guess, yet I would not be surprised it started even sooner. WWII and what was done to people from Japanese decent is also a good starting point.

      Whenever I hear people defend these kind of things, one quote comes to mind and it is scary how relistic it is:
      You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?
      I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
      We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!
      I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

      Just re-read it again and it is scary how real this is for police in general where the 80% protects the 10% bad cops and trows out the 10% good cops all in an Omerta way. http://i.imgur.com/GsVKjgA.jpg
      As long as they do not care for those who ACTUALLY protect and serve the public, how do you think they will start caring about the general public?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Can any evidence collected from these vans, or evidence collected on the basis thereof, be admissible in court?

      That's the fun thing about parallel construction. You just have to find the crime; You can make up acceptable evidence before the court date.

    6. Re:A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCainism is to the towel scare what McCarthyism is to the red scare.

    7. Re:A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scalia's opinion in Kyllo v. United States isn't that simple. Not at all. It's based on what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman, 365 U.S., at 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use.

      Scalia says that the interior of a home is a constitutionally protected area, which makes sense. With that comes an expectation of privacy, regardless of the level of detail revealed by the surveillance or search. However, Scalia's expectation of privacy depends on the public generally not having access to or not using the technology. Because the general public generally didn't have thermal imaging technology, Scalia argued that a person could reasonably expect privacy from infrared cameras in their home. Because a person generally expects that the public aren't using such technology, the police can't use it without a warrant, either.

      In short, if the public starts using infrared imaging more frequently, then it would no longer constitute an unreasonable search according to Scalia. I'm not sure that's a good thing. There are always new types of sensors being added to smartphones. What if Samsung were to add an infrared sensor to the already wide range of sensors on their phones? It seems like the surveillance would then be legal because the public generally has access to the technology. This can also be applied to drones. When the general public didn't have the ability to fly over a property at low altitude and take pictures, the police doing such a thing would be an unreasonable search. Because drones are now widely available, that standard would seem to make such surveillance legal.

      I'm not sure that's a good thing. We would be linking our privacy to the pace of technology becoming available to the general public, meaning that it will be continually eroded. Hypothetically, if the general public got access to backscatter x-ray technology, the NYPD's vans would then be legally able to conduct surveillance of constitutionally protected areas without a warrant. I don't think that's a good thing.

    8. Re:A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this was safe, the NYPD would not be using it on us in the first place.

    9. Re:A few important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just have to find someone you want convicted of a crime.
      You're making up the evidence to begin with after all.

    10. Re:A few important questions... by anyGould · · Score: 1

      1) If something is in plain view, it can be evidence used to justify a search. I suppose it's a plausible interpretation that the heat something gives off could be considered in plain view when looking through an infrared camera. However, an x-ray scan is hardly plain view because it's an active scan, relying on backscatter in the case of these vans. Can any evidence collected from these vans, or evidence collected on the basis thereof, be admissible in court?

      This is why they don't want to give any records of how and when these are used (and I'll bet you they'll fight the release of anything resembling *details* even harder). Right now, they can zap you with the machine, and then have an officer (possibly even an officer who isn't in on the trick) investigate you for "suspicious activity". When they detain, search, and find whatever the X-ray saw, it'll be recorded as based on the officer's judgement. The X-ray won't be mentioned, meaning the issue will never come up. See "parallel construction".

      2) Is this safe?

      Probably not. If you could prove that they were doing it to you - which you can't (see 1)

      3) The NYPD is refusing to say what these vans are used for. If the NYPD won't say how they're being used, how do people know their privacy isn't being invaded and they're not being exposed to harmful radiation?

      You don't know. And you can't complain, because you can't prove that they used it on you - and thus your rights haven't been violated. (see 1). Isn't this fun?

      4) Because these vans are being paid for with tax dollars, don't people have a right to know how they're being used? How do the people know this is a necessary expense and the taxpayers aren't being ripped off?

      Because the police told you it was a necessary expense to fight terrorism. We'd explain why, but the three-letter-agencies told it was a national security issue and we signed some paperwork agreeing we wouldn't discuss it with anyone.

      5) At what point is it no longer acceptable to justify any and every form of surveillance under the excuse of terrorism? This is a tired refrain that has already been used to justify far too many abuses. Terrorism is the new communism, and I hope one day we'll be able to ridicule many of the things we've done just as we find McCarthyism and the red scare laughably absurd.

      This will end when a politicians uses the terrorist card and the public openly mocks him for doing it. But given that "Soft On Crime" is still a working strategy, I think you're no-where near that point.

  18. This is also a social justice issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are ppl. with previous occupational exposures to what is considered to be high-level exposures of radiation today, that have to carefully monitor and restrict such things as dental or medial X-rays (ie. exposure to 60Co due to working around a leaking medical source).

    What provisions exist to alert the "police" to these people, and what steps do they take to mitigate aiming their X-ray at these persons?

    I would suspect none, so the ethics of this "operation" need to be called into serious question.

    1. Re:This is also a social justice issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People should never be exposed to X-rays and other types of ionising radiation, except for medical reasons.

  19. Illegal at French Border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The court ruled these scanners illegal in France, where they were being used to scan vehicles for people. You can't Xray people without their permission, and the makers claims of typical 'low' doses equivalent to an arm x-ray was what an illegal immigrant would get if inside a metal tank inside a metal truck. Without all that metal it was a lot higher.

    http://news2.onlinenigeria.com/world/21244-french-ban-x-ray-scans-for-illegal-immigrants-as-radiation-makes-them-too-dangerous.html

  20. Just wait for the health-related lawsuits ... by Misagon · · Score: 1

    X-rays are ionizing radiation, after all.
    And how strong do they need to be to penetrate the metal body of a car?

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Just wait for the health-related lawsuits ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's the chance of getting the EPA to investigate?

  21. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to care about what was happening in US, As sadly it affects the rest of the world quite severely, luckily not as much anymore (with the rise of other nations) but week after week we read stories about the Govt or agencies stepping over the democracy line.

    The common response is well when it goes too far we will stand up as put an end to it.

    When?.. the answer is never, freedom is not something you even recognize now and wouldn't know what do with it if you had it, even a recent headline about the Drone programme targets being 90% civilian (which is a war crime) apparently is has been clarified that all military aged males in a combat zone are considered combatants even if they have no connections or armaments so just being alive makes you a target. wasn't enough for any action to be taken let alone DC cops driving around in vans X Raying whatever they feel like or the weird idea that americans have the right to do whatever they like. (manifest destiny)

    For gods sake, stand up and put an end to this ridiculous farce and become people again before it's too late.

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

      Freedom is not a state or an achievement in the future, it is an action. If freedom is not being practiced, it is non existent.

  22. Point of order by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    It's not "the democracy line." It's "the constitutional republic line."

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  23. Battery and Illegal Search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did no one think to possibly look into the legality of these? Irradiating someone has to count as battery, and you can't just search strange vehicles.

    1. Re:Battery and Illegal Search by sexconker · · Score: 1

      America = Nazi Germany now.

  24. Re:weapons- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a breath, oh paranoid one.

  25. 60Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you mentioned this.

    I was exposed to what is believed to be 400 REMs (you can do the conversions to the radiological annotation of the day yourself) from sleeping in the basement of a hospital in An-Najaf, Iraq. An MRI scanner was turned on by an "insurgent" and all sorts of seemingly benign items (desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc.). were attracted to the MRI and "sucked" into the machine. A radiotherapy device employing Cobolt-60 was also attracted to the magnetic field of the MRI, and the canister containing the Cobolt-60 was ruptured. We slept in that basement, right by the machine, and everyone in our unit was puking violently in the morning and was sick for two weeks after the incident.

    Needles to say, any urban legend dealing with shit getting sucked into MRIs (police pistols, etc.). you can believe. The MRI looked like a black hole of twisted junk from all the stuff that was pulled into from the surrounding environment.

    I wear a medical bracelet detailing the exposure, and I'm forbidden from receiving dental or otherwise routine X-rays, period.
                 

    1. Re:60Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These 400 rem are 4 Sievert, which for 60Co gamma rays is equivalent to 4 Gray, a borderline full body lethal accute dose even with treatment. If someone really got that much they are lucky nobody died.

      http://xkcd.com/radiation/

    2. Re:60Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These 400 rem are 4 Sievert, which for 60Co gamma rays is equivalent to 4 Gray, a borderline full body lethal accute dose even with treatment. If someone really got that much they are lucky nobody died.

      http://xkcd.com/radiation/

      Yeah. I know this level of exposure is borderline, which is why I can't get routine X-rays, etc., and why medical personnel need to be apprised of our condition (via. information in the medical bracelet). Everyone in my unit survived.

      We were in the hospital with a much larger cav unit which had alot of other ppl. I didn't know them, and I don't know anything regarding their disposition.

    3. Re:60Co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These 400 rem are 4 Sievert, which for 60Co gamma rays is equivalent to 4 Gray, a borderline full body lethal accute dose even with treatment. If someone really got that much they are lucky nobody died.

      http://xkcd.com/radiation/

      Just to add -- the 400 REMs was an *estimate* based on an analysis of the amount of 60Co in the machine and various other factors (our symptoms after the incident, our position vs. the device at the time we slept in the hospital, radiation on our uniforms, etc.) The NRC interviewed/referred for examination some of the ppl. involved in this incident but I didn't participate in this (I was never asked).

  26. Playing devil's advocate: by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    However, an x-ray scan is hardly plain view because it's an active scan, relying on backscatter in the case of these vans.

    Physically, it's not more active than using a flashlight to illuminate a dark area. If the cops use a flashlight to find evidence, should that automatically preclude the evidence from being in plain view? A flashlight is just a source of photons, just like an x-ray source.

    Is this safe?

    "Ha ha. Prove that you got your nasty cancer from our vans, and not from radon, nuclear tests, radiology or whatever."

    Because these vans are being paid for with tax dollars, don't people have a right to know how they're being used?

    Um no.

    At what point is it no longer acceptable to justify any and every form of surveillance under the excuse of terrorism?

    When the War on Terrorism has ended with a resounding victory! Or when pigs fly. Or when hell freezes over.

  27. plot to kill Muslims with X-ray device by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2
    "New York man found guilty in plot to kill Muslims with X-ray device"

    CBS news article describes how an upstate New York man was convicted Friday of plotting to kill Muslims with a mobile X-ray device by a jury that rejected his lawyer's argument that he was entrapped by the FBI.

    SO - if YOU do it, you go to jail, if the COPS do it, it's crime fighting. Hmmmm.....yeah....

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:plot to kill Muslims with X-ray device by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the police DO get extra privileges and powers over ordinary citizens. If you see someone speeding on a highway, you can't just order them to pull over. If you see someone steal something extremely valuable, you can't lock him up in your basement for the night. If you have good reason to suspect your neighbor is up to no good, no judge will let you bang down his door and search his house for wrongdoings.

      That being said, cases like this X-Ray van are where the police take their extra power and try to grab more of it. That's why there should be transparency in police organizations and systems of checks and balances (e.g. warrants) - to prevent abuses of power and attempts to circumvent the law ostentatiously to enforce it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:plot to kill Muslims with X-ray device by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the police DO get extra privileges and powers over ordinary citizens. If you see someone speeding on a highway, you can't just order them to pull over. If you see someone steal something extremely valuable, you can't lock him up in your basement for the night. If you have good reason to suspect your neighbor is up to no good, no judge will let you bang down his door and search his house for wrongdoings.

      The traffic rules are a consequence of treating the roads as the government's private property—if you don't follow their rules, they can order you off their roads, and if you don't comply then you're trespassing. A private citizen could do the same with their own privately-owned roads.

      Apart from that, use of special police powers requires (or at least, should require) a warrant—as in a document stating why this infringement of a citizen's rights was warranted. In the absence of a warrant, a law enforcement officer should be treated no differently than a regular civilian.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:plot to kill Muslims with X-ray device by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      There is one situation where they should be treated differently. In any criminal case where the crime was committed while employed as a police officer the punishment should be automatically doubled with no judicial discretion allowed.
      When you commit a crime while pretending to be fighting it as a police officer you are committing a much worse crime. Unless of course, the police want to give up all their extra protections under the law like laws about assault on a police officer, because that law is an additional weapon which they are using when they attack you. When a civilian attacks you then you have the right to defend yourself. When a police officer attacks you then you go to jail even if you didn't fight back.

  28. Re: - worn out jew psy ops bs- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assure you none of us has to be a Jew or part of the "problems" you mentioned to call you a fucking nut bag.

  29. They hate us for our freedom. Problem solved! by trout007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We should be completely safe now that we got rid of freedom.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:They hate us for our freedom. Problem solved! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes I get the feeling that some people think of freedom the way that collectors think of toys: They should be locked away in a case, behind a security system, in a darkened room where nobody can ever touch them. Only by locking them away can our freedoms be preserved in mint condition. What? You want to USE your freedoms? That's madness!!!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  30. You need to work on your insults by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

    The term "hillbilly" is a derogatory name that refers to poor white people with no education, no money and a tendency to possess guns, moonshine and other illicit substances. They would be the last people who would defend the police as they're usually too busy running from them and/or shooting back.

  31. Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have thought that if you let police become a para military force they would run amuck.
    Americans have somehow became some of the stupidest people on earth.

  32. Karma Rays by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Actually I'd be less worried about the spying and more worried about the radiation dosage. X-Rays are ionizing radiation and exposure to them increases the risk of cancer.

    In about 5 years, the very operators of this illegal equipment will start coming down with cancer. Odds are, their employers will deny them benefits and suppress any legal redress they attempt.

    In the long run, it's a dumb choice to become a Storm Trooper for an evil empire. Being a 'badass' with a badge comes with a price tag (this time in the form of cancer).

    1. Re:Karma Rays by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Except it's not just the operators. If they're pumping radiation into my house to measure how much is reflected, they are increasing my daily radiation dosage. The TSA's argument that I need to increase my radiation dosage before getting on a plane is a flimsy one, but still rock solid compared to the NYPD's "we need to drive around increasing random people's chances to develop cancer because Terrorism!" Doubly so when they tack on "and we can't be compelled to discuss anything about this program due to national security." When you're a local city's police force (even if said city is the largest in the country), you don't get to claim actions you take to be covered by national security.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Karma Rays by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If they really do irradiate random people, then it's unlikely that any single person will be irradiated several times. The operator is going to be present for all the radiation, and I'd bet the protective measures are inadequate.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. Re:weapons- by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    But putting x-ray tech in the hands of police means that you people can use it too. You know, to detect hidden caches of bagels or Hollywood screenplays.

  34. Life Immitates Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Organized or not, virtually all criminals had been well-armed until the government released its so-called "Peace Sentries" in the early fifties. They were automated drones that roamed the city, scanning the crowds, able to spot the telltale metallic signature of a weapon through solid concrete. Suddenly every concealed weapon became a beacon, announcing the owner's position to any police drones within a three-block radius. What followed was a chaotic year of massive arrests and desperate gunfights as the criminals fought to keep their weapons."

  35. NYPD in tough position; UN, national events, etc. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Yes, they overreach in panicked overreaction to past incidents. But they are in a tough position as a "mere" city police force that winds up with national-security level responsibilities. *All* LEO and security people overreact because "If we mess up people die" and "Not on my watch!" ; NYC has the UN General Assembly with dozens of world leaders (and the normal UN with international officials all year long), other major high-publicity events that would be tempting targets, and every day a huge and dense population center with the busiest bridge in the world, the busiest bus terminal in the world, and other high-drama possible targets. At the same time as I believe strongly that NYPD and all LEO must be held to higher standards, and the presumption of guilt implied by blanket surveillance corrupts our social system, I also understand where the NYPD's paranoia comes from.

  36. Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NYC has a population larger than several European countries. Finland Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuainia, Ireland, Serbia, Slovenia, etc. They've got a slightly bigger problem than Podunkville, Nebraska.

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

      Hey FYI Podunkville is a nice place, thank you very much.

    2. Re:Context by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yea, they do have a larger problem, and its name is often shortened to NYPD.

  37. question is why /. wont let me post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the heck has no one done anything about ?? We have identified , know where, what , whom is behind it, and think we know ..
    So, why is it still happening?

    (silence)

    except for the "filter error that DHI just poped up against me"
    fuckign stoopid, now /. is inhibiting my ability to post..

  38. You just don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NYPD needs X-ray vans because terrorists are people too. And as people, they break bones. And since terrorists can't go to hospital (they'd be caught, duh), the PD needs the ability to give them X-ray exams.

    Well them and you. And everyone. Without a warrant. Or proper oversight. And without the qualifications to run an X-ray medical device. On the street. As they are walking by. And without Radiologists. And the X-ray device isn't a medical device. Nor is the terrorist (or you) given any treatment.

    But it's all for the medical needs of the terrorists! What was the question again?

  39. Taking a Dose for the Drug War by sudon't · · Score: 1

    There's a truck weigh station in Kentucky, on I-75, where truck drivers have to pass through what can only be an x-ray scanner. I wonder how much of a dose you get each time you pass through? I've also had my truck x-rayed at the border by the Americans, (it's always my home team, the Americans, giving the hassles at the border), but at least I was allowed to exit the truck. They did not find the six-pack of Canadian beer I was smuggling.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  40. Re: by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Forced? Let me guess, you don't have kids. My sons born in 2000 and 2002 did not get circumcised. The doctors offered the option, and explained the dangers and benefits of the procedures with the latest medical studies available on the subject.

    Perhaps you should get out of mom's basement and try making a kid before spouting off on what is forced on people.

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

    Maybe they are searching for Jimmy Hoffa's body?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  42. Only on Criminals and Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we give you cancer, it's because you were one all along.
    Only criminals and terrorists catch cancer from these machines.

    Or are you taking THEIR side?

  43. - lying scum jews delete posts - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're so upright why did you scums delete my first post. Afraid the younger people you're duping will spread the facts and dig you our of your holes before you and your tribe kill them with your chemtrails.

    -----

    thezog.info
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100825152627/http://jewishfaces.com/banking.html
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Auschwitz.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Hopie_ike.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/810dresden_primary.htm
    holodomorinfo.com - see pages, don't waste time on videos, sites most'jew truther' sites run by them
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/False_Flags_summary.htm
      http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/
    newworldwar.org/chemical.htm - ignore notes at bottom, skip rest of site.

    nano chip chemtrails. chemtrail virus. kills by race. askhenazi jews are a race. they are not nordic whites. make your own tribes.

    1. Re:- lying scum jews delete posts - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - second look the jews schemers didn't delete my first post, instead, they moved my post from where it was originally above the scum jew 'tin foil hat', to further down the thread. The 'tin foil hat' scum jew post above was replying to my -weapons' post the scum jews moved to down below. Proves the point. Scheming scum jews only have bs to distract from the facts so they sleaze around to confuse the thread.

      Get serious against the jew tribe and their co-frauds. chemtrail virus.
      - top of thread click show all comments - slide bar over, see - weapons - post further below. the 'weapons' post is what 'tin foil hat' idiot jew above was replying to.

  44. Facts by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Read this and learn something new.

  45. scum jew- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretending to be a non jew to post your idiot say-nothing bs is stupid. 'you anti semites'.
    Your 'anti semite' shit is worn out. I have no problem with the Palestinians and arabs you scum jews have been killing. They are semites, you ashkenazi jews are part semite, having bred with nordic whites to lighten your skin so you could blend in and more easily do your child rape and robbery and mass murder. Beside my 'weapons' post above, real people can go t this thread to get the bigger picture on your tribe and plans for mass murder, here, now.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/20/2153224/dhs-to-extend-opt-to-60-months-says-employers-universities-students-demand-it

    And, as you scum trolls control the posts, just as you fcked around my posts here, changing where the were so you could spew more bullshit under them in different sections, and did the same thing on the other link thread, which posts you also cover up with your bogus 'scores' so only your worthless shit shows and real posts are 'hidden' -
    on the other thread click post all comments, also slide the bar over so comments show. see first post 'jew propaganda - also others. note, the scum jews will probably scum that thread around again also. see the first post, others if you can find them.

  46. bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    scum jew computer generated posts.
    I'll use it. another link, scum jews behind the web.

    the jews are spraying you with nano chip chemtrails. they killed over one billion people, they are going to kill you.

    https://ia902609.us.archive.org/2/items/TheJewishHandBehindTheInternet/TheJewishHandBehindInternet.pdf

  47. - jew troll bs- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Continuing to slobber bs jew memes proves the point. You have nothing else. You moved my posts around, you jabber old jew psy ops 'tin foil' bs, which as I said, is to cover the brain rape you're doing now. My posts and links above and below blow your idiot jew bullshit out of the water. just stfu and deal with it.

    - others, copy the posts to re read, give links to others.

  48. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, unless you're a racial ashkenazi jew, you're going to die of virus and/or other jew bio weapons/weapons, each race will be culled until none left but the ashkenzi jew tribe and co-scums and their 'morgellons' 'transhuman' slaves. In the meantime between culls, those not racial jew will be brain raped as we are all now, controlled by 'wireless' 'smart' grid 'ipv6' 'ai', drones, eatr and other robots already constructed.
    jew world terror. it's already done. these 'xray vans' and other terror tactics are of course bullshit and should be taken over by everyone, though they are nothing next to the rest of it. The mass chemtrail jets, 'wireless' shit, all of it. Over 100 trillion in weapons.

    Make tribes. Take it from them. No one is coming to 'save' you. You're being sprayed. give links info from jew posts above to others -

  49. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you an actual person or some terrible AI project that emulates a paranoid schizophrenic? Either way, please seek help...

  50. scum Jew - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    snivel snivel shut the fuck up scum jew. your nano chip chemtrails 'smart grid' shit 'ipv6' mind rape, your child rape child butchering your faud 'government' YOUR 'AI' all of that is You Scum JEWS.

    Fuck off scum jew.

    ---
    Others, go to this thread -
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/24/1946258/judge-tosses-wikimedias-anti-nsa-lawsuit-because-wikipedia-isnt-big-enough
    click load all comments, slide bar over. Just like on this thread scum jews 'scored' up their own posts and computer generated crap to push my way down the thread when they originally were near the top, also note the scum jews distracting from my posts. I'm not going to rewrite it all here. You would Never find the information in my posts on your own, beside most info being wiped off the web, the information took years of work. Time is short, the scum jews have already far more than just chipped you, they are behind all the destruction, now comes chemtrail virus, they live, you die. copy the posts on the other thread to re read, give links to others -

    1. Re:scum Jew - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still haven't convinced me you are an actual person. Can you put together a coherent sentence?