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."

38 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
    3. 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?

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  2. 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.

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

    I would totally download that.

    --
    \r
  4. I can see... by surfdaddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...what they did there...

  5. 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 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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"
    10. 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.

    11. 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."
  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. X-Rays by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. 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 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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).