Inside a Full-Body-Scanning X-Ray Van 313
Velcroman1 writes "In August, Slashdotters learned that full-body scanners were roaming the streets in vans: 'The same technology used at airport check points, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on US streets where law enforcement agencies have deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs. Fox took a ride in one of the $800,000 vans, videotaping the entire event — and continues the debate about security, privacy, and health risks."
Purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, tell me, what's the real purpose of this stuff? 8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11. All attempts either simply failed or were prevented using pre-9/11 technology, yet we still get these naked body scanners.
Now we also need them roaming the streets? "Hey Joe, hottie on your six, make a turn and flip the switch boy, let's see what she's got!". Anything else doesn't come near a justification.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the hottie worth the risk of seeing the eye burning imagaes of the non-hotties also roaming the streets?
Re:Purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
But...b-b-b-but....manufacturing and surveillance jobs!
Re:Purpose? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, tell me, what's the real purpose of this stuff? 8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11. All attempts either simply failed or were prevented using pre-9/11 technology, yet we still get these naked body scanners.
Now we also need them roaming the streets? "Hey Joe, hottie on your six, make a turn and flip the switch boy, let's see what she's got!". Anything else doesn't come near a justification.
Next there will be a $5 Bear Patrol tax...
Re: (Score:2)
Next there will be a $5 Bear Patrol tax...
Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess it works. Your statement about 8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack almost sounds like an endorsement.
Re:Purpose? (Score:4, Insightful)
However their have been attempted attacks so unlike your tiger and elephant repelling rock there is data to suggest that their is a real threat still.
The problem remains that 99.99999% of the thwarted attempted attacks have been retired military officers trying to carry tiny little swiss army knives on their keychain, and mothers trying to carry bulk supplies of baby formula onto the plane. Thats what happens when you let people set their own metric of success.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What are you on?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never been murdered either. Does that mean I should carry a concealed weapon, and be ready to draw at any moment? Oh ya, the answer is "no".
And yes, I do own firearms, and I was a holder of a concealed weapons permit (since e
Re: (Score:2)
Yep you are correct in many categories.
However I am not endorsing more security or less.
I am endorsing intelligent discusion of the subject without insults, exaggerations, lies, or other types of FUD.
Someone taking my off had comment as an endorsement and simply replaying with what they thought was a witty comment just ticked me off.
I am trying to show both sides of this issue so people can start thinking about the subject instead of just reacting to it.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case we have a story talking about physical detection equipment. If it detects evil-doers with explosives or whatever, I'd expect we'd hear reports of what follows. It's much easier to see a tangible result than that from improved intelligence.
To make Slashdot, I'd hope the story would be a little more tech focused. If it's about gear using microwaves, don't call it "X-Ray".
The tech and the social implications of using highly invasive methods certainly warrant discussion. Where to use this stuff
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree that it merits discusion. I am not even a real supporter of it. I am just pointing out just how stupid the discussion has gotten.
There is so much FUD on this subject from both sides that it makes me want to scream. If someone dares to say that some of the security changes may have saved lives people will flat out state you are stupid, a "neocon", or some other insulting term.
Not really a healthy way to have a discusion or a good way to balance the benefits to the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
How can one judge security measures except by the lack of successful attacks?
How about, by the number of attacks attempted over a given time span before and after the security measures were implemented? Or maybe, the cost (financial and otherwise) of implementing new measures vs. the risk of not changing your procedures? Or, the cost (financial or otherwise) of implementing one procedure over another weighted by the expected effectiveness of the procedures in question?
Any way you slice it, the two cheapest and most effective security improvements are to secure the pilot's cabin as
Re:Purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
The deterrence value of a security measure is just about un-measurable
Actually, its incredibly measurable.
There are books, discussion boards, etc, dedicated to this topic. There is a huge market for people measuring the cost of risks. Is it better to make your car perfect, or save $100million on development, but have X number of "incidents" which lead to an average payout of $Y.
The interesting thing is that the government has decided to do everything in its power to ignore that risk/reward ratios. they want to get rid of all of something, which is silly, they should want to get it down to a certain, acceptable level, then focus time and money on something else.
Bruce Schneier said it best. the ONLY two things that have improved airport security is bulletproof doors on a cockpit, and a public that understands what the plane can be used for. People will stand up and fight, and no pilot will open the door because someone is threatening to hurt the flight attendant.. Everything else is just security theater.
Re:Purpose? (Score:5, Funny)
8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11.
Stop these "measures", and attacks will resume. The whole purpose of terrorism is to, well, cause fear, and what's better than having the State do it for you?
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Re:Purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Of course, private business could generate just as much fear as the government, but with much lower cost to the private citizen...
Support deprivatization of the fear industry!
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
The best way to avoid terrorism is to live in fear all the time.
Of course, private business could generate just as much fear as the government, but with much lower cost to the private citizen...
Support deprivatization of the fear industry!
Brilliant. Truly brilliant
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By why avoid it? Terrorism is way down on the list causes of death. Use that cash to fight obesity or cancer and you'll save a lot more lives.
Oh wait, seeing someone smile because they're cured of something horrible is not even remotely as fun as humiliating someone by having them take of their shoes and go through the nudy booth. Besides, saving the boob mama's to disk is still saving people.. sorta, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Living in fear all of the time is a neurosis for some, and psychosis for others.
You really believe that these measures are somehow abetting freedom, or liberty? They were a great excuse for a paranoid administration to lay seige on Americans, and heaven-forbid anyone wanting to come to the US. It was a great excuse to tromp and trump freedom, the US Constitution, and give bullies everywhere the Fear Card.
Re: (Score:2)
Security threats are real; anyone who grew up in a big city knows this, especially at closing time. Security theater has long been with us; anyone who learned to "duck and cover" under their desk for a missile attack knows this. Using real security threats a
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see anything in the slideshow that indicated that these were roaming the streets. I see this being used in a container yard or shipping hub which are places that US Customs and Border Protection actually p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original article suggests otherwise: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/ [forbes.com]
Though only time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, the article ONLY 'suggests' otherwise. It doesn't report that these vans are 'roaming the streets,' or at least doesn't present any credible evidence of that. It simply says that they're being sold in vans which are certainly *capable* of 'roving the streets,' but there is nothing to suggest that they actually are.
Most of the article about its use indicates that it's being used in ports to scan incoming containers & vehicles, not just randomly driving down the street looking for a good T
Re: (Score:2)
The article had a sensationalist headline.
It also had this line"The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on U.S. streets." Yet it didn't provide any details of which agency nor where in the US to back up that statement.
The rest of the article talks about the US using it in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to inspect cargo at ports. It appeared his only source was an ASE salesperson.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, tell me, what's the real purpose of this stuff? 8 million flights without a successful terrorist attack since 9/11.
I read TFA, (I know, I know), and reference to air flights was fleeting to the point of non-existent.
Smuggled drugs, bombs, and people were the focus.
Your raising the issue of Air safety, and then smacking it down is excellent Straw Man technique.
Well played sir.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were tasked with discovering drugs hidden in vehicles at the Mexican border this might be a lot easier and quicker than tearing vehicles apart.
If you believe that is "bogus" then I think you owe us a definition of the word.
You might disagree with the mission of detecting drugs, but that does not render the production of tools to do so quickly as "Bogus".
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to see these going down the street ahead of the ice cream truck. This is probably more for Presidential appearances or events where there's fuel for controversy.
Dumb to use away from points of entry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dumb to use away from points of entry (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of unreasonable searches. IANAM (I am not an American) and IANAL but wouldn't the ruling of Kyllo v. United States apply here? That case concerned infrared, not x-ray, technology, but it applied to surveillance of a house with technology that doesn't require the user to enter a house. The ruling also mentioned that the device used was not available to the public - same as these backscatter vans.
As such, could a lawyer explain how the use of these vans, at least pertaining to "viewing" homes, is not illegal per Kyllo v. United States?
Re:Dumb to use away from points of entry (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dumb to use away from points of entry (Score:5, Funny)
Am
Not
A
Merkin
Re:Dumb to use away from points of entry (Score:4, Interesting)
It's absurdly hard to actually identify items that only rarely occur, say weapons, in samples like this.
And how do they know if I have a concealed carry permit? I'm going to hate being confronted every time one of these passes to prove that I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you got a problem coming into my unmarked van and stripping so I can scan you?
Re: Health concerns are probably overblown. (Score:2)
Equivalent to a chest x-ray? No thanks.
Easy to detect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know those wrist watches that measure UV and tell you when you've been in the sun too long?
Nope
Re: (Score:2)
Whats a "watch"? I haven't seen anyone wearing one since the 90s
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little thing I wear on my wrist to tell the time so I don't have to dig my cellphone out of my pocket. :)
Health risk (Score:5, Informative)
AS&E says the system is safe for operators and subjects, and that "one scan of the ZBV is equivalent to flying in an airplane at altitude for two minutes."
and my general understanding is even if you were exposed to a dosage from one of these machines, it would be equivalent to a chest x-ray or less," McCabe told FoxNews.com.
The above two are not the same. Assuming normal airline altitudes, it takes hours of flying to get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest x-ray.
"It was a secondary screening mechanism for trucks going into a loading dock
So if your job requires you to drive a truck into the loading dock every day, it better be much lower than "chest x ray" levels.
Some related discussion here: http://ask.metafilter.com/142917/Cumulative-backscatter-Xray-risk [metafilter.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Is that so much to ask for safety???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As you point out, for those regularly exposed to such machines, the health risk may be considerable. Also, presumably, the vans operate at a higher power / intensity than airport scanner units.
Also, how is the x-ray energy distributed? ... evenly or in intense beam(s) that could potentially, at times, far exceed the normal stated output rating.
On a related note, how reliable is the software / interlocks to prevent unintended excess output? - this has been a longtime, persistent problem with various diagnost
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[sarcasm]
There was no problem with the Therac-25. The problem was that the targets being examined had too low of a tolerance to radiation.
[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the last few flights I took lasted hours. I've been on literally dozens of flights that have lasted hours.
"Hours" is probably one of the least useful metrics you could have included there. Hundreds of hours? Thousands of hours? One Million Hours?
I mean, anybody who has done a fair amount of travel has been aloft for easily a hundred hours -- I'm damned s
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Warning. No pix there. (Score:2)
[A public service announcement for the benefit of the slashdot community]
Re:WOOT! Video there! (Score:2)
The video includes several images of cars, showing suspicious cargo. No pictures of a scanned house, however.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't show homes probably because they know they would be destroyed in court if they did (Kyllo vs. US). The cars are on a public street so it is fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
How does this happen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind me again why we haven't burned DC to the ground yet? How can ANYONE, of ANY political affiliation, see this shit and not be completely outraged?
Re: (Score:2)
They still support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite overwhelming evidence that the US is and continues to be exactly the cynical torturer that the worst voices in Europe have said. That is to say: YOU'RE ALL BLEEDING HYPOCRITES.
Re:How does this happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
You really believe either of the two parties in power in the US gives a shit about you and your individual rights? Obama is just as bad as Bush was, and Clinton and Bush before them.
The reason why people haven't burned DC down is because 90+% vote for those two parties, thinking that they are different. They are just two sides of the same coin. If you vote, and vote for "change" and yet vote for one of the two parties, and you deserve to get what you get, more of the same.
Libertarians are outraged, but we're also marginalized to meaninglessness. Nobody cares, and that is why DC still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
90% of people vote for the two parties because >50% of the population in spite of their protests demands the goverment do this or else they will stop voting for their representative for not 'protecting' them.
When a majority of the voting block doesn't crucify a politician for suggesting that terrorists don't pose as great of threat as the security procedures to protect us from said terrorists we could start making progress. Remember when Obama said he wanted to make terrorism just another law enforceme
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You really believe either of the two parties in power in the US gives a shit about you and your individual rights? Obama is just as bad as Bush was, and Clinton and Bush before them.
The reason why people haven't burned DC down is because 90+% vote for those two parties, thinking that they are different. They are just two sides of the same coin. If you vote, and vote for "change" and yet vote for one of the two parties, and you deserve to get what you get, more of the same.
Libertarians are outraged, but we're also marginalized to meaninglessness. Nobody cares, and that is why DC still stands.
Ahh, but if you're a Libertarian, and someone is burning down DC, you'll need to find out if they've paid their annual firefighting insurance payment before putting out said fire.
(I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide whether I'm making a joke, social commentary, both, or neither.)
What could go wrong? (Score:2, Informative)
If you RTFA you will see that this is all for your benefit. "state privacy laws would prohibit individuals or private companies from abusing the vans, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing the same."
See? Now calm down and get back to work, peasant.
Re: (Score:2)
If you RTFA you will see that this is all for your benefit. "state privacy laws would prohibit individuals or private companies from abusing the vans, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing the same." See? Now calm down and get back to work, peasant.
**WHEW**
I was worried - good thing that's all cleared up now. Back to work for me...
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Tinfoil? (Score:2)
Forget the hat, it's time to start wearing tinfoil underwear!
Re:Tinfoil? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html [lessemf.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else as weird that the equivalent of the tinfoil hat, the silver mesh boxers is sold out in all sizes BUT XL?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, or you can put a note with robots.txt rules in your underwear.
Illegal Search (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trunk full of unexposed/undeveloped film? (Score:2)
Maybe its a good thing people shoot mainly digital today.
Would a real film photographer need a lead lined box for his film now?
Re:Illegal Search (Score:5, Informative)
In Kyllo vs United States, the Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) search without warrant was deemed unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Illegal Search (Score:5, Informative)
And how long before it's no longer reasonable to expect privacy, we can no longer expect it in our driveway or under our clothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the government gets to decide what is illegal.
Because most people do not care.
Ah, the Real Motivation is Drug War and Money (Score:5, Insightful)
This blurb in the article basically says it all...
While many dismiss / marginalize the threat of the drug war on people's freedoms, it's happening nevertheless. For example, there was a time when local police busting down doors was virtually unheard of - now it's common practice in all sorts of situations. Another is that people are now subjected to all sorts of demands, such providing government id / signing a form, to buy over-the-counter cough medicine. All in the name of the drug war - which is really a war against citizens.
For anyone who believes use of such technology to search people / private property will be ruled unconstitutional, think again - drug sniffing dogs are often allowed to search one's private property, such as one's vehicle, that's accessible from the street despite no "contraband" being in plain view.
One can practically count on such vans roaming the streets all throughout the U.S. in the near future "for your protection", but of course, much of the time, that won't be the real motivation.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how we haven't heard of people with gun carry permits being stopped after one of these machines scan them. After all the machine does not know that you have a permit.
In some areas a scan of students cars coming into the parking lot would reveal quite a few firearms within vehicles. Both guns and dope are often sold by students one to another.
Re:Ah, the Real Motivation is Drug War and Money (Score:4, Insightful)
For anyone who believes use of such technology to search people / private property will be ruled unconstitutional, think again - drug sniffing dogs are often allowed to search one's private property, such as one's vehicle, that's accessible from the street despite no "contraband" being in plain view.
The difference with a drug dog is that they're not searching your car, they're searching the ambient air. It IS in plain "veiw" (nasally) to them. The car is basically leaking drug particles all over the place, which is glaringly obvious if you have the wetware to detect it. This is completely different from scanning the inside of a person/vehicle/house. Would a cop be out of line if he walked down the street and smelled MJ smoke when he passed a parked car, and went to investigate?
Re:Ah, the Real Motivation is Drug War and Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing with these machines. They don't actually go into your car with them. They "search" the ambient air, everything within your car is plain view in certain EM frequency ranges. See? The same principle could be argued for these machines as has been done with dogs.
If I were a judge, I wouldn't be any more likely accept evidence obtained through the use of a dog than evidence obtained with the aid of fucking divining rods. Dogs easily can be coaxed into "alerting" by their handler, without raising suspi
Re: (Score:2)
In unrelated news... (Score:5, Funny)
In totally unrelated news, statistics show that tall, slender and well endowed women are more prone to being terrorists, not young middle-eastern bearded men.
No no no no no! (Score:4, Interesting)
Expectation of privacy. You implicitly allow search by entering an airport, but a billion court rulings state that the authorities cannot look inside your house or car without probable cause.
X ray tech counts as a search. What kind of legal advisor could ever sign off on this?
Besides, it's totally impractical. 15 seconds per scan? Useless in open traffic. Useless at a major event (15 sec x 10000 cars = 2 days in line to be searched).
Useless expensive and illegal. Thanks DHS!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, it's totally impractical. 15 seconds per scan? Useless in open traffic. Useless at a major event (15 sec x 10000 cars = 2 days in line to be searched).
Fortunately its a parallelizable problem.
15 sec x 10000 cars / 48 vans = 1 hour in line to be searched.
15 sec x 10000 cars / 96 vans = 30 minutes in line
Plus they could scan every second car and cut those times in half again. Sure they'll only hit 50% percent of the traffic, but few criminals will tolerate a 50/50 shot of being busted on the spot; so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on the crime. If you are talking about someone bombing a major event, then 50% odds might not be so bad. If you get through, you blow up people inside the event. If you get detected, you blow up in the middle of a gaggle of people waiting to get in. Either way, it's pretty much the same.
And if you talk about a coordinated attack, it gets worse. Once the first guy is detected, he detonates. When the others hear the explosion, they detonate too. You have some terrorists inside the gate; some
Re:No no no no no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever heard of Alberto Gonzales [wikipedia.org]? Look hard enough, and you can get a yes-man who will sign off on anything.
That guy would have stripped any and all provisions in the constitution under the provision of "we're allowed to because we say so".
Re:No no no no no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slippery-slope comes to mind. Since when did one relinquish their rights at the airport? -it wasn't always that way. And furthermore, such searches are now becoming routine on long-haul passenger trains (ie. Amtrak) and buses (Greyhound) too. And even one's own vehicle at some select locations, such as tunnel entrances.
You're assuming the government will protect one's rights - sadly, that's often not the case. Watch some episodes of COPS for a reality check on how policing really works in the U.S. - the police state is already here.
In addition, home monitoring technology has greatly improved and hence, the number of people under court supervision is rapidly expanding so, in turn, there's little in the way of stopping the police state of expanding ... it's easily conceivable that upwards of 10% of the adult population could in the next decade or so be under some court mandated supervision.
Digressing, but don't think for a second, that the courts alone are going to stop technology, such as the vans, from being used for searching people / property - only a revolution, or more ideally, some power-elites, choosing to put freedom of citizens ahead of profits and power will. Anything else is wishful thinking. In the meantime, about the best one can do is be aware of these things / educate others and navigate the system best one can.
Ron
No new pictures. (Score:2)
Watched the video. Fox didn't get any pictures of actual scans taken while they were there. The pictures shown are from AS&E's usual set of demo pictures [as-e.com].
They should have had scans of the reporters. But the mobile system isn't certified for personnel scans.
It's not a significant radiation hazard beyond the recommended 9 foot approach limit. [as-e.com] But there are reasonable questions about someone close to the scanning vehicle. The Hickam AFB study did not measure the exposure directly in line with the s
What happened to our van? (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey, what happened to our backscatter van?"
"Well, we drove by a container full of parabolic satellite dishes, and our input stages were fried."
It's a dream I have...
Re: (Score:3)
Like most right-leaning orgs and people, Fox is insanely hypocritical.
Then again, so are most left-leaning orgs and people, too...so...yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait, FOX? (Score:4, Insightful)
When the organization itself contributes to the Republican party, all "news" is suspect.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note that it wasn't Fox News that did that...it was News Corp [nytimes.com], the company that owns Fox News.
Not that it makes it any better.
Sauce for the gander. (Score:2, Interesting)
When the organization itself contributes to the Republican party, all "news" is suspect.
Does that apply to the Democratic party and news operations other than Fox, too?
Be careful how you answer: Reporters and news operation executives are NEARLY unanimous in contributing to Ds and not to Rs. >80% typically. (Plenty of documentation on that is available, thanks to campaign finance reporting laws.)
Re:Sauce for the gander. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reporters and news operation executives are NEARLY unanimous in contributing to Ds and not to Rs. >80% typically. (Plenty of documentation on that is available, thanks to campaign finance reporting laws.)
You appear to be confused. The OP was discussing the organization itself (that is, who ultimately controls things), not the private citizens employed by the organization. You then quoted statistics about private citizens giving.
If you can't see the difference, consider what it would mean to an employee that the organization that signs their paycheck, and determines whether they'll be employed tomorrow, is invested in one party winning over the other.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Re:Wait, FOX? (Score:4, Insightful)
Never said they were evil, just hypocritical...just like every other right-leaning and left-leaning news org.
The reason Fox gets so much flak is because it bills itself as being "fair and balanced", when it is neither. MSNBC says "We're full of shit. What're you gonna do about it?" There's no difference in their presentation or intention...the only difference is one admits it and one attempts to paint itself as the opposite of what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because MSNBC's web site says:
I don't see anything about them claiming to be full of shit. Do you really think MSNBC delivers a "fuller spectrum" of news than anybody else?
This is not a defense of Fox - I agree that they're hypocritical and biased - but I think you're failing to demonstr
Re:Wait, FOX? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait, FOX? (Score:4, Informative)
There was this [current.com]. Granted, that's in an advertisement, but still...
And I'm not hypocritical. I despise all of the major news services, something I indicated in my OP.
Re:Wait, FOX? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox took a ride in one of the $800,000 vans, videotaping the entire event -- and continues the debate about security, privacy, and health risks.
The Government's new definition of debate: you keep talking amongst yourselves, we'll keep implementing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... With tinfoil clothing? (or substitute your favorite x-ray opaque material)
Bullet proof bikini FTW
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Drive up to a school, now it becomes CP View, for your protection.