top | item 4189208

Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans

122 points| georgecmu | 13 years ago |forbes.com | reply

76 comments

order
[+] incongruity|13 years ago|reply
Imaging the contents of my vehicle without a warrant or even without probable cause?

No thank you.

I have nothing to hide, but I fear what others might want to look for and why.

I'll come right out and say it – the balance of power between the common citizen and the government has shifted way too far in favor of the government. More and more we accept invasive search/oversight from powers who continue to deny the public the same sort of transparency and insight.

"Who watches the watchmen?", indeed.

[+] blhack|13 years ago|reply
I wonder how much it would take for private citizens to hire their own lobbyists?

edit: in case this isn't glaringly obvious, the joke is that we do have our own lobbyists. They're called congress.

They're just horrible lobbyists.

[+] paulsutter|13 years ago|reply
The actual text of the fourth amendment is pretty elegant. One paragraph explaining the legal requirement for probable cause and a specific search warrant:

- "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 to be seized."

We don't need to justify privacy rights. The constitution already does that.

[+] daenz|13 years ago|reply
It's the fuzziness that these backscatter machines bring in that's the problem. Is it really a search if you're bouncing invisible light through an object and measuring latencies? Does the concept of a search fundamentally mean "discovering property that was previously unknown"? Or is there a clause to that definition, something like "unless it is readily visible"? Can any legal guys chime in on what the definition of a search is?
[+] joshAg|13 years ago|reply
the problem with the 4th amendment (really with any of the amendments jefferson wrote) is that it uses vague words like 'unreasonable' and 'probable' that have to be determined/explained in a later trial, which makes it much easier to skirt around the intended meaning of the amendment.
[+] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
>“From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.

Honestly? You're hard-pressed to see how x-ray vision into people's cars is a privacy concern?

[+] roc|13 years ago|reply
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
[+] nathan_long|13 years ago|reply
It's hard to see this standing up in a Supreme Court trial, if it ever made it there.

IIRC, they struck down heat images of houses without warrants because they reveal too much about the inhabitants' activities. This is way worse.

[+] AsylumWarden|13 years ago|reply
OK. I'm just trying hard at making a joke here so be patient...

They could have a doctor ride along and examine the x-rays of the people they scan. The program could then be legal under an Health Care mandate! Easy solution!

OK. Not so funny... that's why I'm not a comedian.

[+] mistercow|13 years ago|reply
Given the precedent set by Kyllo, I think it's very unlikely that lower courts would ever let this get as far as SCOTUS before smacking it down.
[+] rwmj|13 years ago|reply
Anyone know the amount of radiation received from these things versus other sources (granite, the sun, etc)?

Assuming the machines are properly serviced and not faulty.

[+] CamperBob2|13 years ago|reply
Properly serviced, not faulty, and operated by qualified personnel with health physics training.

(What? You mean that TSA goons get to shoot X-rays at people without having to take the same courses as doctors, dentists, and medical techs, including state certification and continuing-ed requirements?! Sign me up!)

[+] bgraves|13 years ago|reply
From the article...

The company’s vice president of marketing Joe Reiss told me in an interview that any dosage received by a human from these backscatter vans would be "exceedingly small," far smaller than a medical x-ray. He says that the vans’ dosage falls well within the health standards set by American National Standards Institute, and AS&E’s marketing materials say that the scan’s x-ray levels are equivalent to the dosage received in fifteen minutes inside a typical airplane.

[+] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
This is a great motivator for bringing back lead based paint :-) More seriously though, its useful to know that back scatter x-rays are blocked by a number of easily obtained materials, and I don't doubt that the same guys who installed vibration dampening foam in your car for a better stereo experience, or the house siding/insulation sales guys, will have a pitch for you if this becomes an issue.
[+] sageikosa|13 years ago|reply
That would just help redefine the term I first heard on season 2 of Archer: "rolling probable cause"
[+] taylorbuley|13 years ago|reply
FWIW, this is a very old story (close to two years old)
[+] kilroy123|13 years ago|reply
Funny, that the video in this article has already been pulled.

I'm guessing it won't be long until law enforcement agencies start using these when they have "probable cause".

[+] dickfickling|13 years ago|reply
The article was written in August 2010; who knows how long ago the video was pulled.
[+] beloch|13 years ago|reply
It's also worth noting that these ZBV's deliver a higher radiation dose per scan than an airport scan. That's still quite small, especially compared to a medical X-Ray, but radiation exposure is cumulative. Effectively, every time one of these vans drives by you it's as if the government is giving you a lottery ticket where the prize is cancer. The odds of you being a "winner" are astronomically small, but should the government be able to hand you these lottery tickets without any cause for suspicion at all?

I also suspect that, like airport scanners, these scans amount to nothing more than security theater and pork-barreling for contractors with government ins.

[+] WalterBright|13 years ago|reply
I don't care to have xrays randomly fired at me.
[+] dr42|13 years ago|reply
The Sun kicks out gobs of x-rays, you're already being exposed to x-rays. One week in the sun is about the same as a chest x-ray.
[+] rblackwater|13 years ago|reply
"You can't see any details."

An insurance company could buy scans of cars linked to license plates to see if you are gaining weight over time, or how often you smoke. That's what I came up with after a couple of minutes of thinking. I think this technology should be criminalized.

[+] mleonhard|13 years ago|reply
Are there any inexpensive sensors that trigger an alarm when one of these vans drives by?
[+] lurkinggrue|13 years ago|reply
I predict lead lined trucks.
[+] bigiain|13 years ago|reply
I predict gieger counter equipped IEDs
[+] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
I can't wait until this actually finds a bomb and they can't prosecute the driver because of the illegal search. Oh well, I guess the cops will learn that lesson after hundreds of people are killed...
[+] tedunangst|13 years ago|reply
I think that may even be something they considered. Ideally, you'd find out about the plot to blow up the X beforehand, but as a last resort finding the bomb in the street sure beats having it go boom. If the perpetrator gets off because there wasn't a warrant, that's not the worst possible outcome.
[+] munin|13 years ago|reply
this article is from 2010. have there been any new developments?
[+] joering2|13 years ago|reply
This is sad news; what is becoming of this country? Does anyone know if they have those in Russia, China, or even on Cuba?

If you think about this, and how this country looked like 7 years ago, where is this all going? I cannot imagine all the changes by the time I will be dead, in 50 years from now, approx.

[+] stevejabs|13 years ago|reply
This scares the shit out of me.

Honestly, if applied broad spectrum (pedestrians, passenger vehicles, etc) what is the legality of what I conceal on my person or in the privacy of my car? What if I'm in a public space and I have a concealed weapon but a permit to do so? How do the differentiate in that situation?

I really don't like this at all. I love how the company making this product is called 'American Science & Engineering' and if this is applied on a street level it's one of the most un-American things I've seen.

Stuff like this makes me sad about where this country is heading.

[+] Useful_Idiot|13 years ago|reply
If no-one noticed, in the video that meatsock posted (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iABPKd0vFxQ) you'll notice that in the fluff (audio: "military bases" "border controls", "checkpoints") you'll see real world photos with US military personnel in.i.e. This technology has already been deployed. And, judging by the number plates on those border control pictures, on US soil.

The chickens have already flown the coop.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community