Airport Scanner Technology Mounted On US Gov't Vans To Scan What's In Nearby Vehicles
from the illegal-search? dept
Already thought those full body scanners at the airports were a bit much when it came to privacy? How about having government officials sitting in a van next to you scanning your car as you drive by with the same basic technology, without you even knowing about it? Jay points us to the news that a version of the same backscatter x-ray scanner technology found in airports has also been sold to the US and other governments to mount on vans to scan nearby vehicles to see what's inside. Apparently, the company has sold 500 of these already. Many of them are used in war zones to scan for things like car bombs, but apparently some of them are in use in the US, letting them see views such as the following on nearby vehicles:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Only with a warrant
I am sure just like the wiretapping they will use this constantly without a warrant, and break every rule they can. Then when they get caught there will be zero repercussions for breaking the law because for some reason our government is above the law. *shakes head* 1984 is only a couple years away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only with a warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only with a warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only with a warrant
That is a weird phrasing. "Anyone who thought... 100% left wing" is a very odd item on that list. What constitutes 100% left? Are you inferring 100% means he is 100% in favor of freedoms or 100% against.
The reality is that he could be 100% left or 100% right on the political spectrum and end up in virtually the exact same place. The farther to the poles one travels, the more extreme and similar they actually become in mentality and functionality. Dictators come from both sides of the political spectrum, the only difference is what they use to excuse their actions. Beware anyone who is extreme in any political direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only with a warrant
As for the extremes, that's kind of my point. We hear a lot of morons talking about how Obama is some kind of perfect messiah who's going to save the planet, or about how he's a socialist dictator who's going to drive the country down into communism, or any number of similar bizarre delusions.
The fact is that the man is a centrist who leans left on some issues, leans right on others and is about as far from the political extremes on either side of the aisle as you can get in American politics - which tends to be right-leaning compared to most other democracies. Therefore, if you think he leans totally to the left, you don't know what you're talking about - clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only with a warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only with a warrant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secure Borders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secure Borders
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secure Borders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secure Borders
That's no excuse for blasting everyone with tons of harmful radiation. I don't mind the search part so much (for me specifically, though as a policy I kinda disagree with it and think it infringes on our privacy), but the harmful radiation part I personally mind.
It's interesting how the driver is in the vehicle while they're scanning it, I thought the driver/any known passenger is supposed to step out while they're doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Secure Borders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Secure Borders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secure Borders
These things are also needed to ensure that we don't smuggle oranges into the United States which might do something nasty to the orange crops in Florida and California when all we're doing is packing a lunch for a day of shopping for deals and porn in Bellingham, WA.
As for the BC Bud we've found a way for it to piggy back on the oil pipeline Sarah Palin was so hot to have built from Alaska to the Lower 48 so it never goes near an inspector!
Please note that along with the State of Washington we here in British Columbia are engaging in a program so scanning vehicles for tell tale indications that the occupants are from California so that we can divert them into the Columbia River as it empties into the Pacific Ocean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arms race
1. X-ray detectors. Like radar detectors, would reveal the vehicles which have these scanners; a quick tweet later and the scanning van is not so secret anymore.
2. Extra shielding. Strategically placed plates of denser material.
3. Camouflage. Hide whatever you want to hide within a dense commonplace object (like a vehicular gas tank). This one is only useful if you have something specific to hide, however; it unfortunately does not help much with the invasion of privacy and the extra exposure to harmful radiation.
4. Lawsuits. Much less stupid than lawsuits against cell phone towers or wireless access points.
Note none of these countermeasures are useful for airport scanners, but suddenly become useful when they start scanning common vehicles on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arms race
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old technology, you only know about it NOW ?
they have them (in the US) in trucks that can drive around car parks, and look into every boot, and also see any hidden drugs.
But its been around for years, every shipping container entering your country is x-rayed in this manner. And have been again for years.
Move along, nothing to see here. (unless you got one of these things :))
Next you will be telling us about this new things called "Television" where you can see MOVING pictures right there in your living room !!..
Ofcourse, there is NO safe minimum dose for X-Rays, so being exposed to X-Rays is always risky, and should be avoided. But who cares about safty when national safty is at stake !!! Oh wait ...
Also, the X-Rays used that would have a high enough energy level to penitrate a shipping container or shielding is much higher than would be required for a medical X-Ray..
And again, would any of this be necessary if everyone just played by the rules ? .. No. if it is not necessary it will not be done...
Like you favorate, DRM, we would simply not have problems with the creation of copy protection systems if copy protection was not required. ie, people did the right thing, and did not FORCE measures to counter rising or potential problems.
If you purchased one of these things and never found anyone breaking the law, you would have no use for it, but they sold over 500 units, (over the many years they have been around). .So they are usefull and providing results.
Just like DRM is working, or it would not be implemented, and as DRM is broken better countermeasures will be put in place, until that point where the encryption is locked in firmware, that you cannot access (due to the blown fuse bit), and not only are you screwed but so is everyone else..
Ofcourse DRM and such are for those movies and content of value, the very ones that are most popular on the torrent sites. That is to save money, not to 'advance the art'.
It's more "I like that, so ill take it"..
There are laws against it, and there is technology being developed and improved to stop it, its YOU the file sharers that download blockbuster movies that stuff it up for the rest of us.
I used to download lots of public domain stuff from bittorrent, now I cant do that because well you know the rest.
A few greedy people, will always stuff it up for the vast majority.. (and think they are not doing anything wrong).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old technology, you only know about it NOW ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old technology, you only know about it NOW ?
This person is not serious, he will not debate any issues and only appears to want to get angry responses to his posts.
He will repeat erroneous information even when people correct him multiple times.
Don't waste your time answering to this person, he is a troll and will feed on negative emotions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old technology, you only know about it NOW ?
See how, no matter what the topic (warrentless x-raying of public vehicles?) he turns it to try and compare it with illegal downloading and *GASP* beating DRM. Priceless!
"I'm a tro-holl, fol-de-ro-hol..."
Now all we need are the Three Billy Goats Gruff :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old technology, you only know about it NOW ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Old technology, you only know about it NOW ?
Dood, I know right, I downloaded one of these trucks last night.. goes good.
Crack. Smoke it. Align yourself with a better plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's really not a big deal as far as those places go, and any business or owner of private property can legally require the same thing. Ever get frisked going into a club? Same thing.
I can see this being put into use there... I'm sure the random physical searches will still happen, but this would let anyone who has the right take a quick look at all vehicles entering the premises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said what Mike is pointing at is use inside the country where one can reasonably expect that law enforcement will stay out of things unless they have reasonable grounds enough to get a warrant for this kind of stuff.
As it's already on the road in the US I suspect our boys and girls in red serge up here in Canada are packing it around in their 4x4 SUVs now and scanning just as randomly as I suspect is going on in the US. Oh well.
By the way, I have a new line of x-ray reflecting clothing and bin liners for pickups coming out in a week!
In two weeks I'll have a device when it detects a scan will send back an x-ray of something innocuous like a family of european tourists on a trip to do some serious tree hugging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Customs
IMO any defense is just rationalizing the reach for ever more power (not saying you're doing that, but law enforcement is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child Safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And People are worried about Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And People are worried about Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And People are worried about Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/25/192208/GPS-Tracking-Without-a-Warrant-Declared-Leg al
Personal privacy is eroded at such an incredible rate it's just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The constitution is dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The constitution is dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAldBxgRCdY
Texas Police Secretly Deploy Spy Drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS5vm149vGc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lords only know what may happen when the officers start dropping from cancer though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, this is old news, where has everyone been?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
Every time an X-ray is passed through your body, there is a chance it will kill you, it only takes ONE to do it.
So the more times you are X-Rayed the more chance you have of being affected by it..
The operators of the equipment know about this and stand behind think lead sheilding.. And yes they should take everyone known in the vehicle out before doing the X-Ray, to do otherwise is stupid and unnessarily dangerous.
The point I was making is that this has been around for years, its nothing new.
And I was just wondering out alout what was the point of this article, making out it is a new threat to deal with.
Its not, its been around for as I said, years..
If you only just found out about this technology, where have you been ? Are you having trouble keeping up ?
Feel free to complain, call me a troll or correct my spelling, if that rows your boat.. good for you..
The TROLL ALERT guy, when you post offtopic posts thats is what TROLLS DO.. You know the kind, that kind that does nothing to call out people for being trolls..
Very much like your posts, you coward :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
And I was just wondering out alout what was the point of this article, making out it is a new threat to deal with.
Yeah, X-rays have been around since the big bang at the beginning of the universe. Nothing new at all.
It's a good thing we have darryl to point out how stupid Mike is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
The risk of being killed by smoking a cigarette or cutting yourself is less than the risk of getting hit by lightning, therefor you should do it. Maybe nobody will die from one of these X - Rays (though it might lower life expectancy by a minute?) but that still doesn't negate any negative health consequences caused by them.
and a hospital X - Ray is taken for the purpose of figuring out what's wrong with you to help make you better and it's taken with your consent. A hospital X - Ray is justified by the fact that not taking it maybe worse for you than taking it if the doctors can't figure out what's wrong with you. Any harm caused by these search X - Rays are unjustified, my health is more important to me than any governments overarching intrusiveness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
Why do you say that? Something like 3200 people have been killed by terrorism in the US, ever. Right? How many have died due to x-ray scanning? Are you sure it's "a lot" less than 3200?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
I think (again from memory), a full body scan with a CAT scanner has about a 2% to 3% of causing a cell mutation leading to Atypical cell growth.. ie cancer.
It was a trend for awile for people to pay for a full body scan just to make sure, but when the risk factor of the X-Ray exposure was calculated, it was found its safer not to take the full body scan. as a preventative measure.
(unless there is actually something wrong with you they dont know about, then the risk is probably worth is.
An X-Ray photon, is just like a light photon, or a radio photon. Except X-Rays are at the top end of the energy scale, light rays have high energy, but low penetration, so you get sun burned, if exposed to billions of light photons, X-Rays are super high energy photons, just below gamma rays.
As you know X-Ray photons can pass through steal, people and so on, but it they hapen to interact with a molicule, especially DNA, the potential for deep tissue damage is far higher.
I dont know who many people in the US are killed each year by IUD's but I expect its a very low number, something I would have heard about in the news.
as for the 3200 poor souls from 911 that was sad, yes, but its nothing compared to the US road toll, which is more like 40,000 to 50,000+ people per year.
With X-Rays are border crossings, airports, mobile units, air borne units, including the regular travellers on plains.
I expect the death toll from X-Ray related desease is going to rapidly increase in the coming years..
Starting with the most regular international travellers.
And border crossing truck drivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
Whoops :D.. thats funny on so many levels LOL.. Damn those IUD's,,, trampolines for dickheads !!!..
Im sure it would be more fun (its fun is the right word) to be killed by an IUD, rather than an IED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still any X-Ray can kill you, it takes only ONE to do it.. if your unlucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
x raying at border crossing, is it safe ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(1) It is obvious these X-Ray Vans can be used by the military and police to secure the perimeter of a City, for example during an instance of Revolt, to discover and stop Citizens carrying guns.
(2) Recently Obama effectively proposed disbanding the Fourth Amendment allowing the FBI Warrantless Searches of All Internet Activity including email. Obama is also supporting warrantless wiretapping of all telephone and other electronic communications.
(3) In April 2010 Obama during a national security speech asked for the Power to indefinitely incarcerate Americans not based on evidence or probable cause, but because they might do something violent. See: Obama Sound-Video: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html
(4) On March 4, 2010, John McCain introduced S.3081 The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” if passed, would allow government to use (only suspicion) or less to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to McCain’s S.3081, Government would not be required to provide (detained individuals) U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. Americans could be held indefinitely in military custody on only suspicion of being an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially (supported) hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners or civilians. “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government; Government could allege attending a protest supported hostilities. When you read the McCain bill it appears “suspicion” is not necessary for government to detain and interrogate Americans. See McCain Senate bill S.3081:
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
(5) Recently Obama took action to stop the lawful purchase of 100,000 World War Two era, surplus M1 Carbine and M1 Garand rifles that were to be shipped to the curio firearms market in The States. Obama is disallowing the return of these antique American made auto-loaders, the first of their kind. The relic riffles are not considered an item purchased by drug cartels. Interestingly, because there are registration exceptions for gun owners buying 50-year relic riffles, and easy availability of replacement parts and they have auto-reloading capability, government could not track these weapons or ammunition loaded by American collectors. So Why Now does Obama not want American civilians to have these weapons?
When one objectively views the sum of the Obama recent actions that include dumping of the Fourth Amendment that prevents government illegal search of Citizens and their homes without a warrant using Vans with X-rays; FBI/NSA Warrantless seizure of Citizens’ phone and other private electronic communications; Obama blocking Americans right to purchase relic riffles, one has to ask: Does the Obama Government have reason to fear the American People? Does Obama intend a Lockdown on America? Are Americans in danger of being harmed by their government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
canon support
I don't think that will remove X-Rays from hospitals though and to be honest, the risk of being killed by a random X-Ray is a heck of a lot less than the risk from a random IED driven into your town by a random religious nutter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]