X-Ray Scanner Vans Not Just Being Sold To Law Enforcement
from the who's-scanning-whom? dept
A few months back, we wrote about how the backscatter x-ray technology, which is now causing concern in airports for effectively showing the "naked" you to TSA staffers, was also being used in vans by law enforcement. They could drive around and see scans of what was in cars and buildings around them.Other releases are more vague, however, identifying the purchasers only as "the U.S government," a "Latin American customs agency," an "international government agency," "U.S. law enforcement officials," a "South American government," a "Middle Eastern country," a "Middle Eastern government," a "Middle East government agency," a "Middle East law enforcement agency," a "South American law enforcement agency," a "new African customer," a "European Union (EU) and an Asia Pacific (APAC) client," and a "Middle Eastern customer."Defenders of the systems basically say that people shouldn't be afraid of such things because they need to be used within the requirements of privacy laws (in the US, at least), but seem to ignore how the US government has been more or less ignoring the 4th Amendment pretty regularly lately. They also say that the technology isn't good enough to really get the "naked scans" unless you're right next to the van. Of course, since the vans are made up to look like ordinary vans, most people will have no idea if they're standing right next to one. And, on top of that, you have to assume that the scanning technology is only going to improve over time, meaning that it will be able to get much more detailed scans from a much greater distance.
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
Filed Under: backscatter, privacy, scanners, vans, x-rays
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Naturally the idea of hidden scanner-vans makes me uncomfortable; and yet I have also argued many, many times that nobody should oppose efforts like Street View because they don't reveal anything that isn't publicly visible.
Now obviously things inside your clothes or car aren't "public" - to the naked eye. So perhaps the expectation of privacy applies to those things which are detectable by basic human sensory apparatus - but that raises new questions. What if someone eavesdrops on you in the park with a parabolic microphone? Or what if someone at the next table in a restaurant simply turns up their normal medical hearing aid so they can listen in? What about polarized sunglass lenses that can see through certain types of one-way glass?
Although backscatter technology seems to be obviously crossing the line, this is still a very tough question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cars as public areas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cars as public areas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: radiation dose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paparazzi will love it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the problem with that ?
That these machines are being used in countries that are not in the US?
Or these people are buying these machine so they can take pictures of people naked ? (buy a porn mag, its cheaper).
Or what ?
Or that other countries are concerned about border security as well, and are willing to use US technology to achieve that?
I dont agree to being exposed to x-rays unnessarily either but I am willing to put up with that, if I wish to travel where that is required. (just like getting needles for trips).
ALOT of people have died trying to get into other countries in trucks and such, its better they get caught with an X-Ray machine, than to die of suffercation in the back of a hot truck...
But I still dont get what you are complaining about ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
The tone of your post suggests you do not see a privacy issue at all in this. If I'm mistaken on that, where are the lines you would draw then? What do you consider an invasion of privacy?
Or were you just trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
I have a programmable pacemaker stuck in my chest that repeated shots of x-rays will (a) wipe out the programming and (b) eventually destroy the chips.
OK, so, if I want to cross the border from Canada into the United States, which I regularly do, I expect to subjected to x-rays and have been for years.
By land I don't get to say "please hand scan me" as I do at an air or sea port so I just grin and bear it. By land that's not really an option.
Still, I know the power of the scan, thanks to the US Consulate, and it's a low risk.
Then again, private security agencies, individuals, employers and others get their hands on this I find myself getting increasingly worried.
And, has been noted, what can be used for legitimate security concerns at border points, can also be used by baddies for other things as has been noted.
And, remember, that the scan strength can be increased at will by whoever controls the device.
As for your people in the back of a hot truck in the Arizona desert what in heaven makes you think that truck has actually cross a border point port of entry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
This stuff is coming from those in Congress who benefit from the manufacturing of such machines. There is always a trail right back to Congress who have always benefited from products made in their states. Think about it. Research where some things are made and who is pushing them through CONGRESS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
When will it stop? I should say I don't fly much but if I did I would go through the obscene testing (not the X-Ray screen for health fears, but the “frisking”), but I am a man and generally women have more of a problem than men with this type of intrusiveness. However it is a violation of our rights for both sexes. If I went into a bar and did that to a woman there is no telling what would happen to me.
Finally why is America so arrogant that the extremists trying to kill Americans and destroy this (once great) country won't see this footage and simply think of a plan that does not involve planes. Our government is so narrow minded (in case you were unaware). How many attacks on American buildings occurred using commercial airliners after 9/11? How many before? They don't use the same technique each time; they will find a new way to commit terrorist acts and exploit our vulnerabilities. Thus this increased airline security is completely useless, as well as, being unconstitutional. The government needs to take the money wasted from this program and use it on things that will actually protect us. Closing the Mexican border is the first one that jumps to my mind, but we all know the libs won't do that or they may lose votes amongst their constituents.
Of course that is just one man's opinion and I could be way off base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem with that ?
It's time for our government's policy of statism to end NOW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
Were going to need to put together a legal team, a marketing team, some commercials...Scan your children before they leave for school laws for the lobbies to shove down our politicians throats .. some "think of the children" grand standing ...... it's going to be a busy year...
I would like nominate Joe as our legal ... and Dark Helmet as our PR.... We could toss in Wierd Herald as our info/mis-info/propaganda rep....
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems as though technology keeps inching closer to the time scanners from "The Light Of Other Days" by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter.
I can only imagine that techno voyeurism will eventually become so profligate that we can do away with clothing altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Health affects
it would take ~110 scans to reach 1mrem which is considered "a negligible dose of radiation". It would take 2,750 scans to reach the "safe" upper limit.
This tech has been studied for over 20 years already and they haven't found any health side affects.
*Unfortunately* the above info is based on a typical scan. The FDA sets an upper limit high enough to cause 1 cancer death per ~200mil scans per year and some unknown more who get cancer but don't die from it. My guess is no one working these scanners are going to care how high these things are set so long as they're with in the limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Health affects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Health affects
Even better, it's a potential attack vector. Get some deep agents in the border agencies and fry anybody of import who passes through. Not enough to be immediately noticeable of course, but enough to significantly improve their odds of cancer in the next few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These devices WILL be bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
If you are doing what you should to be a physically fit normal human being you shouldn't worry about being exposed and compared to others.
Everyone else deserves to be thrown in jail (threat to those of us who follow the law) or laughed at (go get a gym membership and eat healthy and save the rest of us some medical tax and insurance dollars).
Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
(It's been said more than once that we need an HTML "sarcasm" tag.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
What with darryl's similar idiocy above I may have over reacted.
And you're right, we do need a sarcasm tag around here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
Works both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory nothing-to-hide references
"If you are following the law you shouldn't have anything to hide."
Can I get a pass to a free country now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your missing the bigger picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely, TtfnJohn: "privacy is a right".
Sure, pooh-pooh it, gullible conspiracy-deniers. But it's technically possible, and there really are spies. That Russki in London a few years back was murdered with radiation, just different delivery method (probably would have been a mystery if smaller dose).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. very scary. worth repeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So we can all be safe of course. Well, and FOR THE CHILDREN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm...
And x-rays accumulate in our bodies throughout our lives, hence the reason persons who work in radiology departments must wear lifetime badges which measure their accumulated rads and tell them when it has built-up to the point that they can't take anymore without risking things like cancer, or flat-out radiation sickness... right?
If so, then, how is pointing one of these things at me on the street not assualt with a deadly weapon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frequent Travlers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just say no
What about rape & molestation victims (some of which I know)? This is assault, plain and simple, and it's not fair to put them through the humiliation and trauma of being groped against their will.
I will not put my children through this, either. It goes against every mothering instinct I have to put my little girls through it, especially. What makes anyone think that "government employees" can be trusted?? I was one and I've seen abuse of power of said employees. Abu Ghraib, anyone? Hellooo? What, "government employees" are all moral people and can be trusted? With nude pictures of us or anything else just on the basis that "they are a government employee??"
If you believe that, yeah, I've got some beachfront property in Nevada I'd love to sell ya.
http://wewontfly.com/about
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/11252211780/pilot-gro up-urges-pilots-to-refuse-naked-backscatter-scans-and-avoid-groping-pat-downs.shtml
http://www.nu deoscope.com/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=226533
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
X RAY SCANNERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]