Homeland Security Was Interested In Doing 'Covert' Pedestrian 'Scans' From 30 Feet Away
from the privacy-is-so-over dept
Last year, we wrote a few times about how there was a company selling scanner vans -- based on the same technology used in those airport naked scanners -- that could be used to surreptitiously look into vehicles. Mostly they were being sold to law enforcement, however some of them were being sold to private buyers. Given all this, it should come as little surprise that Homeland Security has been interested in expanded use of such scanning technologies, with a newly released report suggesting it explored greater surveillance with naked scanners -- such as mobile units for special events or for public transportation hubs, as well as "covert" systems that could scan large groups of people without them knowing it. There was even discussion of one system that could scan people from 30 feet away.To be honest, it's not all that surprising that Homeland Security would explore all of this (and it's a bit of an exaggeration to focus on the TSA as doing this -- which is implied in the link, since it appears to be a wider DHS effort), so I don't think it's as big a deal as EPIC makes it out to be. EPIC tends to over-exaggerate these types of things. The TSA has responded to the story with a sort of carefully worded denial that doesn't really speak to the issue:
"TSA has not tested the advanced imaging technology that is currently used at airports in mass transit environments and does not have plans to do so."The is a pretty narrowly defined answer. First, it only focuses on the mass transit part, and it also limits the answer to the specific imaging technology used at airports. It does not answer whether or not the TSA has looked at other forms of technology for these kinds of scans. On top of that, it narrowly limits the answer to the TSA, not the wider DHS. Is it really that hard for Homeland Security to give a straight answer? I mean, the idea that it might research these technologies seems perfectly reasonable. Why not just say that, and then be upfront about it?
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: homeland security, privacy, scans, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
AMG FBI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooh! Perfect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oooh! Perfect!
Obviously this is hypothetical, because I don't shop at malls, I buy digital copies of my books and I doubt I'll ever buy another commercially produced CD in my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Tis a pity the Fourth Amendment does not actually say that: It does not explicity address "privacy", and "search" is such an ambiguous and tenuous term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, however the Supreme Court has ruled very specifically on this matter and said unequivocally that the right to privacy is guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand why
"If you've got nothing to hide"
Well I do. See every Thursday I bang my wife in the living room for as long as the Viagra will last. It is no ones business. I like to sit in my underwear and scratch my nuts every 20 min or so. It is no ones business. I read to my little girl from the time I get home at 7 until her bedtime at 8:30. It is no ones business. I like to get piss drunk, pretend I am captain feather sword, and frolic around my property half... mostly nekid. It is no ones business. I like to have meaningful conversations with friends and family. It is no ones business. Get it yet dumbass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't understand why
We know; we've been watching DHS's live feed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why
I'd like to respond to this enflamed and totally untoward accusation. It is absolutely untrue. At no time has the Dark Helmet Sexy-time web stream EVER broadcast footage of weneedhelp pooping. Come on. Think of it. The very notion is ridiculous.
We only show bitches poopin', yo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand why
The citizens and tax payers will thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I have nothing to fear then I might have nothing to die for.
If I have nothing to die for I have nothing. See? Make sense?
I have the inherent right to privacy everywhere. It is not your right to see that which I do not wish you to see simply because you can. Which may include but is not limited to what's beneath my clothes, in my pockets, on my phone or on my mind.
The good news is that your idea of security makes me afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the right to privacy
There is also a huge potential for abuse by authorities. If they could just walk into our house whenever they want, I'm sure many would abuse it somehow (theft, snooping, and so on).
If police could search us whenever they wanted, wouldn't criminals just become extremely proficient at hiding stuff while the police are busting down our doors regularly because we look suspicious or have been unfairly profiled?
Lastly, everyone has things they don't want other people to read. Maybe its a diary of their personal feelings or love letters to their spouse. Would allowing the FBI, DHS, TSA, police, or whatever to read love letters really make us safer.
The world manages to survive somehow and we still have privacy. Its a win-win situation!
[ 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 ]
And yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you visit Las Vegas, you are recorded almost every where you go. Most casinos have some form of facial recognition software in play. Many of them are using very covert means to observe visitors and to filter out people blacklisted from their properties.
I do not see where anything like this violates your rights. You put your face in a public area, it is subject to image capture and anything else they want to do, including scanning you for whatever can be detected in that public area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True. One should always believe they are being watched when out in public.
Now, in my own house is a different story - I demand my privacy there.
In my car is a gray area to me. Foreign diplomats' vehicles are considered to be their foreign soil, so why wouldn't it follow that my car is an extension of my property and therefore given the same expectations of privacy as when I am in my home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scanner Vans
As a physicist, I'm against it. And it is illegal testing on an uninformed population without their consent. I would suspect that the government might get away with it. But I would be glad to help fund a lawsuit against any corporation that used such a device.
As I have gotten older I can see how absolutely scandalous abuse of populations continue. In my childhood, it was common to be irradiated by fallout. To this day, no studies are done to calculate how many additional deaths were caused by fallout from atmospheric testing. I think that we won't see estimates of added cancer deaths made until another fifty years have passed. However, you might note that cancer deaths are decreasing nowadays.
I remember seeing one documentary where a bunch of gov't fools sat around and declared that it was estimated that their tests would cause an added 100,000 infant deaths per year.
What they didn't say was that that was acceptable because no one would ever be able to prove that atmospheric testing would cause the deaths. And the subject population wasn't to be informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scanner Vans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, what part of the "unreasonable search" don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See if they'll get sued again and find out if the courts agrees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which kind of reminds me of the movie Brave Heart and the word Freeeeeeeeeeedom! LoL
Face recognition is useless in Stadiums where people paint themselves already.
Also this could lead to the adoption of hight tech masks like the Frog Design Concept and the various fabrics that can be applied to the body or the outside of anything keep people private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How wonderful...
If not priced too far out of bounds, I imagine it will be quite a hit. All the rage abroad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using advanced tech to spy on people without a warrent illegal
I would be surprised if the same ruling wouldn't be used to rule that back scatter x-ray and / or millimeter radar would be illegal without a search warrant on the same grounds.
This would appear to make surreptitiously scanning your house or vehicle illegal without a warrant. I would imagine it's a little vaguer when it comes to your person. After all there are instances when the police can search your person without a warrant, but I wouldn't think that they would be applicable to some sort of mass secretive scanning.
Now some people seem to be under the impression that since it's O.K. to record people in public via cameras that this would be the same thing. In the above mentioned case the Supreme Court justices took pains to differentiate what a normal unaided person could see verses advanced tech. would let you see. If the cops could see criminal activity with their eyes (ex: through an open window) then they wouldn't have needed a warrant. Since the IR camera allowed them to see through walls (just like the tech Homeland security is trying to expand the use of) it was a search and required a warrant. Therefore, cameras that only record what a normal person could see are O.K. in public, but tech that allows the government to see more than that would be a search triggering fourth amendment protection and require a warrant.
Just my $0.02.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Using advanced tech to spy on people without a warrent illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does DHS want to see naked people?
Does a star chamber of secret perverts run DHS? Perverts so sick and twisted that a metallic-grey shiny image arouses them? Perverts who salivate over The Tin Woodman in The Wixard of Oz?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By those terms using a scanner of this nature in public on people who've committed no acts to warrant a search should simply be illegal.
The day our country's "security" requires random scans and mass data collection to maintain, or other unconstitutional methods, is the day we need to evaluate the sustainability of our country and adjust as necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inquiry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: inquiry
You're hoping the government gets the ability to easily and covertly scan you and your car from a distance without asking? Seriously? I know you said you're in the security business, but can't you see the abuse that is going to happen with this? I would say "potential abuse" but there's nothing potential about it, it's certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]