

Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans - georgecmu
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/

======
incongruity
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
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.

~~~
Useful_Idiot
As far as I understand the American system, this is a false analogy: your
Congressman 'lobbies' for _interests within their core voting block_. i.e. why
your mid-west Congressman lobbies hard for corn subsidies, if a large
percentage of her voting base are corn farmers. Given the "first past the
post" nature of American politics, this can exclude up to 49% of your voting
base __before said Congressman has even been sworn in __.

To make this clearer: the way the system is set up, your Congressman isn't
lobbying for _any_ individual, they're lobbying for _a percentage of the
voting block that is sufficient to return them to Congress next vote_. This is
why campaigning on single issues is so common, and so successful for power-
blocs such as the Christian Right.

(This isn't to go into gerrymandering, which further skews the 'democratic'
input of your system. If you didn't already know that only ~8-12 seats in
Congress are _actually_ contested in terms of party fealty, you really,
really, really should do).

~~~
bigiain
"your Congressman 'lobbies' for interests within their core voting block. "

This is where I think current "politics" is lagging many decades behind modern
society.

Politicians are fundamentally geographically defined. They get voted in (or
out) by groups of people with no relationship with each other beyond happening
to live nearby. That idea worked out fine when your village was your whole
life, and it works OK for "big issues" that affect everyone (like taxation,
education, military), but there are a lot of issues where there is more than
enough public support to deserve representation but that support is not
geographically localized enough for the current system to give the people
concerned a voice.

So many of the things I end up shouting at the television or newspapers about
are in this category.

What _I'd_ love to be able to vote for:

    
    
      A Congressman for The Internet
      A Congressman for Copyright and Patents
      A Congressman for Motorcyclists
      A Congressman for Citizens Rights WRT Government & Law Enforcement
    

I'd like the opportunity to choose to vote for someone aligned with issues
that concern _me_ instead of being assumed to be a "constituent" of an
aspirant politician just because of where they and I happen to choose to live.

Instead, the issues that concern _me_ are debated and voted on by people who
don't give a damn because they know there's not enough
geeks/musicians/inventors/entrepreneurs/motorcyclists/libertarians
geographically clustered enough to make any difference at the polling booth,
and so the only issues that ever get addressed are ones with a local enough
aspect to risk having a likely effect on a city/state/federal elections
outcome.

Society has spread beyond having my circle of friends and acquaintances being
"other people in my village" - and in the last 20 years the internet has
magnified that change enormously, political and legal structures haven't
changed to reflect that. (and may never - my circle of friends crosses
national boundaries in ways that probably make my desires of how I'm
personally politically represented impossible)

------
paulsutter
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
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?

~~~
Jtsummers
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States>

IR sensors used on a home constituted a search so could not be used without a
warrant. This would likely end up in a similar ruling, especially since it can
provide more detail than that the walls and roof are hotter than they ought to
be.

~~~
daenz
> The Supreme Court ruled 5-4

That's a very narrow victory though.

~~~
dpeck
Seems like almost everything to come before the court comes back with a 5-4
ruling, at least everything important. Ideology is wired into the justices as
much as it is everyone else.

~~~
adolph
I read somewhere that the prevalence of narrow victories is by design (or
evolution maybe): 1. the court chooses what cases to hear and is unlikely to
spend time on anything they all agree on; 2. the body of precedent is large
enough so that lower courts aren't making decisions the court would overturn
with a wide margin; 3. the parameters of a majority opinion are written to get
5 of 4, anything else is overkill or watered down.

------
mistercow
>“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
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it."

------
nathan_long
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
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.

~~~
jrockway
_The program could then be legal under an Health Care mandate!_

Whoa, I missed the "Health Care mandate" Constitutional amendment. Regular
laws cannot override the Constitution, which says "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."

The roving X-ray vans are missing a warrant, probable cause, and a description
of "the place to be searched".

------
gatsby
Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3311647>

------
rwmj
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.

~~~
bgraves
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._

~~~
WiseWeasel
They neglect to mention is that the nature of backscatter X-ray technology
concentrates the radiation exposure on the skin's surface and underlying
tissue, causing a significantly higher local dosage than medical X-ray
technology and a typical airplane ride. For medical X-rays, precautions are
also taken to avoid exposure to reproductive organs, since genital exposure to
X-rays in parents is associated with leukemia and other diseases in their
children. This is not the case with backscatter X-ray machines, and it is
especially relevant for men, since their reproductive organs are so close to
the skin's surface.

Obviously, these things can't be turning up everywhere, or that remote
possibility that a person would be scanned over 1000 times per year is all-of-
a-sudden not so remote. Some regulation is clearly needed.

[Another interesting question is how the drivers of these vans are protected
from cumulative radiation exposure, as these X-rays are being scattered around
them all day.]

------
ChuckMcM
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
That would just help redefine the term I first heard on season 2 of Archer:
"rolling probable cause"

------
taylorbuley
FWIW, this is a very old story (close to two years old)

------
kilroy123
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
The article was written in August 2010; who knows how long ago the video was
pulled.

------
beloch
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.

------
philip1209
The article is from 2010.

------
WalterBright
I don't care to have xrays randomly fired at me.

~~~
dr42
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.

~~~
WalterBright
I don't believe that chest x-rays are nearly so benign. For example, they've
found even one x-ray for a toddler increases the chance of brain cancer.

Nor do I trust that those machines in a van are calibrated properly - they may
be emitting far more x-rays than they're supposed to. Who'd know?

------
rblackwater
"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
Are there any inexpensive sensors that trigger an alarm when one of these vans
drives by?

------
lurkinggrue
I predict lead lined trucks.

~~~
bigiain
I predict gieger counter equipped IEDs

------
jrockway
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
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
this article is from 2010. have there been any new developments?

------
joering2
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
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
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>

