
The NYPD Is Using Mobile X-Ray Vans to Spy on Unknown Targets - sergeant3
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-nypd-is-using-mobile-x-rays-to-spy-on-unknown-targets/411181/?single_page=true
======
aaronkrolik
Link to the AS&E "ZBV" mobile X-Ray van in question [0], sourced from the
linked Fox News article. From the AS&E website:

"Dose to Cargo: Less than 0.1 microSievert (μSv) per scan (equivalent to 10
microRem (μrem)), at an average speed of 5 km/h (3 mph) at a scan distance of
1.5 m (5 ft). Should a stowaway accidentally be scanned, the effective dose is
well below the ANSI specified limit for accidental exposure and is equivalent
to flying two minutes at altitude."

[0][http://as-e.com/products-solutions/cargo-vehicle-
inspection/...](http://as-e.com/products-solutions/cargo-vehicle-
inspection/mobile/product/zbv/#safety)

Edit: Why the downvotes? Pretty objective information...

~~~
cryoshon
I don't consent to any form of non-necessary irradiation, regardless of the
quantity.

Not sure why the NYPD gets to irradiate me without consequences (which
constitutes a search of my person, without a warrant or consent, not to
mention having a potential medical impact on people not suspected of any
crime) when we can hardly point cameras at them despite it being explicitly
legal.

~~~
randyrand
Your consent is not needed even for unnecessary radiation. If I shine my high
beams on your car, or have a cellular phone call next to well - too bad. I'm
entitled to bombard you with radiation if I want to.

But for the sake of argument Ill assume you just care about ionizing radiation
(UV, Xray, Gamma, Neutron, etc). In that case I agree consent should be needed
for medium to high dose. It's unfeasible to get the consent of everyone for
low doses (x-ray machine x-rays can travel for miles and theoretically
infinitely far).

In this case it appears the dose is only about that of eating a banana. Hard
to argue you need to consent to that for radiation concerns unless you also
agree that everyone should consent to every xray scan that every hospital
executes, or every time your colleague brings in bananas to work. Privacy
concern is valid though. Radiation one is just fear mongering if OP is
correct.

~~~
rnovak
That's PER SCAN. Do you think the Police roll up, do a scan, and then take
off? No. They're sitting there scanning constantly (most likely), so to use
your analogy, that's a lot of banana eating.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Even more banana eating for the cops running the thing...

~~~
rnovak
Did you even read the article?

    
    
         can be operated remotely from more than 1,500 feet 
    

Yeah, totally dangerous for the cop </sarcasm>

~~~
AnimalMuppet
_Can_ be, yes. How often _will_ it be? How often will it be operated remotely,
and there's no other police in the immediate vicinity doing traffic control or
some such?

[Edit: the article also talks about scanning the inside of a house in 15
seconds. That's not going to happen if they drive up the van, park it, get
out, walk 1500 feet away, scan the house, walk back... (Yes, I know, they can
drive away and back in another vehicle. It's still not likely to be operated
remotely in that usage - all the activity makes it too conspicuous.)]

~~~
coldtea
> _Can be, yes. How often will it be?_

The answer can even be ALWAYS, if remote controlling it is mandated by
protocol.

> _How often will it be operated remotely, and there 's no other police in the
> immediate vicinity doing traffic control or some such?_

That doesn't come into play at all. Do you think those kind of surveillance
happens in busy streets with traffic control cops dancing around?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Top-level comment by sandworm101:

> They are not hard to spot. Watch the media entrances of events, where the
> on-location vans drive through. Look for where traffic is routed through a
> single lane. Inevitably they will route traffic past an unmarked van. Or,
> look for an unmarked van trolling any parking lots within any security
> cordon.

That "look for where traffic is routed through a single lane" makes me
strongly suspect there's going to be traffic officers in the very near
vicinity.

~~~
coldtea
> _That "look for where traffic is routed through a single lane" makes me
> strongly suspect there's going to be traffic officers in the very near
> vicinity._

In that case those "traffic officers" will be further down directing traffic
to the van, not in the van's target.

------
discardorama
Why is this legal? In Kyllo -vs- United States, the USSC ruled that using
modern technology to peer into someone's home constituted a search under the
4th Amendment[1], and required a warrant.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

~~~
beeboop
It's probably not, but considering Chicago ran a blacksite operation that
moved over 7000 people and relatively little has happened in regards to that,
you can bet nothing will happen with this.

~~~
malnourish
More info?

~~~
beeboop
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homan_Square)

~~~
methehack
holy crap thx for mentioning

------
sandworm101
They are not hard to spot. Watch the media entrances of events, where the on-
location vans drive through. Look for where traffic is routed through a single
lane. Inevitably they will route traffic past an unmarked van. Or, look for an
unmarked van trolling any parking lots within any security cordon.

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=NYPD+x-ray+van&prmd=iv...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=NYPD+x-ray+van&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAUQ_AVqFQoTCM2woenp0cgCFcajlAodtCMPdg)

~~~
shostack
So here's a question...are there any ways we can definitively detect these
vans (ie. something that can detect a large source of x-rays being emitted)?

If so, are there consequences for identifying and making it known to those
nearby that "this van is scanning you without your knowledge/permission?"

~~~
johncolanduoni
> If so, are there consequences for identifying and making it known to those
> nearby that "this van is scanning you without your knowledge/permission?

IANAL, but I would ask one before you do this unless you don't mind an
obstruction of justice charge.

~~~
shostack
Yeah, for sure. Wasn't at all planning on doing this--just kind of assumed it
would inevitably happen what with the prevalence of smart phones and geo-
tagging capabilities.

One could imagine it being fairly trivial to create an app that broadcasts the
location of these things if they can be easily detected.

------
joesmo
Can someone explain to me how this is legal seeing as to how the Supreme Court
ruled this unconstitutional without a warrant in Kyllo v. United States
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States))?
Or is this just another case of the rule of law being neglected by authorities
again as if it didn't exist?

~~~
patio11
The holding in Kyllo is based on the search being of a home, where the Fourth
Amendment protections are strongest ( _“At the very core” of the Fourth
Amendment “stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be
free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States,
365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961)._ ) and the holding is narrow: _Where, as here, the
Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details
of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical
intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant._

I'd expect NYC to say "These vans are strictly for anti-terrorism purposes and
if we see a bomb then you're welcome to cite the exclusionary rule from the
safety of a non-blown-up courthouse", though that viewpoint will not command a
whole lot of support on HN. I think it's probably a loser at the current
Supreme Court on a drug case and would get a 9-0 with Scalia writing a
_florid_ distinguishing opinion from Kyllo if a terrorism case somehow made it
all the way to the Supreme Court. (Amateur analysis here; IANAL.)

~~~
jimktrains2
It'd be ironic if a bomb were designed to be set off by a scan.

~~~
bcohen5055
Instead of a bomb how about a warning that these vans exist? You could have a
bunch of nerds leaving arduinos in Ubers around NYC. Have the arduinos
measuring radiation and phoning home with any locations that are above
average. At the very least it would be an interesting map to look at

~~~
jimktrains2
You're a much more constructive person than I! It would be interesting. Hook
it up to a 360 panoramic camera to capture the source as well.

------
trhway
Geiger counters are to become next sensor to be added to iPhone 7 i guess. A
health app counting you daily calories and roentgens. Or an augmented reality
app which shows the sources of radiation, like those vans, around you.

~~~
seccess
I believe most Geiger counters measure ionizing radiation, and X-rays are
electromagnetic radiation.

~~~
rtkwe
Ionizing radiation is a broad category that includes portions of the EM
spectrum. EM radiation is ionizing if it has enough energy to remove at least
one electron from an atom, this includes the upper bits of UV and above. There
are things other than EM that are things that are ionizing radiation too like
subatomic particles.

Geiger counters can also detect XRays more or less effectively depending on
their design.

> Ionizing radiation is any type of particle or electromagnetic wave that
> carries enough energy to ionize or remove electrons from an atom. There are
> two types of electromagnetic waves that can ionize atoms: X-rays and gamma-
> rays, and sometimes they have the same energy.

[http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/radiationandhumans....](http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/radiationandhumans.cfm)

~~~
seccess
Very interesting, thanks for the clarification! I had always assumed that only
alpha and beta particles constitute ionizing radiation.

------
Animats
Carry one of these radiation detectors.[1] It will emit loud beeps if hit by
an X-ray beam. This is a scanned spot beam system, so the exposure is short
but easily measurable.

AS&E offers the system (which is rather large) in two models of Mercedes
Sprinter vans and a Ford 550 for off-road use. This thing has been around for
almost a decade; they recently came out with a new van, but it's apparently
the same backscatter hardware.

It's a very short range technology. For cargo container or vehicle inspection,
they need separate scanning units for both sides and the top. Even for
scanning people, both sides have to be scanned separately. It's not suitable
for looking into houses.

But if you think something is a bomb, it's a good way to get a quick look.
Because it can identify different elements, explosives really stand out.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/NukAlertTM-radiation-detector-
keychain...](http://www.amazon.com/NukAlertTM-radiation-detector-keychain-
attachable/dp/B004SZ2HXQ)

~~~
sandmansandine
Wow, that's a bit pricey but very interesting. I'd love to snag one, thanks
for the link.

~~~
onnoonno
I wonder what would happen if those vans would need to be clearly labelled as
radiation-emitting devices.

My impression is a lot of people are 'o.k.' with this because the vans are
unmarked and the radiation invisible...

------
ck2
Right we should trust them because the police never abuse any tool or weapon
they are given to the ultimate extreme.

pepper spray, washing people entirely in it

tear gas at rallies even though banned for use in war

stun guns used repeatedly on unarmed people not even standing or fleeing

shooting unarmed people for non-violent crimes for non-compliance during
arrest

tracking people without warrants via stingray devices

tracking people via their electronic toll passes from streetlights

harassing anyone trying to file police abuse reports to the point of arresting
or stalking them

seizing massive amounts of money and property under civil forfeiture laws
without any proof of criminal activity

using fees upon fees to seize property and jail people for not paying the fees

certainly they would never abuse this and radiate people standing around or at
intercetions, never, trust them

~~~
cryoshon
To explicitly summarize your comment: technology is going to be abused by the
powerful regardless of what they claim unless we enact strict systemic
controls on their use with intense oversight.

Such enforcement is entirely possible, it just takes the political will to do
so.

This latest incident is just another piece of evidence for America being a
police/surveillance state. I'm not sure how people can deny it anymore.

~~~
ck2
police have zero oversight and zero repercussions though

they literally get away with everything

cops always ignore other cops breaking the law, always

so any tool they are given, it is an absolute guarantee it will be abused

~~~
saryant
I just sat on a jury in Colorado where we found a police detective guilty of
abuse of power and other charges. Almost every witness with another police
officer.

So no, cops do not always ignore other cops breaking the law.

~~~
lotharbot
I recently saw a report that showed that when cops report other cops, the
chances of a conviction or other serious consequences are well over 50%,
whereas civilian complaints against cops tend to be more like 1%. Because a
lot of times civilian complaints aren't about actual abuse of power, but "I
don't like the tone of voice he took with me" or whatever.

Good cops generally want to get the bad cops off of the force.

~~~
saryant
This cop tipped off a suspected pedophile about his impending arrest.

I'm sure the others are more than happy to see the full weight of the criminal
justice system crash down on his head.

~~~
lotharbot
pedantic but relevant: presumably you mean a "predator".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402933)

------
dang
Earlier thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866825](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866825).

Edit: this is just to give readers extra information. The current story does
not count as a dupe because it contains significant new information. When a
story is on the front page, that automatically means we haven't marked it as a
dupe.

------
mattlutze
A few thoughts:

\- If NYPD has it, other large port cities or metropolitan areas must have
them as well. Florida jurisdictions have featured prominently for Stingrays
and other military tech, wouldn't be surprised to find Orlando or Miami or
what not sporting them as well.

Edit: Read the rest of the article, apparently U.S. News has found "[more
than] 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers
with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of
houses to see whether anyone is inside." The use case is to intentionally
expose people to the xrays.

\- Are they getting warrants for these scans?

\- What ombudsman process or other audit-able legal infrastructure is in place
in New York City that allows non-police persons to establish the veracity of
the warrants they get to run these scans?

\- How do we confirm scans only expose the specific people identified in the
warrants to x-ray radiation?

\- If collateral private spaces are scanned along with the intended target,
how does NYPD ensure those images are destroyed (as they're outside the scope
of their warrants)?

\- The court discussion mentioned in the article indicate the specific
technology used in these vans has been repeatedly banned from use on humans,
by US and other authorities. Where is the non-company-funded, reviewed-and-
published study data showing this backscatter x-ray tech isn't harmful?

------
scotty79
I think we need new kind of cop show. "The Wire" for 21st century, where
police investigates bening cases as a threat to national security, drives
around the city in x-ray vans, share pics, show unrestrained joy when they get
another MRAP and engages in borderline torture that's clearly shown to not
work.

------
datashovel
The military industrial complex certainly has to have something to do with
this. Not making enough money on international wars? Ok, let's go sell to
domestic police forces.

I would love to hear if anyone here knows for certain if there is a link
between companies selling to US military for international war and the
companies selling these contraptions to domestic police forces.

------
bostonvaulter2
Okay, just donated to Pro Publica.

[https://www.propublica.org/site/donate3/](https://www.propublica.org/site/donate3/)

------
SamReidHughes
This is probably why NYC wanted to ban Geiger counters in 2008.

~~~
onnoonno
That is an interesting possible connection indeed.

For anyone where this news bit fell off the far end of the attention-span:

[http://dwarmstr.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-york-wants-to-
ban-g...](http://dwarmstr.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-york-wants-to-ban-geiger-
counters.html)

------
corndoge
I feel like I have no control whatsoever over my government.

------
klunger
Before we really understood x-rays and before ultrasound, x-ray was used to
scan pregnant women. Not surprisingly, this resulted in many tragic birth
defects and miscarriages, before researchers and doctors figured out what was
going on.

Of course, it is a question of dose, but if a pregnant woman is the person of
interest/around the POI and subjected to this multiple times, have they even
considered that the dosage level could become harmful for the fetus?

------
ChuckMcM
I would love to have light up barber poles that turn on a rotating red light
when they get hit by x-rays. Then you put them on street corners all around
the city.

------
rubyfan
Why is a municipal police force engaged in counter-terrorism at all?

FTA “It falls into the range of security and counter-terrorism activity that
we engage in.”

~~~
mikeyouse
They do a fair amount of counter-terrorism work;

[http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/administration/counterterr...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/administration/counterterrorism_units.shtml)

They don't believe that the Federal government can or will provide adequate
protection from terrorists.. I sympathize with them a bit on that count.

------
rcurry
On the up side, here's your opportunity to send any message you like to the
NYPD using lead tape inside your car.

~~~
splatcollision
Relevant prior art: [http://ni9e.com/tsa-
communication.php](http://ni9e.com/tsa-communication.php)

------
justaman
The DEA has been using FLIR for years. Ethically gray also.

~~~
fisherjeff
I'm not so sure I agree that's overly ethically gray - it's EM radiation
detection just like using any other camera or eyeballs, only at different
wavelengths.

X-ray imaging, on the other hand, seems FAR more ethically gray to me,
especially given the potential public health consequences.

~~~
beeboop
Considering thermal imaging was considered a search requiring a warrant, it
would make sense for any sort of detection not available to normal human
senses to be a search.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

~~~
kansface
What about dogs?

~~~
beeboop
The supreme court had issue with the thermal devices because they weren't
generally available to the public. Dogs are generally available and they're
smelling things _outside_ your home/car where they don't need a warrant.

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is interesting. You have to add an extra filter to make a camera _stop_
seeing infrared. How it was determined thermal devices aren't generally
available?

~~~
talmand
I would assume the reasoning was that if you can't go to the local electronics
store and buy the item in use by police, then it isn't commonly available to
the public. But, from my quick reading of the case details, the outcome of
that case is pure crap.

------
the_watcher
I don't even know if I disagree that the NYPD using things like this isn't a
more effective way to prevent crime, but I don't think it matters. They are a
law enforcement agency, not a domestic espionage or counter-terrorism agency.

~~~
mikeyouse
They do a fair amount of counter-terrorism work;

[http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/administration/counterterr...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/administration/counterterrorism_units.shtml)

~~~
the_watcher
I don't disagree that they have behaved as a counter-terrorism agency. I just
reject the premise that they are one.

------
vasundhar
Its is not just a privacy violation, It is huge safety risk

------
zirpu
Someone should create a monitor that reacts to directional x-rays and squeeks.
Then you can go outside and find them and yell at them. Also, take pictures,
plant a tracker, spray paint flowers. Use your imagination.

------
joering2
Initial story I've submitted a few days ago (worth read as well)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388019](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388019)

------
5ersi
Copper sulfate nanopowder can successfully diffract x-rays. I wonder how
effective against a ZBV scanning would a paint with CuSO4 nanopowder be.
Anyone have any idea?

------
Natsu
I wonder just how hard it would be to make a detector that could pick up any
scans (or other bursts of X-Rays)?

------
awqrre
Sorry but, I hope that those NYPD officers get more radiations then the public
they are scanning.

------
unsupak
No worries only Muslims are targeted with these X-Ray buses!

------
yourepowerless
And what will be done? Nothing. The government can radiate you without
consequence, without audit, without anyone being held responsible, and if that
ever changes it will be the tax payers who pay the fine to radiate themselves
while the corrupt gain lucrative contracts for doing such a fine service.

Americans live in a police state and they are too cowed to even admit such a
basic truth.

~~~
PlzSnow
_" Americans live in a police state"_

Americans do not live in a police state. Not by any sane interpretation of the
definition. That's just absurd nonsense.

~~~
beeboop
Here's how Wikipedia describes a police state:

>The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their
mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other
views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political
control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates
outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

~100% of American communications are monitored by the government. We have
secret courts that authorize the killing of American citizens. We have
National Security Letters, requiring people to do exactly as they're told and
not allowing them to tell anyone (in some cases even their lawyer) they've
been served with one. Government agencies operate outside the bounds of the
constitution on a routine and mass basis (NSA's phone spying program was found
to be illegal/unconstitutional) with zero repercussions to government
employees and agents who violated the law.

It also defines this:

>An electronic police state is one in which the government aggressively uses
electronic technologies to record, organize, search, and distribute forensic
evidence against its citizens

America is the poster child of an electronic police state. We do it more than
any other country on a scale larger than any country in history. Americans are
more monitored than any large group of people in the history of the world.

~~~
grkvlt
> We have secret courts that authorize the killing of American citizens

You say this like it's an everyday occurrence, something that happens
repeatedly, many many times. But it isn't - it happened once when Anwar al-
Awlaki [1] was killed in a drone strike. [ EDIT - should be "happens rarely"
not just once ]

As for the 'electronic police state' comment, again this is untrue. The
purpose of the bulk surveillance is absolutely NOT to gather evidence against
citizens. In fact, it is used agains foreigners only for national security and
intelligence purposes. In absolutely exceptional circumstances it is
permissible to search the collected data for records pertaining to citizens,
but we see in the Snowden documents that there are legal safeguards and
procedures to protect against accidental or inadvertant surveillance of
citizens.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

~~~
cryoshon
We all saw the GCHQ documents, and we all know there is no way to separate
bulk "American" content/metadata from non-American. The government considers
the most intimate affairs (LOVEINT, SEXINT, etc) as firmly their business to
snoop on for the purposes of future blackmail-- it does you no favors to deny
this, and puts you in a counterfactual position.

The "Main Core" intel database has dossiers on every person they could find
data on. There are no distinctions between foreigners and Americans, as we saw
from the Snowden docs.

We also saw from Snowden docs that the DEA among other organizations
definitely (100%, utterly indisputable, look at wikipedia if you are unclear
on this matter) use "parallel construction" in which the NSA passes evidence
for criminal cases to the DEA, which then obfuscates the source before going
to trial.

Stop shilling, either intentionally or unintentionally.

~~~
PlzSnow
Nobody is going to engage with you if you use the word "shill". It is the
rhetoric of conspiracy theorists, and debate with conspiracy theorists is not
technically possible.

~~~
cryoshon
Try replying to the points I raised. Responses like yours which essentially
state "we can't discuss this issue as a group because of some social norm I
don't like" really do scream out that someone doesn't want to bite into the
meat of the issue.

------
oldmanjay
Wow, the emotional side of HN really comes out on this one. Apparently if you
are not vigorously opposed in all facets, you are complicit. How very civil.

