
Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans - JumpCrisscross
http://www.propublica.org/article/judge-orders-nypd-to-release-records-on-x-ray-vans
======
UnoriginalGuy
They have a very interesting way of reporting radiation exposure (ditto with
airport scanners). Instead of reporting the total body accumulated dose, they
report the dose a single scanning beam sweep induces over a small area.

These machines use a tight beam (or several) which sweep. Each individual beam
when measured in isolation likely deliver 0.1 microSievert of radiation.
However the total body dose (accumulated dose) is significantly higher than
that (because you'd measure the total dose delivered, rather than the total
dose delivered to a small 1x1 square cross-section).

This is interesting because while the body can and does (continuously) repair
DNA damage, it has diminishing returns. So 0.1 microSieverts to the entire
body is totally inconsequential, however 0.1 * 100 or more? Particularly to
people who are frequently scanned (or those with weakened bodies due to
illness or age).

Plus these X-Ray means can and do bounce. So imagine three 1x1 cross sections,
you scan the left and right, but the middle will have a measurable radiation
exposure even if not directly exposed to the X-Ray beam (partly because the
beams are imprecise but partly because of reflected X-Rays).

Honestly 0.1 μSv is the headline figure. What is the full body accumulated
figure? I'm going to guess as much as .30 μSv per scan.

~~~
ak217
The health concerns of radiation exposure of backscatter X-ray have never been
properly characterized at all. One specific concern that was raised with
airport scanners is that existing methods of estimating safety limit dosage
simply don't work with backscatter, which deposits the majority of radiation
in the surface layers of the subject (i.e. in the person's skin), which has
much lower volume (and therefore higher radiation absorbed per volume) than
the whole body. ([http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/11/5810/ucsf-scientists-
speak-...](http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/11/5810/ucsf-scientists-speak-out-
against-airport-full-body-scans))

The privacy concerns are peanuts compared to the potentially massive harm that
the X-rays caused in terms of skin cancer susceptibility.

The worst case is pretty scary and regardless of the outcome, I think the
government (we the taxpayers) will be on the hook for huge liability
litigation in the future regarding these machines.

It has legitimate uses for scanning cargo, and I see little issue with imaging
a car if there's nobody in it, but one of these things driving down the street
irradiating everyone is potentially a massive health problem.

~~~
jpmattia
> _The health concerns of radiation exposure of backscatter X-ray have never
> been properly characterized at all._

To amplify: The former head of homeland security profited handsomely from
their approval. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/12...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html)

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes if there is ever a larger-than-average
number of cancers in the TSA agents. Even if it is merely statistical
fluctuation, his conflict-of-interest may come back to haunt him in ways he
has not anticipated.

~~~
lostlogin
I may be more cynical than you but I'm pretty confident that being in his
shoes won't be unpleasant whatever the outcome. The taxpayer will sort it all
out.

------
k-mcgrady
>> "The X-ray vans—which reportedly cost between $729,000 and $825,000
each—are designed to find organic materials such as drugs and explosives."

As much as I don't like this at least explosives are a good reasoning for
using them. Drugs? Come on! Exposing citizens to radiation, no matter how
little, so you can find people in possession of drugs is ludicrous. Every time
you think the war on drugs has reached the height of stupidity they raise the
bar even further.

~~~
mgkimsal
but but but ... sales of drugs might be used to _fund terrorism_ (tm) !!!!

Seems to me, reading between the lines, you sympathize with terrorists.

~~~
godDLL
/end sarcasm

------
loceng
'"While this court is cognizant and sensitive to concerns about terrorism,
being located less than a mile from the 9/11 site, and having seen firsthand
the effects of terrorist destruction, nonetheless, the hallmark of our great
nation is that it is a democracy, with a transparent government," she [Supreme
Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan] wrote in her decision last month.'

------
tesq
What implications does this program have for the 4th amendment right to not
have a search conducted without a warrant? If they're used on the public at
large, generating mass probable cause or a blanket expectation that anyone
could be a dangerous terrorist as justification is a scary precedent.

It's reminiscent of the FLIR vans used to catch marijuana growers that the
Supreme Court determined to be mobile Constitution violators. They are still
being used to bust people who like to grow Christmas trees or tomatoes
indoors.

I feel bad for the minority that are terrorized by authorities suspecting them
of engaging in criminal activities based on their nationality or skin color
and fuzzy scans of their businesses, homes and vehicles.

~~~
seanp2k2
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What happened? War on drugs, 9/11, profit motive, and political motives.

~~~
tesq
Power will always opt for securing and expanding its hold, and in its paranoid
frenzy it is evident that rights, people and property are expendable to the
vanguards of absolute security.

I don't think anything happened that hasn't been happening since that quote
was written. Those are just some new excuses to solidify the grip that the
ruling class has at home and abroad.

------
tightfleece
> "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to conduct
> operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers."

Then apparently the lives of New Yorkers are protected by security through
obscurity, with absolutely no evidence of efficacy and absolutely no auditable
evaluation of safety.

I'm thinking that a strong education in science should be a requirement for
anyone who touches these programs with a ten foot pole.

~~~
munin
There's a difference between "secrecy" and "security", and when people
complain about how releasing some information would hamper / endanger lives,
they mean that some amount of secrecy is involved in protecting stuff.

Computer nerds often don't understand Kerckhoffs's law this way. The
_security_ of a system should not be _dependent_ on obscurity, but some amount
of security will depend on secrecy, i.e. your private key / password.

So for example, the list of all confidential informants is kept secret. The
release of that list of informants would "hamper the department's ability to
conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers", in addition to
endangering the lives of the informants themselves. Does that mean that it is
dependent on "obscurity", or, secrecy? Yes, but that is the way it always is.
There will be some information that if disclosed could result in bad things
happening. "Education in science" won't help with this basic fact about the
universe.

Of course, whether or not these vans genuinely represent information that
should be kept secret, who knows. Often people believe that too much
information should be kept secret, and when you're talking about information
in a free society, we probably should accept some danger over granting someone
power, but that seems to be a minority opinion...

~~~
spiritplumber
If someone is shooting ionizing radiation at me, on purpose, without my
permission, I want to know about it. Especially since I am helping pay for it.

If it was me doing it to them, it'd be assault.

~~~
nullc
> it'd be assault

Terrorism is the trendy thing.

~~~
olefoo
Are you saying the NYPD, the DHS and the NSA are terrorist organizations that
benefit from terrorism?

Be careful. Expressing that opinion openly and convincing others of its truth
is ThoughtCrime. And could lead to your being extraordinarily rendered to a
country that would torture you; or to your being tortured by agencies allied
to those named above.

------
throwaway7625
The use of these vans seems like an opportunity for some investigative
journalism.

Setup dosimeters to detect the x-rays as the vans pass by, record a video of
it happening, then tell the pedestrians nearby that their government just
irradiated them without their knowledge or consent and see what they say in
response.

Or setup stands that detect the x-rays and automatically announce over a
loudspeaker that people standing nearby are being irradiated an observe the
reaction.

If the police are not confident that the responses will be welcoming, they
should not be doing this.

------
lifeisstillgood
It seems the NYPDs argument is that releasing information on the vans will
allow people to predict where they are (or more likely be told ala speed
cameras) and so avoid them (civilians as well as criminals).

That's kind of the point of a deterrent.

You cannot scan every car on every journey, at least not without a massive
spike in cancers, so this is a deterrent.

And it's a secret deterrant....

So it won't catch anyone because you can't scan everyone, and it won't deter
anyone because no one knows it's there

Seems a waste

~~~
pyre
Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.

    
    
      Dr. Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday
      Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't =
      you tell the world, EH?

------
fnordfnordfnord
>> _But most Federal Drug Administration regulations for medical X-rays do not
apply to security equipment, leaving the decision of when and how to use the
scanners up to law enforcement agencies such as the NYPD._

Brilliant.

------
medecau
Would a Geiger tube detect these X-Rays?

[https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8875](https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8875)

I'm thinking Arduino boards and webcams.

~~~
avn2109
Why not just come up with a gas flow counter? That's what they do in real life
rad labs.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I've built a number of these and it would be a challenge to make a robust,
portable one. Mass flow controllers are expensive and sensitive, and carrying
around a supply of ethane or other gas would be inconvenient; even if cool.
The detectors themselves also tend to be quite sensitive (to motion, RFI, and
everything else), though much of that could probably be overcome.

------
pluma
Fourth Amendment issues aside, as a non-American this strikes me as an obvious
violation of Human Rights (especially the right to bodily integrity in
particular).

I'm not sure what the situation is like in the US, but I'm fairly certain that
in my country you couldn't be subjected to an x-ray scan without consent,
unless there is sufficiently strong suspicion and an x-ray scan would be the
least invasive option (e.g. this is why you can be forced to give a blood
sample if you refuse to take a breathalyser test when assumed to DUI).

I have no idea how random drive-by x-rays on the street could be considered
reasonable and not in violation of Human Rights unless you're in a freakin
warzone.

------
serf
I wonder how many shipments of dosimeter badges arrived 'like new'.

(I kid)

------
johansch
(Swedish. Politically speaking right-wing in that spectrum. In the US
political spectrum; probably centrist.)

If I were a NYC citizen, I'd approve of a police authority that was innovative
enough to bring these things onto the streets. NYC is a terrorism magnet, as
has been shown.

~~~
TillE
Putting aside September 11th (which would not have been prevented by x-raying
vans), there have been zero actual bombings in New York City since 1993, just
one pathetic attempt. And very few other incidents.

It's not a city that lives under constant fear of terrorist attack, and as
such I wouldn't expect to see invasive measures like this except in response
to a very specific threat.

