
TSA-style body scanners are coming to public spaces - Jerry2
https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/05/police-to-use-tsa-style-scanners-to-spy.html
======
djsumdog
Millimeter-wave machines at airports today are totally and completely useless.
Germany's transportation administration reported a 54% false positive rate for
these pieces of rubbish. You are better off randomly searching people by
flipping a coin.

These are multi-million dollar security theater failures and it bothers me
more that people are considering buying even more derivatives based on this
garbage technology for anything.

Police officers or security guards could just literally point one at anyone
they find suspicious and use it to justify an illegal search, because it will
most likely read yes, even if the person's pockets are totally empty.

~~~
eis
> Millimeter-wave machines at airports today are totally and completely
> useless. Germany's transportation administration reported a 54% false
> positive rate for these pieces of rubbish. You are better off randomly
> searching people by flipping a coin.

Edit: note that it seems I had a wrong understanding of the term false
positive rate, ignore this comment.

Statistics doesn't work like that. The false positive rate is pretty
meaningless in this context. It only determines how much useless manual work
is performed after the machine flags you incorrectly.

You should look at the false negative rate in order to determine how much of a
security plus they bring.

That being said, I think the whole airport theater is ridicolous. If
terrorists wanted to kill people, they literally have thousands of alternative
ways to achieve that.

~~~
lazyasciiart
Not quite true. A high false positive rate leads the people running the
machines to stop reacting seriously to alerts, which means that they don’t do
the manual checks with as much care. This is even more of an issue when
everyone in line knows they are bullshit and has no respect for the people
running them.

~~~
eis
A false positive rate of close to 50% means that every second alert indeed
pointed at something real. That should not cause the staff to get unmotivated.
Again, without the false negative rate we can't judge if they are complete
bullshit or not. If it were a 90% false positive rate then sure, that would
clearly have the effects you outlined. I don't think at around 50% that's the
case yet.

~~~
IanCal
No, it means that about 50% of people scanned would trigger a "positive". The
false positive rate is the number of false positives divided by the number of
actual negatives.

100 people, 50 false alarms, 1 actual problem alerted and 49 marked as safe
correctly = 50/(50+49) = ~50%.

~~~
dorgo
Wow, that definition is counter-intuitive. Ive expected the false-positive-
rate to be the number of false positives divided by the number of all
positives. Isn't it how "rates" are usually defined? No wonder everybody is
confused.

~~~
IanCal
I think it's a perspective thing. You are looking at the rate of false
results, so given a particular type of input what rate do you get it right?
For negative ground truth your possible outputs are "false (positive)" and
"true (negative)".

I agree it can be confusing, but I think people would also make the opposite
mistake if it were defined differently.

------
jadell
My wife can't go through these scanners, as she has a medical device that the
device manufacturer has warned have not been certified to go through them, and
will not be liable if the device stops working (which in this case would mean
she dies.)

At the airport, she always has to opt-out and get a pat-down (or did, until
she broke down and paid the brib...err, "fee" for pre-check.)

Will she be safe walking around areas that use these scanners? Will the users
of the scanners be required to announce that they are in use? Will there be an
opt-out process? How would that even work in a public space? If she opts-out,
is she going to end up getting felt-up by some untrained minimum wage pervert
with a power complex? Who is liable (legally and financially) if her device
stops working because someone made her go through a scanner without her
knowledge or consent?

This is bullshit for so many more reasons that surveillance (though that is
also important.) This is literally a life or death concern for us.

~~~
Gpetrium
Without information regarding the medical device, it can be difficult for us
to provide a solution, so in my opinion you should ask yourself:

* What properties cause the device to malfunction?

* What kinds of scanners/tools can lead to the malfunction?

* What would the malfunction look like?

* How much time would she have to get medical support?

* Is there an alternative medical device that decreases the risk?

* Is it possible to get a medical certificate that shows she has the device and its implications, allowing the officer to know before-hand?

It is worth noting that some devices that can cause the malfunction may
already be available for private citizens to purchase, so creating a plan of
action may be the best option regardless of whether reinforcement officers
intend to use it.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
I apologise in advance that this comment has nothing to do with the posted
article, and is instead to do with the use of HN.

After dang's comment on the latest Assange thread to make the first page on
HN, I am trying to decide whether the posted article is one that stimulates
intellectual curiosity, or indignation and repetition.

I think the answer is - probably the latter. We're not likely to learn much
new knowledge from it and it's more likely to generate forceful arguments than
productive conversation.

Are postings like this welcome on HN or merely tolerated? I assumed, because
politically controversial posts frequently make it to the first page, that
they are acceptable and welcome. I am not so sure anymore.

I believe that an active mind is a politically engaged mind - but perhaps HN
is just not the right place for political conversation. I enjoy the civility
and dignity of the best threads on HN- and I have to admit that the majority
of them are not political. It's hard to have a level-headed, sober discussion
on political matters, when everyone who has political views tends to have
_strong_ political views (I sure do).

So I don't know. Maybe posting stuff like this on HN is not such a good idea
after all?

(With apologies to jerry2 who posted this article)

~~~
norswap
I'm genuinely curious: do you believe this post in particular to be
controversial? I can't picture many people (I can picture some) who would
think be in favor of what is described here.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Yes, I do. I think the fact that there is a very strong opinion for or against
a political opinion makes it controversial, by definition. In effect, it means
that any discussion on the subject is going to be charged and unbalanced. The
more people are on one side of the debate, the more so.

This is perhaps why articles on, say, vaccine denialism or climate denialism
and other strongly politicised subjects like that are not well received on HN.
On the one hand there are very strong views around them, on the other hand
it's very clear what those views are and where they come from after years of
these "debates" raging online and there's really nothing to see there anymore.

Scientific controversy of course is another matter. That comes down to robust
debate between experts from which everyone has a lot to learn. That sort of
article is also commonly flagged on HN, which I think is unfortunate.

Anyway, I've contributed plenty of politically controversial articles myself
in the past, and contributed to such discussions. Maybe I was wrong to do
that. I don't know if there is a place on the internet where I would feel more
comfortable than on HN to have such discussions- but maybe HN is still, just,
not the right place for them. Edit: maybe, if we keep having more and more of
those conversations on HN it will stop being the place where I feel
comfortable having them.

~~~
sbuttgereit
But is your concern about controversy in this community or in general? HN
substantially leans left/progressive (note that I did not say it was
universally so). There are any number of articles posted here that take that
view such as what to do about climate change, wealth, and speech. While these
stories certainly get some long threads where that minority that isn't of the
HN popular mindset go back and forth with those that are, by user counts these
articles are not so controversial here as they would be across the broader
public (remember, these are generalities that I am speaking in).

So should the general HN group tendencies be considered in what's considered
controversial vs. what is just informative? Should the community focus on
discussions in areas of climate, wealth, race, sex, etc. be limited only to
the implementation details of the generally accepted HN point of view?

I do get what you're talking about. While I agree in with the premise of the
parent story, the article is clearly written to charge emotions moreso that
present rational arguments: I hate that bullshit. Personally, I'd prefer to be
a member of a ruthlessly "on-topic" professional technology community where
progressives, conservatives, etc. are expected to save their politics for
Facebook or Twitter and provide input on those topics for which they are best
qualified. Maybe it's too much to ask, though, because I ain't found such a
forum yet.

HN has a small amount of absolutely brilliant content/commentary that I've not
found elsewhere, as well as a larger dose of just OK content/commentary...
which keeps me coming back... which comes with a large portion of utter crap
which just becomes a big shit-show, and shows that this community of STEM
types which, frankly, likes to see itself as superior to the less enlightened,
broader public, really isn't any better at formulating ideas than that public
in areas outside their specific specialties. Oh, sure, the better education
means the quality of writing and rhetorical flare is also better... but that
doesn't mean that the actual ideas are less emotionally driven or more well
considered: just that the rationalizations are more nuanced than they might
otherwise be.

OK, stepping off the soap box. I will say, for my part, I use to get much more
caught up in the political discussions here and was wrong to do so. I've
stopped that bad behavior for the most part: I wasn't helping, I wasn't
changing minds, I was simply eroding the professional demeanor of the
community.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> But is your concern about controversy in this community or in general?

About this community in particular.

------
Animats
Is this company for real?

Lots of executives. Lots of advisors. High powered board. No demo. First
prototype due this month.

Uh oh.

The Lincoln Labs group didn't get very far. They could image a single
mannequin at close range in a controlled environment. Whether this will work
in a cluttered environment is an open question.

It might work for sports stadiums, which heavily restrict what you can bring
in.

~~~
max76
The point is that the idea of public millimeter wave surveillance has some
amount of public support.

Even if they deploy an ineffective version in 12 months, in 240 months they
might have effective hardware. This is the direction some people want things
to go.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> Even if they deploy an ineffective version in 12 months, in 240 months they
> might have effective hardware.

Provided they can still borrow money to fund operations.

~~~
dismalpedigree
_cough_ Uber.

------
vinay_ys
First thing that comes to mind is, are these scanners _safe_ – i.e., do they
have any kind of active radio wave source? How reliable are they? Can they
malfunction and emit harmful radiation? Is it health certified for kids,
adults and pets? What about medical safety devices? Is there a stringent
regulatory body certifying these?

Second, how does law enforcement of the normal kind work in a society vs how
does terrorism prevention work? For the later, intelligence
gathering/sourcing, infiltration etc. - isn't this the only realistic
(scalable) way for it work? If terror prevention becomes part of law
enforcement job, then we will end up with a police state that is unlivable (in
effect, terror is now perpetrated by state!)

Now, is this scanner device to be installed in public places – is it for law
enforcement or for terror prevention? If the day-to-day life habits require
this level of monitoring for law enforcement, then that society is screwed up
beyond repair.

Btw, in my country we have X-ray for bags and metal scanner for body in every
hotel, mall, theater, public transport hub, offices etc. There's usually a
security guard who will wave a wand on your body but doesn't really know how
to use it. For vehicles they make you open the trunk and boot and visually
inspect as well as look underneath with a mirror. But I have not seen any
'positive' (false or otherwise) catch.

In movie theaters, the best I have seen them catch and confiscate is outside
food (for commercial policy reasons, not security) and cigarette lighters (for
fire safety and smoking ban).

It was irritating at first, but now everyone has become numb to it and you
just go through the motions.

~~~
superkuh
> are these scanners safe – i.e., do they have any kind of active radio wave
> source?

These two things are unrelated unless you are transmitting kilowatts of power
and things become heated. Yes, there is a regulatory body (FCC) that limits
emissions such that the volts per meter gradient is below some given threshold
for a frequency range. And the higher the frequency the higher the power is
needed to achieve the same v/m.

The 'war on terror' has very little to do with terrorism itself or preventing
it. It's all about means to monitor and control the citizens of a nation.

As for large scale public 'scanners' well, they have been deployed in the USA
around events like the superbowl. I recall they used to call them 'viper'
squads or something. And in those I recall they were using backscatter x-ray
vans, something which _is_ not intrinsically safe due to using ionizing
radiation (unlike radio).

------
exabrial
I'm not a huge fan of "only the government gets weapons". It's technologies
like this that are bothersome because of both 2nd and 4th amendment reasons.

~~~
endymi0n
While I respect your personal taste and a wish for additional perceived safety
there, the data says it‘s probably a bad idea. Just carrying a gun will make
you 4.46 times as likely to get shot [1] and increase the likelyhood of all
loved ones around you to get hurt as well.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/)

~~~
icelancer
No one was bitten by a shark who never entered the water either. There is more
to the gun control debates than single-input statistics like the one you
cited.

~~~
endymi0n
Actually, no, study after study shows that the amount of guns in a society is
strongly correlated to its homicide rate, both directly as well as indirectly
(i.e. more violent police raids because they assume residents to be armed).

Taking your shark tank metaphor, some people believe it‘s simply not possible
to remove guns from a society, which is untrue as well, as the recent example
of Australia shows.

Heck, lots of people in Germany used to have a gun in WW2, while in 2011,
German police shot a whole of 85 bullets in total. Which, incidentally, is
exactly one bullet less than Texan police emptied into a single, unarmed
suspect after a car chase in the same year. Well, you get what you vote for.

~~~
keiferski
Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate and yet a very low homicide
rate. It turns out that it’s complex, like every other political issue.

I am neutral / undecided on the gun ownership issue but simplifying and using
misleading information doesn’t help anyone.

~~~
_hl_
Right, but Switzerland still has the draft, and consequently more awareness
about gun safety among owners, as well as inflated gun ownership statistics
because you are required to take your gun home with you. And while guns are
relatively easy to buy, ammunition is much more controlled.

Switzerland also has a lot more social security than the US. I agree that it's
more complex than "guns are bad", but using Switzerland as an argument for gun
ownership is just glossing over the details to come up with an artificial
example where gun ownership doesn't result in increased violence.

~~~
sokoloff
> come up with an artificial example where gun ownership doesn't result in
> increased violence.

Though I do not concede the use of the word "artificial" as correct in your
sentence, bringing in the Swiss data point is incredibly relevant in response
to a claim that "Actually, no, study after study shows that the amount of guns
in a society is strongly correlated to its homicide rate, both directly as
well as indirectly."

------
js2
Scene from Total Recall, made 30 years ago:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWIHv7a6luY)

Hexwave:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI32PdPew4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI32PdPew4)

~~~
tyingq
"Pre crime".

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Right author, wrong short story.

The short stories that inspired both Total Recall and Minority Report can be
found in this anthology:
[https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780806537948](https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780806537948)

~~~
tyingq
Yes, I'm aware. Wrong story is still relevant.

------
stonogo
Why was the title changed from "Police To Use TSA-Style Scanners To Spy On
People In Public Places"? It was originally submitted with that title, and the
title is accurate as Utah's Attorney General has said as much.

Who is responsible for the silent editorializing here? And why?

------
pera
This is the imaging technology that they are implementing:
[https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1033496.pdf](https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1033496.pdf)

~~~
dannyw
Doesn’t seem to load for me. Do you have a screenshot?

~~~
mindcrime
Try this:

[https://github.com/mindcrime/RandomPapers/blob/master/103349...](https://github.com/mindcrime/RandomPapers/blob/master/1033496.pdf)

~~~
petre
Microwave? So if we use metal wire mesh clothing it becomes kind of useless.
27 Ghz = 1.1 cm wavelength. That would require a 55 mm mesh. Food for thought
for future fashion designers.

------
01100011
You're not going to be able to stop the scanners, but you can probably
convince people to employ enough decoys to jam the system. If they're getting
false positives on 15% of people, they're going to have a hard time justifying
the expenditures.

~~~
batbomb
If you want to kill this in Utah all you have to do is say that this will be
used against CCW holders.

[https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2018/08/21/university-...](https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2018/08/21/university-
utah/)

Can’t do the same in California though

------
sirsuki
Probably a bit too novel but why not just not killing other people? I mean
we’ve had a long history that doesn’t include random acts of mass murder why
now? Couldn’t we work to fix the actual problem instead of reacting with more
theatrics? Seriously, build a culture that engenders good self esteem instead
of the abuse laden bully culture we live in now!!!

~~~
cyphar
> Probably a bit too novel but why not just not killing other people? I mean
> we’ve had a long history that doesn’t include random acts of mass murder why
> now?

I don't know what period of history you're referring to. There has been
constant wars or regional conflicts for the majority of recorded human
history. If you're specifically talking about home-front terrorism, there is a
fairly long history of this occurring too (just the case of terrorism in
Ireland takes you back to the late 1960s). Civil wars were incredibly common
in Europe in the medieval era, let alone the Crusades.

This isn't to excuse what's happening today (far from it) but to put in
context that there isn't a perfect time in history we should regress back to
-- rather, we need to move the world into a state it hasn't seen before.

To be fair, it is definitely the case that modern US imperialism (read: waging
illegal and offensive wars overseas) is the cause of many modern problems such
as the refugee crisis and acts of terrorism. After all, the US is arguably
responsible for Islamic extremism thanks to the CIA-backed coup in Iran[1] and
countless other countries[2] that fueled anti-Western sentiments culminating
in terrorism.

I think stopping rampant (and illegal) imperialism would be far more effective
than "building a culture".

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change)

------
asveikau
Is this going to be safe for pregnant women and the like? I seem to recall
that was one reason to opt out at the airport.

~~~
Jach
That seems like a weird reason since the radiation counter argument was
typically countered by pointing out the radiation from the flight itself
likely exceeded the scan by a lot.

This is likely about as safe as wifi. The paper someone linked describes a
system using around 24-30 GHz microwaves, one of the company blogs says the
power they transmit at those frequencies is even less than a typical router.
This isn't unusual. You can see a list of over 800 FCC approved devices in
that frequency range here: [https://fccid.io/frequency-
explorer.php?lower=24000&upper=30...](https://fccid.io/frequency-
explorer.php?lower=24000&upper=30000&within) (I also didn't see anything there
for Liberty Defense, the company suspects they'll have a product ready by 2020
but we'll see. Radar and imaging applications are tricky, this company could
implode beforehand.)

~~~
mffnbs
> That seems like a weird reason since the radiation counter argument was
> typically countered by pointing out the radiation from the flight itself
> likely exceeded the scan by a lot.

Doctors often advise pregnant women not to fly at certain stages of their
pregnancy.

I can't imagine a doctor would advise pregnant women to enter these security
theaters for literally no reason.

~~~
jobigoud
> Doctors often advise pregnant women not to fly at certain stages of their
> pregnancy.

More likely related to turbulences and avoiding entering labor while on a
flight and difficulty using the seat belt.

------
trott
I took part in TSA/Kaggle's competition a year ago.

[https://www.kaggle.com/c/passenger-screening-algorithm-
chall...](https://www.kaggle.com/c/passenger-screening-algorithm-
challenge/leaderboard)

Let me first say that how well these things work is not a property of the
scanners alone, but also of the algorithms they run. I'm quite certain that
they can be made to work much better than a random choice, unlike what some
other posters claim.

The competition did have some issues. For example, the subjects were re-used
in multiple scans (although not between training and test2 datasets), and the
algorithms were allowed to exploit that (perhaps an oversight in the setup),
but most entrants did not actually exploit this fact.

Also the dataset was quite small (~20 subjects). We were still doing much
better than random. With a larger dataset and perhaps better scanner design,
this would work even better.

------
firekvz
Was in russia last year, every subway station/public place had scanners, i
just saw thousands of ppl go through them and never ever beep... maybe is just
something to scare people?

~~~
nabla9
scanners or metal detectors?

------
calgoo
So could Faraday clothing be a new thing then? Outfits that blocks the
scanners in public, and gives of a "generic" shape. I wonder how long it would
take for it to be outlawed?

~~~
etiam
Seems likely they'll just treat it as a positive detection until an unpleasant
day/evening/night/morning in the interrogation room has failed to confirm that
(for this time)?

------
miguelmota
How harmful is this to our bodies?

~~~
djsumdog
The scanners in airports are currently millimeter wave machines. They're
fucking useless with insanely high false positive rates, but they don't appear
to have any health risks (unlike the backscatter x-ray machines from a decade
ago, which I'm sure would be facing cancer lawsuits today if they were still
in use).

~~~
mehrdadn
I was under the impression backscatter x-ray was safe (as in this is what
every source I've seen says). Any evidence to the contrary?

~~~
richardhod
they were not safe, and they were only approved because the research that said
they were safe was done by the manufacturers themselves. They were taken away
once academics and other experts showed that the risks were way too high using
them

~~~
mehrdadn
Link?

~~~
icelancer
The person is probably extrapolating from the UCSF study that was done (and
debunked thoroughly by various governmental and non-governmental
organizations).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-
ray#Health_effec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-
ray#Health_effects)

Ironically enough, millimeter wave scanning is less well-understood than
backscatter x-ray!

~~~
sbov
Because companies don't have to prove something is safe, you have to prove
something unsafe.

Reminds me of the BPA free garbage. Many of the replacements are/were worse
than BPA. But no one seemed to care.

~~~
djsumdog
The complaint about BPA was that it's an estrogen mimic (parts of the human
body can react to it as if it were estrogen). If you eat a lot (a whole lot)
of soy products, soy can do the same.

BPA has mostly been replaced with BPS ... which is also an estrogen mimic.

------
undoware
As a transgender person who has her and her friends frequently flagged for
“anomalies” I’m going to call oppression. Don’t look in my pants without
asking. Mind your own damned business

~~~
sterlind
This used to happen to me all the time, until really recently where suddenly
my junk stopped being flagged. Usually my boobs would get flagged (if they set
the scanner to M) or my downstairs (if they set to F.) I don't know why it's
not happening anymore... software update? but it's a welcome change.

------
jakelazaroff
Would people be even remotely okay with this if mass shootings weren't
becoming a daily occurrence? It seems like the 2nd and 4th Amendments may end
up mutually exclusive.

~~~
maxheadroom
> _Would people be even remotely okay with this if mass shootings weren 't
> becoming a daily occurrence?_

...but isn't this addressing a symptom, as it were, and not the problem?

I know I'll probably get down-voted to hell, because this is primarily an
American board, but if the issue is systemic to society, shouldn't society
redress the cause[s]?

Inb4 the "homogenous" argument: Yes, American society is homogenous but so are
other societies. Wouldn't something like, say, affordable (or free), easily
accessible and _not_ ostracised mental health tools be equally or even _more_
effective?

I get that people are scared of mass shootings and that drives the reactionary
responses we are seeing, such as this, but wouldn't be better to find ways to
reprieve the causes?

After all, it wasn't that long ago that "going postal" was a common parlance
in American English for such events but those particular events (postal
workers "going postal") have diminished - considerably.

Edit: So, clearly, if the rates for postal workers "going postal" have
considerably declined, then something _can_ be done to prevent these events -
but this would have to be on a societal scale; which is a daunting task, I'm
fully aware.

~~~
dang
> I know I'll probably get down-voted to hell, because this is primarily an
> American board

Please don't include this sort of off-topic provocation in your comments. It's
against the site guidelines to downvote-bait, and nationalistic assumptions in
internet comments never help. As it happens, the HN audience is about 50% in
the US.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
airnomad
...which means this is primarily US board.

~~~
dang
Define primarily how you like, but it's a lot less that way than most people
assume it is.

------
late2part
Note the graphic describing a “45mm Pistol.” No such thing.

~~~
themodelplumber
What does ACP in stand for then? Edit: Oh, you mean the mm part :-) ...actual
printed products notwithstanding

[https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-45MM-PISTOL-GUN-SIDE-
BASEBALL-C...](https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-45MM-PISTOL-GUN-SIDE-BASEBALL-CAP-
HAT-GREEN-CAMO/352102122623)

~~~
late2part
Yes it’s partly cut off on the left but clearly inferrable on closer
inspection. The graphic artist doesn’t know firearms. Mostly irrelevant to the
article except for peripheral credibility.

------
velox_io
All the gear and no idea...

I've redacted this post as I don't want to publicise a gaping hole which
renders these measures pointless. You wonder if the security serves a real
purpose, or is there just to make people feel safe.

------
tracker1
Sounds like an opportunity for an underwear company that blocks the scans.

------
noja
I for one welcome our fact-focused overlords.

~~~
gambiting
The problem is that everyone is guilty of something. The laws are so complex
that it's impossible to not be in a violation of something at any given time.
Once surveilance becomes ubiquitous, your only choices are 1) put everyone in
prison 2) enforce laws selectively. 2) is of course leading to
totalitarianism, where no one is ever innocent - I'm from Poland where the
secret police during communism operated on this exact principle. No one is
innocent - they just haven't been found guilty yet.

