Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: tyme on August 24, 2010, 03:46:24 PM
-
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
U.S. law enforcement agencies have purchased some vans that use backscatter x-rays, ostensibly to look for bombs, but more likely to look for whatever they feel like.
The privacy implications deeply disturb me, and worse, what if they use those things on houses or other buildings?
I'm also not excited about the extra irradiation these things cause. By themselves, a few of these things are no big deal, but if the policy is that anything below a certain threshold is allowed, pretty soon all sorts of similar devices will be used, and the aggregate exposure may start causing statistically significant increases in cancer.
-
Ugh. This makes me nauseous. =(
-
Am I one of the few folks who is not thrilled to be irradiated by my gov't?
* IR laser directed at my windshield to detect my "speed"
* X, K, and Ka band radar to do the same
* X-rays in the OP
* Am I missing anything?
Perhaps we ought to set up some multi-spectrum units at all cop shops and federal buildings to bathe those in employee parking in the warm radiation they direct at us.
-
Am I one of the few folks who is not thrilled to be irradiated by my gov't?
* IR laser directed at my windshield to detect my "speed"
* X, K, and Ka band radar to do the same
* X-rays in the OP
* Am I missing anything?
Perhaps we ought to set up some multi-spectrum units at all cop shops and federal buildings to bathe those in employee parking in the warm radiation they direct at us.
I'm thinking we need to. If it's not a risk, why would they oppose me putting a backscatter webcam at the entrance to a federal building? >:D
-
Privacy implications aside, the LEGAL implications actually delight the dark parts of my mind.
This is blatant over-reaching. If ANY prosecution is attempted based upon one of these vans acting as a primary cause of law enforcement action, they'll be off the streets in a new york minute.
There's no probable cause, there's no reasonable suspicion. There's no commercial transaction to hide behind to call such an invasion of privacy a "voluntary screening." After all, if I don't want to be backscattered, I can fly myself or I can avoid commercial air travel. There's no way to avoid a van randomly scanning anyone/everyone around it on city streets.
I also wonder how this works considering particular wiretap laws. It's no different than a small spycam underneath a person's clothes or (if used through a building) inside his/her home.
Count me in with the guys with tar, feathers, pitchforks, torches and rifles, if a judge actually approves of this when the inevitable case comes up.
-
Also, didn't SCOTUS rule this sort of thing verboten on a routine basis when it ruled thermal imaging used to detect pot growers was not up to snuff?
The thermal imagers were at least passive. The critter in the OP is slamming folks with radiation.
-
It doesn't matter if its not admissible in court. The point is to find the target. Then if a suspect is detected, other officers are directed to find some probable cause as pretext to search or arrest the target. The target would absolutely never know what triggered the investigation.
-
bingo! theres the slippery slope thing if all they did was catch bombers i would care less if they just went and summarily put a bullet in their ear. its the rest of it that is scary
-
Any portable (and preferably affordable) X-ray detectors on the market?
[tinfoil]
-
Any portable (and preferably affordable) X-ray detectors on the market?
[tinfoil]
They're called Geiger-Müller counters.
-
I better line my safe with aluminum foil.
-
Though Reiss admits that the systems “to a large degree will penetrate clothing,” he points to the lack of features in images of humans like the one shown at right, far less detail than is obtained from the airport scans. “From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.
;/
-
So Reiss shouldn't have a problem if we only x-ray him a "little". Bare bulb generator, anyone? ;)
-
;/
So Reiss shouldn't have a problem if we only x-ray him a "little". Bare bulb generator, anyone? ;)
I was thinking of having him set one up pointing at his kid's bed for a month nonstop. If it is so safe, why not?
-
Boy. Dont ya love being test subjects. Like the jail in LA, "testing a device" for the military, or is it military hardware that was not used that has made its way to LE. Nothing good can come of this, reminds me of the "Standing Army" the founders were concerned about.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/24/la-jail-introduces-new-nonlethal-laser-beam/
-
They claim the exposure is the equivalent of "15 minutes of flight in an airplane," but does anyone actually have the exact amount this thing is putting out in R/H (Röntgens per Hour) and an average amount of time a scan against a human target runs? I've yet to see any hard numbers regarding that, only the claimed equivalency.
-
All I know is I was more than a little pissed off when I realized that an SSA office in Colorado started using this tech for security. I've already dealt with enough radiation in my life, thanks. :(
-
All I know is I was more than a little pissed off when I realized that an SSA office in Colorado started using this tech for security. I've already dealt with enough radiation in my life, thanks. :(
What? Are you saying you don't want to be safe? What do you have to hide? :police:
-
From some of the pictures, they're using high enough levels of X-ray radiation to image people through the sheet metal bodies of vehicles.
That suggests a rather potent X-ray source to me . . . :mad:
-
If this was used solely for its stated purpose, looking for bombs, then fine. But let's be honest, it will only be used for that purpose on very rare occasions. There are not that many bombings in the US.
-
How long before the first "He's got a gun!" incident?
-
Not long. This has the potential to go the route SWAT did. Narrow mission at first, only to be used in select circumstances, graduating to "let's us it for more mundane crap to justify budget concerns" and "officer safety".
-
What? Are you saying you don't want to be safe? What do you have to hide? :police:
My main issue is that they asked me to please remove items from my pocket that they should not have known were there and were not illegal.
-
what items? and hows colrado law on things you can bring in a gov bldg with the perquisite signs? i know my leatherman is a bozo nono in gov bldgs in dc
-
My main issue is that they asked me to please remove items from my pocket that they should not have known were there and were not illegal.
Sarcasm is hard to convey in text =|. Trust me, I don't want to be x-rayed on a daily basis either [tinfoil].
-
what items? and hows colrado law on things you can bring in a gov bldg with the perquisite signs? i know my leatherman is a bozo nono in gov bldgs in dc
SSA building is off-limits to knives and firearms, specifically. Everything else legal to carry is kosher, and the items they asked me to remove were; my cellphone, a plastic flashlight, and my zippo lighter, none of which are illegal to carry into the SSA building in any way, shape, or form. Again, it seriously pissed me off.
-
Who's got access to a waterjet? It sounds like sheet metal silhouette time again.
-
hmm, tell some dope in the press there was a dirty bomb attack, and watch the fun? [popcorn]
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGCd0KPJcMs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGCd0KPJcMs) Youtube commercial for company producing Backscatter X-Ray Scanning Van.