EPIC Uncovers: Mobile Scanners Not 'Certified People Scanners' 154
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center received more FOIA documents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding mobile x-ray scanners (a.k.a. Z Backscatter Vans). We've discussed these devices before. Perhaps the most interesting part is slide #11 ('Disclaimer About Scanning People') on page 6 of this PDF explaining that the radiation output of these devices is too high to comply with ANSI N43.17. In other words, they output too much radiation even by TSA's questionable standards for airport body scanners. Regardless, the slide ends with the author stating that the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.' What might that assertion have meant to the presentation's intended audience?"
Enforcment of Secret Law (Score:5, Informative)
Is not subject to the constraint of public law.
Consent of the governed is not required or desirable.
Carry on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ladies and gentlemen,
We have information warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are gone.
Only when you grasp this understanding, will a realistic and possible course of action be available.
Re: (Score:2)
The only rights that you have are those that you can enforce.
Might makes right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Nice sex"
Is that the kind where you draw a smiley face, on the paper bag over her head?
Take It (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer in the defense of freedom is not cancer at all.
If you get cancer, they'll just offer to irradiate some more...
Re:Take It (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Take It (Score:4, Funny)
If we don't get cancer then the terrorists win.
Gee, what a shock (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a better question to ask: which official is going to wind up taking the fall for these wastes of tax dollars? So far, we know the following about these machines:
This was an obvious sweetheart deal, and someone is going to have to get in trouble for it. Obama or his successor will probably pardon that person, since it will just be a fall guy and nobody wants to start an investigation that would keep expanding until half of capitol hill was implicated.
Re: (Score:2)
by the time there's a fall to take, he'll have made so much money from kickbacks he won't care. Probably already doesn't care. Like those bankers....
Re: (Score:2)
Or, more likely, will have a cushy job as a lobbyist for the company in question.
Re:Gee, what a shock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You left out the fact that terrorism is so rare that even if they worked as described, the machines would kill more people than they save.
Yeah, but not all at once.
Re: (Score:2)
These tests are expensive? No, they aren't.
Compliance is expensive, they already ran the test on one device and said they were compliant. Remember that? Compliance probably involves ongoing tests of the scanners, not just "oh hey we tested one and it was okay!". That of course, is more expensive.
Yes the machines are useless, and no they aren't safe. Meanwhile, this covert thing sounds like they're saying that they can't be governed because they're part of a different group than the TSA. That's how I took th
Endanger people? Can't prove it! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that backscatter scanners use X-rays in amounts that can't meet national standards isn't even an issue.
In point of fact, as long as nobody can prove that they have had a large radiation dose - tough with "nothing in pockets, etc" - then the TSA is off the hook. Time has taught us - those who listen - that politicians don't mind endangering or even killing people, as long as it can't be traced directly back to them, and as long as it doesn't actually apply to them, themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
In point of fact, as long as nobody can prove that they have had a large radiation dose - tough with "nothing in pockets, etc"
Okay, I tape the dosimeter to my chest. (Perhaps even wear a wizard hat and robe, to confuse them.)
Re:Here's who to blame - with names (Score:5, Insightful)
I never knew anyone who ever desired the DHS or anything similar to it. I knew several people who thought that airplanes should have doors to the pilot's cabin that were locked during the entire flight, but that's a rather different matter.
The DHS was created by those who wanted to increase the "police state" nature of the country, and they were successful. The fact that all it's approaches are security theater is just what it was designed to do, not happenstance or bad management. Security theater keeps people feeling threatened, so that they are easier to manipulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress created the DHS to placate the panicky public who were demanding that the "government do something!" and the politicians were eager to win the votes and not appear to be "weak on terrorism" - yes, I know that's obvious.
DHS was created on the recommendation of th 911 Commission, not the public. The public just didn't want to be killed by terrorists. I think if you you asked the average person how to make them safer "Let's create yet another giant Federal Bureau with overlapping responsibilities" would not be their first answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read the report and yeah, we got pretty much what they suggested. DHS has control of the various intelligence agencies and the director is cabinet-level, replacing a bunch of squabbling fiefdoms like FEMA, CIA and Drug Czar. In another couple decades, they may have a more streamlined setup, but it is still a long way from that.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had a backscatter scan done.
I always opt out and I always will.
I've never had a backscatter scan done, either. I always opt out of flying and I always will until those abominations are removed from the airports.
Re: (Score:2)
To say TSA security is a farce is redundant.
Oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are you, you think you are a citizen, a person? You think you have rights? Liberties? You must have read that silly document from 1787 or whatever. That doesn't apply anymore, didn't you know?
Didn't you know you are now property, an asset that is used as collateral for more government borrowing on the one hand and on the other you are a piece of meat to be used fighting in conflicts that help the bona-fide persons - real people with government connections.
Your silly notions of rights and liberties are of no concern anymore, and you, yourself agree with this every day. Every day you want government to do something for you, to tax somebody and to borrow from somewhere, to print more money so that your special interest gets the tiny crumbs of the royal table, those are you 30 pieces of silver to sell your soul (obviously nobody will be paying you in silver, that's too fat. They have US federal reserve notes for that.)
What, you think it's too harsh? Trollish? A flamebait?
How about you listen to this short radio episode [schiffradio.com], the guest is Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars. You will find out how a classic American company became an enemy of the state by providing 1200 jobs IN USA, that's right. The reasons? Who knows. The government doesn't have to tell the reasons, you peons, not even peons in the sense that you do work. You are just a number in the line up that they can use for displaying the meat mass, how much there is there to "count the votes" or whatever they need you for, and you aren't too good for organs anymore, being on FDA approved drugs and department of Agriculture subsidized foods.
You don't like the machine scanning through your body, your flesh and bones? Who is asking you?
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Schiff site ( http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/charts/audioMaster.jsp?dispid=301&pid=53373 [schiffradio.com] ), one must be a premium member to download or listen to the excerpt.
Sad, as I was interested in listening to it.
Re:Oh, please (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, here is the LINK [noxsolutions.com]
If you only care about the guest of the show, the CEO, then scroll to minute 40.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - I found it in some other way, not sure what. :) Just looking at the "on air" section on the first section of the site.
Re: (Score:2)
Gibson is an "enemy of the state" because they illegally import wood under 16 USC 3372. Hurrrrrrrr.
Re: (Score:2)
This investigation started in 2009 because they were importing raw ebony under a fraudulent manifest, which is illegal whether the wood itself is legal to import or not. This is not just some case of big government picking on the innocent businessman.
Re: (Score:1)
This investigation started in 2009 because they were importing raw ebony under a fraudulent manifest, which is illegal whether the wood itself is legal to import or not. This is not just some case of big government picking on the innocent businessman.
No.
The government claims that some paperwork may be fraudulent. The government has not proved this, in fact they are still delaying the court case over this some 3 years later.
The government has not submitted evidence or proof in court that any paperwork is fraudulent or forged. Meanwhile, the government is holding some ~$500K-$1M in guitars and wood seized from Gibson. In neither raid on Gibson have any of the source-countries for the materials claimed any wrongdoing by Gibson.
Looks to me like some people
Re: (Score:2)
No, the government found that Gibson was importing rough ebony shipped as finished fingerboards (the shipment also wasn't addressed to Gibson, it was deliberately bounced around between warehouses and subsidiaries in order to hide its real destination.) The paperwork IS fraudulent, period.
It takes years to build a substantive case, especially when it involves businesses. The court case has not been "delayed." The investigation is still on-going, as this latest raid demonstrated.
You'd have to be damn gullibl
Re: (Score:1)
No, the government found that Gibson was importing rough ebony shipped as finished fingerboards (the shipment also wasn't addressed to Gibson, it was deliberately bounced around between warehouses and subsidiaries in order to hide its real destination.) The paperwork IS fraudulent, period.
It takes years to build a substantive case, especially when it involves businesses. The court case has not been "delayed." The investigation is still on-going, as this latest raid demonstrated.
No charges have been filed, only a SWAT raid (overkill, anyone?) performed and property seized. No evidence of any crime has been presented in court, as no charges of any wrongdoing have been filed, either relating to the '09 raid or the the latest raid.
Gibson has been in court since '09, attempting to force the government to either file charges or return Gibsons' property. So far F&W/DOJ has done nothing but file for stays and delays.
You'd have to be damn gullible to believe a Department of Justice when they say shit like "They're guilty! We haven't presented any proof, but that's just details!" and "It's a TEA Party and GWB conspiracy!"
FTFY
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It's silly to point out that they used a "SWAT raid." No-knock armed raids are SOP for American law enforcement now. I definitely don't approve of these methods, but Gibson is not being singled out for it.
No charges have been filed because they are still collecting evidence (i.e. the seized property.) Is this really so hard to understand? Investigations can take a long time. For example, Casey Anthony was arrested in July 2008, but her trial didn't start until May 2011 - and that case was relatively simple
Re: (Score:2)
Here's just one example of Lacey Act injustice that put an innocent man in jail for 8 years!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHvJ6ld_Mic [youtube.com]
Look, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say it's not just the government picking on small business owners.
Look up the actual court case, United States v. McNab.
The video you posted talks about them using plastic bags (haha, how ridiculous, right?) What the video doesn't talk about is the fact that they also caught egg-bearing lobsters, undersized lobsters, did not report their catch to the Honduran authorities, and transferred their catch at sea without going through a Honduran port or having th
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, none of those charges were filed.
Of course they weren't - Honduran law is not United States law! You can't charge them with poaching and smuggling because they were only guilty of those things in Honduras. Those criminal acts were used to justify a ruling under the Lacey Act, which is the only American law these people violated. Read the judgment, it's all right there.
I'm a Canadian, by the way. If you'd like to engage in partisan dick-waving that's your decision, but I'd really like nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The video is propaganda. Look up the actual court case.
Re: (Score:2)
You still aren't getting it. Repeating yourself won't make it true, dude. Charges haven't been filed because Gibson is still under investigation. Period. Gibson won't be charged until the investigation is finished. Period. The lengths of investigations vary, but this is hardly unusual. Period. (Where did you get three years? It hasn't even been two! Check your math! Gibson was first raided in Nov 2009, which was 22 months ago!)
You do not need to charge someone with a crime in order to seize their property,
Re: (Score:2)
How about answering this question: what legal authority does the US DOJ have to enforce FOREIGN laws upon US citizens at all, let alone foreign laws where the foreign country doesn't even see a law being broken?
The US DOJ has been granted this legal authority by an act of congress (the Lacey Act.) Furthermore, the US has always claimed some degree universal jurisdiction, which permits them to prosecute both US citizens and foreign nationals for breaking laws outside of the country.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about you listen to this short radio episode [schiffradio.com], the guest is Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars. You will find out how a classic American company became an enemy of the state by providing 1200 jobs IN USA, that's right. The reasons? Who knows. The government doesn't have to tell the reasons, you peons, not even peons in the sense that you do work. You are just a number in the line up that they can use for displaying the meat mass, how much there is there to "count the votes" or whatever they need you for, and you aren't too good for organs anymore, being on FDA approved drugs and department of Agriculture subsidized foods.
I have been following the Gibson Guitar story for a few days now. At this point, it appears that there is one of two reasons why Gibson is under this investigation. The first is because Gibson employed Americans to finish the wood rather than workers in either India or Madagascar. The second possible reason is because the CEO of Gibson is a Republican contributor.
Martin Guitars imports the same sorts of woods from the same locations, but they are not being investigated. Martin Guitars CEO is a Democratic
Re: (Score:2)
And listen to the deafening cries of the media as they lament the abuse of Gibson Guitar at the hands of the current Administration.
Oh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's completely disingenuous. The ongoing case against Gibson involves ebony blanks from Madagascar. It is illegal to harvest ebony in Madagascar or export unfinished ebony from Madagascar. American law requires American companies to only use wood sourced legally under the laws of the country of origin.
If you're "following" the Gibson story, it's only to read in what you want to read. You're ignoring that they've been caught with contraband, and now the process of a complicated multinational case is under
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong, on the Gibson front. Their problems have nothing to do with the wood, itself, being illegal; it has to do with the relatively recent changes to the Lacey Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900), and how the US Government is enforcing Indian law. The wood that was taken, on two different occasion, mind you, was completely legal.
Prior to commenting on a subject, make sure you know what you are talking about. Your post just perpetuates blatantly false information, because you "heard/read
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying Gibson did nothing wrong -- I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion one way or the other -- but let's get realistic here. You cannot possibly know that every product you buy has a squeaky clean supply chain unless you grow the raw materials yourself, no matter how conscientious
Re: (Score:1)
They're there to defend ME
- oh really? So they are defending YOU I suppose with all those Blackwater and Halliburton and oil contracts?
build roads for ME to drive on
- So they are giving you something to drive on, not the auto makers something to sell you and not politicians a way to rob you of your liberties with all the interstate BS?
to protect the environment I live in,
- they sure care about your environment, with 70million USD liability cap for deep water drilling and snorting coke off oven tops while fucking in beach side getaways.
The more assets I have, the more there is to protect
- all that American oil with all those Arab countries over i
What could it mean? Obviously... (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless, the slide ends with the author stating that the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.' What might that assertion have meant to the presentation's intended audience?
It means, "what they don't know won't hurt them."
Re: (Score:3)
"what they don't know won't hurt us" I think was the intended correction. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
To the intended audience, yes, that's pretty much exactly what it would mean...
ZBV at the border (Score:5, Interesting)
Comments so far are missing a salient feature of these things: they are in use at the U.S. border.
Trucks drive past them at the border (oh, they're just mezkins...)
They are located north of the border, by approx. 30 miles (DHS calls it "defense in depth"). See them in my neck of the woods in Arizona on: northbound I/19, eastbound Hwy 82, northbound Hwy 83, northbound Hwy 90
To the assholes who have no problem with this: how many checkpoints do you drive through on your way to work?
You can see a picture of these vans via the earlier /. link
Re: (Score:2)
mod this guy up.
Also, what will happen:
- terrorists: put a lead wall in their cars. drive around with bombs.
- regular citizens: respect the law. die of cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.as-e.com/zbv/
This company seems pretty proud to brag about all its DHS users. I've gone by one of these vans a few times. This whole situation is insulting. Some company profits, citizens exposed to unspecified risk by their own government, government claims it is doing us a favor by funneling our money to the company and irradiating us. Experimenting on unconsenting people with untested technology violates all sorts of ethics rules - and in the past, would have been quite criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can see a picture of these vans via the earlier /. link
Can you repeat the link to the pictures here so it's easier to find?
Re: (Score:2)
Serial murderers think too small.. (Score:2)
Real murderers stand in front of Teleprompters in suits, and kill thousands and millions.
And get re-elected.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
They could take a lesson from the CPU manufacturers. Serial murder just doesn't scale as well as parallel murder.
Re: (Score:1)
They could take a lesson from the CPU manufacturers. Serial murder just doesn't scale as well as parallel murder.
I think it's more of a SIMD vs MIMD issue.
Visit the USA (Score:1)
Free lethal radiation for everyone!
I'd like to see how USA tourism companies will try to spin that one.
Re: (Score:2)
"We guarantee to try to make sure it probably won't be terrorism that kills you!"
Oh, wait. That's how they're selling it to us here already.
Just how much radiation are we talking here? (Score:2)
Yeah no shit it's beyond the safe limits for a person, but by how much? These things can look through the thick steel side of a shipping container or a dumpster.
What would this accomplish? (Score:2)
Having a license to carry a concealed firearm, as many others in this country have, what does this accomplish? This would be an unreasonable search of my person, without a warrant, resulting in the inevitable "papers, please." Too many ways for that situation to end up poorly...
Re: (Score:1)
The courts have disagreed with your assertion and effectively neutered the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments when it comes to air travel.
Look up "implied consent."
Re: (Score:1)
The courts have disagreed with your assertion and effectively neutered the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments when it comes to air travel.
Look up "implied consent."
And I disagree with the court's decisions because they're simply wrong. Look up "wrong".
"Mobile Scanners" (Score:2)
The courts have disagreed with your assertion and effectively neutered the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments when it comes to air travel.
Look up "implied consent."
And apparently, "border checkpoints in depth", which means roadside scanners anywhere within 100 miles of a sea or land border (essentially covers most of US population,) which is the subject of this article. And regarding the airport scanners: those don't meet medical safety standards, either, and you are prohibited from getting information - being informed is a key component of consent. Implied consent can't be uninformed consent.
Z backscatter detector (Score:2)
Is there a way to detect these, like a wifi signal?
Re: (Score:2)
This looks kind of cool and cheap: http://www.noah.org/science/x-ray/detector/ [noah.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a way to detect these, like a wifi signal?
Yes. Nuk Alert [amazon.com]. This is a keychain-sized sealed radiation detector with a 10-year battery life. It beeps from 1 to 10 times, based on the log of the radiation level. You can test it with a dental X-ray machine. Price about $170.
Re: (Score:2)
The documentation of the van system indicates a 10s of milirad dose. The scale of the Nuk alert starts at 100mrad/hr. I don't know that it would work.
Obviously... (Score:2)
the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.'
Obviously, the implication is that "suspects" are not "people." And it seems everyone is a "suspect," as these things are being aimed at the public at large.
As a side note, I just had a mental image of them parking these trucks in a circle around a pile of wood and gleefully starting a bonfire (using the x-ray beams). They may have also parked in a circle around the Constitution.
It's not a problem (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
woosh
At what point ... (Score:3)
Some unmarked van with a couple of creepy guys pulls up alongside me. Then my X-ray detector pegs. It could be a lethal dose, so I'm going to use whatever force I have available to stop them.
A couple of rounds from my M107 should do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
At what point...does being irradiated become a threat against which I am permitted to defend myself?...It could be a lethal dose...
If you have received a lethal dose of radiation, does it matter? It's not like jail is going to be much of a deterrent for you at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
What about "accidentally scanning" people? (Score:2)
If a truck comes over from Mexico, the TSA might want to check the container for counterfeit ice cubes, and doing so they might discover -much to their surprise- that the anonymous tip was wrong but that there are people hiding inside.
How could they have known? So sorry. But none of the irradiated people is pressing charges anyhow.
Does someone have the original? (Score:4, Funny)
"the ANSI standard 'is not applicable to covert operations.' " parses alright. Still, for certainty of context, I'd like to read this in the original German language.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm thinking more of Vietnam-era policy.
"Private, I remind you that this .50 caliber machine gun is to be used against materiel, not personnel. Using it against human targets is in violation of the Geneva Conventions."
"Understood, Sergeant! I'm not aiming at the driver, I'm aiming at a truck's front window!"
"Correct, Private! Once that
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does someone have the original? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So it's good for you? (Score:5, Insightful)
We irradiate meat to make it safer, so why not people?
Because 'safer' in this context means "Killing everything else that's not just dead meat". The dead cow can't get cancer.
Now I'm thinking about it.. whoosh?
Clue (Score:2)
GP was joking.
How do you destroy one of these machines? (Score:3)
I mean, if you put a wad of foil in the microwave, you can get the thing to fry itself.
Would clothing with ceramic magnets in it do this to a backscatter xray or a tetrahertz mw scanner? I'm sure there's something short of an EMP that would at least deny service by such a device. Perhaps even scatter the same harmful radiation back on its operators?
This is an interesting line of inquiry. Like most forms of security, there are unexplored use cases that were never properly modelled for threat. I'm thinkin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you could damage the machines somehow through this approach, but then you'd have to be standing inside of a malfunctioning backscatter machine afterwards. I'd be afraid of the possibility of a resonance cascade.
Re: (Score:3)
Giant axe.
Re: (Score:2)
Wielded by Giant?
Re: (Score:3)
We should ask Derrick Smalls.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, it means it doesn't scan people.
Which makes sense -- when I step in one, I feel like less of a person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We irradiate meat after the animal is DEAD! At that point, there is no problem with DAMAGING THE DNA, RNA, and mRNA, because THEY AREN'T BEING USED ANYMORE!
Most people's brains aren't used either...
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh
Re: (Score:2)
We irradiate meat to make it safer, so why not people?
We irradiate medical implements to make them more sterile. We irradiate meat to make it more sterile.
Re: (Score:2)
The ignorant masses encourage oil companies to poison their air and water in exchange for a fictitious economic benefit.
The Department of Homeland Security should just call itself "Amaco" and pretend to drill for oil.
Throw in a deceptive advertising campaign and the masses will cheer them on as cancer rates climb.
I don't think you have to drill for stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The distance from source to detector (you) is the sum of the distances from source to target and from target to reflector. So for a chamber that is 5units across (source to target), and a detector 30ft from the source (and 25ft from the target), your radiation intensity at the detector is 1/(6^2) of the radiation intensity at the target.
Now, this becomes more complex depending on how the initial radiation source is constructed. If it's a block of kryptonite in a block of anti-kr
Re: (Score:2)
[I]f you're generating your waves with something like a klystron (as per microwave oven) [...]
Microwave ovens use magnetrons.