>>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.
Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
31–40 of 75 posts
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#32> "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…
>> "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to conduct operations and endanger the lives of New Yorkers." Ha, am i the only one that parsed that as "releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to {conduct operations, endanger the lives of New Yorkers}"?
Nope.
Should be rewritten as a movie review:
"releasing the documents would hamper the department's ability to ... endanger the lives of New Yorkers."
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'enterin…
> It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "…
>Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks.
Perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing one of my patented elephant whistles. I haven't heard of a single customer who's been the victim of an elephant attack while carrying one. Keep yourself and your loved ones safe for a very low price!
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#34Would a Geiger tube detect these X-Rays? https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8875 I'm thinking Arduino boards and webcams.
Why not just come up with a gas flow counter? That's what they do in real life rad labs.
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.
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'enterin…
> It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "…
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#36What 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.
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'enterin…
"Passive" scanners violate the 4th amendment just as much as "invasive" ones. Kyllo vs United States determined that thermal imaging without a warrant was a search and constituted a violation of a person's 4th amendment rights. "Off the wall" and "through the wall" surveillance are one and the same.
So would the NYPD be subject to a 4th Amendment challenge? I would think the case you cite would say so.
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Although there are a lot of sources of ionizing radiation being shot at you, and it generally works out. I'd be worried more about the fourth amendment.
The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'enterin…
> go back to the pre 9-11 airport security system
A funny thing happened on my way to CES [1] this week. I showed my mobile boarding pass on my phone to the TSA greeter who said, "OK, sir, you can go down this other line on the right." That line was very short, and I wasn't sure if this was a good thing or a bad thing.
I got to the head of that line right away and the next TSA agent said, "Welcome. You don't have to take off your shoes, and probably don't need to worry about your belt either. Just any heavier metal items. And you don't have to go through the scanner, just this metal detector."
I thought to myself, this is nice, what did I do to earn this?
Then I noticed there was a TSA Pre✓ logo on my boarding pass. I have no idea how that got there. I've never signed up for Pre✓ or anything like it.
I can only imagine that when our executive assistant got my tickets, she somehow got me signed up for it to make the trip smoother, just like she signed me up for Southwest's Early Bird check-in. She's very thoughtful about things like that, and I was certainly grateful. Especially since I didn't have to apply for Pre✓ in person or submit any documents like they talk about on the TSA site!
The trip back was a bit different. I showed my phone to the TSA greeter and she said, "I'm sorry, dear, you've got Pre✓ but we only accept it here on a paper boarding pass. If you want, you can go back to the Southwest kiosk and print one. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience." (Really, she was that friendly and apologetic - she could have been the kind of old-school waitress who calls everyone "honey" - probably the nicest TSA agent I've ever met.)
I guess each airport has its own rules for that? It didn't quite make sense, but at least she was nice about it. :-)
[1] I was at CES with AltspaceVR taking pictures of the activity in their booth: http://www.flickr.com/photos/geary/
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fouth amendment concern is particularly valid. This amounts to a search as there is penetration into one's protected property and no probable cause exists just by virtue of being in public. A passive detector, on the other hand would be completely reasonable, such as a radiation detector because the material being detected is being emitted, basically being broadcast, while invasive detectors are actually 'enterin…
> It's funny how the TSA has had virtually zero success in catching terrorists, yet we still allow them to anally probe us in the cause of safety. Yeah, they don't catch terrorists because their presence stops terrorists from trying certain kinds of attacks. That's the whole point. Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly -- because by all reports, people that are more "…
> Also I don't know why you think they don't screen the 23 year old arabs more thoroughly
I think the parent was saying just that. However, due to the TSA's "political correctness", they also pick other people who don't fit the profile and then subject them to the same level of obnoxious screening. (The idea being that it makes them look a little less prejudiced)
At least, that's how I interpreted what the parent said.
Re: Judge Orders NYPD to Release Records on X-ray Vans
#40They 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…
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…
"I see little issue with imaging a car if there's nobody in it"
If you were to spend some time at a border checkpoint sitting in a chainlink cage(literally) in the accompaniment of other travelers as your vehicles are batch scanned you may change your mind. More so if that checkpoint happens to be located 100+ miles north of the border.