Inside a Full-Body-Scanning X-Ray Van

Velcroman1 writes "In August, Slashdotters learned that full-body scanners were roaming the streets in vans: 'The same technology used at airport check points, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on US streets where law enforcement agencies have deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs. Fox took a ride in one of the $800,000 vans, videotaping the entire event — and continues the debate about security, privacy, and health risks."

Health risk

[TheLink]

AS&E says the system is safe for operators and subjects, and that "one scan of the ZBV is equivalent to flying in an airplane at altitude for two minutes."

and my general understanding is even if you were exposed to a dosage from one of these machines, it would be equivalent to a chest x-ray or less," McCabe told FoxNews.com.

The above two are not the same. Assuming normal airline altitudes, it takes hours of flying to get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest x-ray.

"It was a secondary screening mechanism for trucks going into a loading dock

So if your job requires you to drive a truck into the loading dock every day, it better be much lower than "chest x ray" levels.

Some related discussion here: http://ask.metafilter.com/142917/Cumulative-backscatter-Xray-risk [metafilter.com]

Re:Tinfoil?

[Archangel Michael]

http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html [lessemf.com]

Re:Illegal Search

[Speare]

How is this an illegal search? It's within plain atomic sight.

In Kyllo vs United States, the Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) search without warrant was deemed unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].

Re:Wait, FOX?

[Pojut]

Note that it wasn't Fox News that did that...it was News Corp [nytimes.com], the company that owns Fox News.

Not that it makes it any better.

Re:Purpose?

[xnpu]

The original article suggests otherwise: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/ [forbes.com]

Though only time will tell.

Re:Illegal Search

[Orga]

"Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches."

And how long before it's no longer reasonable to expect privacy, we can no longer expect it in our driveway or under our clothing.

What could go wrong?

[hoboroadie]

If you RTFA you will see that this is all for your benefit. "state privacy laws would prohibit individuals or private companies from abusing the vans, while the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing the same."
See? Now calm down and get back to work, peasant.

Re:Purpose?

[ElectricTurtle]

In Soviet Russia ... job secures you!

Re:Wait, FOX?

[Dishevel]

But I can trust the Guy who had a shiver run all down his leg?

Re:Wait, FOX?

[Pojut]

There was this [current.com]. Granted, that's in an advertisement, but still...

And I'm not hypocritical. I despise all of the major news services, something I indicated in my OP.

Re:Purpose?

[Leebert]

Now we also need them roaming the streets? "Hey Joe, hottie on your six, make a turn and flip the switch boy, let's see what she's got!".

I was actually watching the millimeter wave scanners in operation over the weekend while bored in the airport. Granted, it's anecdotal, but I was surprised that there were three young, large breasted females that were re-routed through the scanner in the course of maybe 15 minutes. (I, uh, notice this sort of thing.)

I'm pretty sure compared to the percentage of them "in the wild", they were significantly overrepresented in that scanner. Either that, or I'm hanging out in the wrong places "in the wild".