Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans

[phantom power]

American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighboring vehicles to see their contents, Joe Reiss, a vice president of marketing at the company told me in an interview. While the biggest buyer of AS&E’s machines over the last seven years has been the Department of Defense operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Reiss says law enforcement agencies have also deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs in the U.S.

“This product is now the largest selling cargo and vehicle inspection system ever,” says Reiss.

...

But EPIC’s Rotenberg says that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment. “Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,” he says. Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure, he points out. “If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

The TSA’s official policy dictates that full-body scans must be viewed in a separate room from any guards dealing directly with subjects of the scans, and that the scanners won’t save any images. Just what sort of safeguards might be in place for AS&E’s scanning vans isn’t clear, given that the company won’t reveal just which law enforcement agencies, organizations within the DHS, or foreign governments have purchased the equipment. Reiss says AS&E has customers on “all continents except Antarctica.”

Reiss adds that the vans do have the capability of storing images. “Sometimes customers need to save images for evidentiary reasons,” he says. “We do what our customers need.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/

[tridim]

1. Uhm, SCOTUS? Hello?

[phantom power]

4. I don't feel any particular confidence that the SCOTUS would have our backs on this.

:(

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Until there is a lawsuit over it, and that suit is appealed and appealed...

SCOTUS can do nothing.

[Warpy]

2. I'm an old and overweight broad thanks to years on prednisone

so seeing me under my clothes will be adequate punishment for any government voyeur who gets his jollies out of one of these things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OINStsPwgQ4

[Gman]

3. It takes two to tango these days if you're gonna violate someone's rights

the first is the contractor that develops this stuff that invades privacy, and the other, is the government that buys the crap and actually does the privacy invasion.

[phantom power]

6. The govt isn't even in the loop here -- it's private companies purchasing and using them on us.

[seabeyond]

8. three.... a public so fuckin fearful they willingly relinguish their rights. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

12. The manufacturer is in the clear.

It is the actual violator who is in the wrong.

Your idea of prosecuting the manufacturer would lead to video cameras, microphones, binoculars, etc. being banned. All of those and many other legal to own instruments are daily used to violate people's privacy.

[MadHound]

5. Not just a matter of privacy, but of health as well.

How much radiation are we getting without knowing it? If you're living in a "suspicious" area, is your exposure going to exceed limits? Will people be informed?

[DCKit]

7. Geez, if only everyone could afford a trunk-full of sex toys. n/t

[PJPhreak]

9. As my Sig Line says... nt

[Rage for Order]

10. I don't know what everyone is so worried about

I'm sure they'll blur the images to protect people's privacy. And they will definitely erase all images immediately after viewing them, being extra-careful to make sure no images are accidentally retained.

I mean, come on; if you aren't doing anything wrong then what are you worried about?

:shrug: