So much for the Fourth Amendment

[The Man]

X-rays are now being used on unsuspecting people as they drive, or even in the privacy of their own homes. Naturally, unlike the TSA bullshit, there's no "opt-out" for this crap. You don't even know it's happening to you.

I need to get the fuck out of this country.

[Ari]

What worries me with such a blatant illegal search method is what they are trying to slip by us. I believe the courts have ruled passive IR cameras are illegal without a warrant so I doubt an active x-ray scan is going to be allowed.
I could see this technology being applied to illegal immigrants or terrorist suspects, you know, people who have no rights.

Have the politicians who freak out about possible Cell Phone radiation heard about this?

[Deadlokd]

Good call. Subject people to repeated "minute" quantities of x-rays. That won't eventually cause DNA damage.

[erimir]

They had reasonable suspicion.

You were obviously transporting something from point A to point B.

And they needed to know what it was. So what if it was just your family and your leftovers from the Olive Garden?

[LadyShea]

Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » Full Body Scanners: From Airports to the Streets?

[California Tanker]

At the risk of a brief reality check, just because a piece of equipment can be used for something does not mean that it will be.

Such systems have been in military use for several years. Usually mounted on HMMWVs or towed on trailers, they are positioned at entry gates to bases and such like to scan vehicles as they come onto the base. There are no legal/privacy issues here. It can be simply expanded. All those 'SkyChef' trucks you see driving up to the airplane with the in-flight peanuts and whatever generally come from off the airfield, and are often not inspected: It takes a while to give a truck a once-over. By using mobile systems, they can randomly target various airports, ports, or whatever without having to buy and install a machine for every gate at every airport. They can also show up at border patrol checkpoints or anywhere else that there is a need to secure an area but still inspect vehicles rapidly... maybe a hotel where the President is staying for the night or something.

The only thing in the article about possible mis-use is a claim, apparently unsubstantiated, that the US military has been using it on random passers-by in NYC. Such a claim would be far more believable had they said 'FBI' and not 'military', the military branches tend to have little interest in domestic policing operations.

Come back to me with the panic when there's a little more meat to it.

NTM

[lisarea]

So what you're saying is to wait until the local law enforcement agencies that have purchased them, for example, come out and admit that they're violating the fourth amendment?

What if, instead, those who have these--especially domestic law enforcement--explain what exactly they're using them for, and defend their purchase? And what if, instead of waiting for abuse-prone organizations to openly abuse an abuse-prone technology, we address it before it happens, or continues to happen?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

At the risk of a brief reality check, just because a piece of equipment can be used for something does not mean that it will be.

So what non-privacy violating uses do you think domestic law enforcement agencies have for these vans? If they have the proper warrants and/or immediate probable cause to conduct a physical search, why would they need the x-ray technology?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by lisarea

What if, instead, those who have these--especially domestic law enforcement--explain what exactly they're using them for...?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what non-privacy violating uses do you think domestic law enforcement agencies have for these vans?

Jesus, it's like you people can't even read. They are using them to keep us safe from terrorists.

[ZEZOZE]

what if they're using them to conduct better legal searches?

[California Tanker]

So what you're saying is to wait until the local law enforcement agencies that have purchased them, for example, come out and admit that they're violating the fourth amendment?

Pretty much every single tool the domestic security and law enforcement agencies have is capable of unlawful use. Your argument is exactly the same as saying that because I have a gun I might use it to rob a bank or kill someone I don't like. Come back to me after it is shown that the thing is being knowingly used in violation of the 4th without warrants, PC, consent or anything else which may provide legal justification. Just as you'd take my gun away from me after I use it unlawfully.

So what non-privacy violating uses do you think domestic law enforcement agencies have for these vans? If they have the proper warrants and/or immediate probable cause to conduct a physical search, why would they need the x-ray technology?

I provided one already, entry control point checks.

Certainly it is possible to conduct a physical check without X-rays. A level III car check as performed in Ireland will involve removing you from the car, then getting the tool box and physically removing the seats from the vehicle, removing the wheels from the vehicle, removing the interior side panels, interior roof headliner and 'borescoping' the fuel tank amongst other things. You can imagine the fun involved in examining heavy goods vehicles with cargo.

It is also highly inconvenient and time consuming for both the searcher and the searchee. Scanning the vehicle is a whole hell of a lot quicker and allows greater throughput or thoroughness (or both).

NTM

[ZEZOZE]

remember- even the federation uses scanning technology.

[LadyShea]

entry control point checks.

You mean border patrol? I'll buy that. Still doesn't explain city/state/county LE buying them

[Ari]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Your argument is exactly the same as saying that because I have a gun I might use it to rob a bank or kill someone I don't like. Come back to me after it is shown that the thing is being knowingly used in violation of the 4th without warrants, PC, consent or anything else which may provide legal justification.

You just might, although you don't have a history of bank robberies so I think we can safely say that you probably wont. Law enforcement on the other hand has a history of violating the 4th amendment, especially when no one is around to stop them.

Law enforcement loves the idea that if you aren't doing anything illegal you should have no problem answering a few questions. So they should have no problem explaining and showing the public exactly how these devices are being used, right? Especially a device that doesn't alert you to its presence. We shouldn't have to be violated before we question the activities of the police.

Sure, this device may only be used in proper ways, but we should still question it. Especially in places like Arizona where being brown is probable cause.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Pretty much every single tool the domestic security and law enforcement agencies have is capable of unlawful use. Your argument is exactly the same as saying that because I have a gun I might use it to rob a bank or kill someone I don't like. Come back to me after it is shown that the thing is being knowingly used in violation of the 4th without warrants, PC, consent or anything else which may provide legal justification. Just as you'd take my gun away from me after I use it unlawfully.

That's stupid. Law enforcement agencies are publicly funded organizations empowered with enforcement privileges by the public. Asking them to justify their expenses and their technologies is nothing even remotely like asking a private citizen to justify theirs.

If they're using the equipment for legal purposes, they can and absolutely should be held accountable for it. They can describe exactly what they're using them for. And if they're not, chances are better than good that they're using them for illegal or questionable purposes that should be subject to public review.

[ZEZOZE]

so you're what- expecting them to be using it for illegal reasons and think they should state them...lol.

could it be to make for better legal searches? is that possible?


the federation scans and it loves everybody equally.

[California Tanker]

Asking them to justify their expenses and their technologies is nothing even remotely like asking a private citizen to justify theirs.

I have no problem with asking a government body to justify their expenses. What are they going to use it for, is it a suitable use for the scarce financial resources.

That is a far cry, however, from immediate outrage at feared pending Constitutional violations. Note, for example, that nowhere does the article claim that the 500 DHS vans are going to be unmarked.

Law enforcement on the other hand has a history of violating the 4th amendment, especially when no one is around to stop them

They also, on occasion, have also used their equipment within legal means and secured convictions.

Still doesn't explain city/state/county LE buying them

Not just border checkpoints, though that would certainly be a valid use. Entry to any location which may be brought under a restriction would be appropriate. A legal use would be any situation that a vehicle might be searched anyway, from the Agricultural Inspection stations that you hit at the California State Line through incidental searches brought about in the carrying out of a DUI checkpoint.

It's also a much safer way of conducting a manhunt than opening up the boot and hoping you get the first shot off.




NTM

[Ari]

How many violations do we need before we can get outraged? Why can't we, the public, use the same logic as the police when dealing with repeat offenders?

Let's say it's discovered that a murderous gang has purchased some explosives. Do we just ignore that purchase under the idea that they haven't exploded anyone yet, so maybe they won't?

I'm sure this technology will be used effectively and legally by many officers, however the government and law enforcement seems to act a lot like criminals, on the whole they don't seem to respect our rights until caught, at which point they search for better ways to not get caught.

[The Man]

The FBI is pressuring Google and Facebook to give them backdoors for wiretapping. If either of them comply I'm probably going to delete my accounts.

[California Tanker]

Let's say it's discovered that a murderous gang has purchased some explosives. Do we just ignore that purchase under the idea that they haven't exploded anyone yet, so maybe they won't?

Not at all. But neither do you prohibit them from purchasing them or start screaming about Constitutional violations. You keep an eye on them and once they do something illegal, you prosecute that individual or group of individuals which has broken the law.

If either of them comply I'm probably going to delete my accounts.

Do you own a telephone?

NTM

[lisarea]

Telephones are more a necessity than a Google or Facebook account. You pretty much need a phone to get or keep a job, to allow people to contact you in an emergency, to call 911, etc.

It's not unreasonable for someone to object to government overstepping such as wiretaps, but continue to use what is arguably an essential service, and stop using nonessential services that do the same or similar things.

[California Tanker]

It's not unreasonable for someone to object to government overstepping such as wiretaps, but continue to use what is arguably an essential service, and stop using nonessential services that do the same or similar things.

[Edit: I see you just said the same as me, upon re-reading]

Either the man objects to the concept of legal warranted taps into conversation (under whatever standard of authorisation) or he doesn't. Medium has little to do with it. If the objection is under any circumstances or grounds whatsoever, I submit he's being unreasonable.

NTM

[The Man]

Backdoors in Facebook and Google for the FBI to use at whim are not warranted breaches of privacy, no matter how legal they are. No one who's even remotely familiar with the history of the the FBI should have even the slightest doubt that they'd abuse such privileges, and I have no desire for any of my postings to be read by government agents. Neither email nor Facebook are essential services like the telephone is and if they become compromised, I will simply choose to take my Internet use elsewhere.

Yes, I have a telephone. Who doesn't? I oppose wiretapping of those as well, except in cases where a judge issues a warrant. Not coincidentally, not only has warrantless wiretapping been a routine occurrence but our Congress voted to immunise corporations from prosecution for it several years ago. I don't trust Congress, I don't trust the FBI, and I don't trust corporations. The fact that I continue to use a phone at all is mostly a matter of necessity.

[California Tanker]

OK, your rationale isn't 'wrong'. Certainly it's no skin off my nose if you want to use or not use the telephone, Google, Facebook or smoke signals to do your communication.

However, I also see absolutely nothing wrong with having the capacity to legally tap if the situation so warrants. We can argue as much as we like as to where exactly that 'warrant' line should lie, but even if that line is a unanimous opinion by all nine SCOTUS judges, and the signatures of the President, SecDHS, the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee and the head of the FBI, the mechanism shoud be there to allow it to be carried out.

NTM

[lisarea]

You have an inherent trust of authority, though, that many--probably most--Americans don't share.

Laws are not as black and white as you seem to see them. Laws and legal interpretations change over time, and things like the standards for obtaining a wiretapping order are always controversial, and always subject to abuses. So it's not unreasonable to object to an implementation--even a putatively legal one--of wiretapping technology.

And from another perspective, most enforcement agencies have histories of abusing their authority, of conducting outright illegal searches, and of questionably legal practices without sufficient oversight. So it's reasonable for someone to be wary of such agencies obtaining tools that would make those abuses easier, without sufficient oversight to ensure they're not being widely used for abuse.

Also, if you'd read the article, much of the concern over the backdoors is that they're exploitable by others as well. A backdoor is always a dangerous tool that is susceptible to being misused by someone other than those it was intended for.