Comments on: Cops in USA to drive around in pornoscannerwagons, covertly irradiating people and looking through their cars and clothes

By: Adrian Bankhead

Adrian Bankhead — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:06:00 +0000

write it in body paint all over your body…

By: Joseph Carder

Joseph Carder — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:28:00 +0000

As a porn producer I am offended that my product would be associated with these liberty-stealing bandits. At least the people who work for me KNOW they’re being photographed naked.

By: Michael Kuhl

Michael Kuhl — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:38:00 +0000

It is simple, get in front of this piece of crap van and slam on the brakes. They will be at fault and they will have to replace a VERY EXPENSIVE VEHICLE and EQUIPMENT.

By: stretchoutandwait

stretchoutandwait — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 02:23:00 +0000

or just oscillating wildly

By: John C. Randolph

John C. Randolph — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:21:00 +0000

The only silver lining I can see here is that the assholes in the van are likely to get cancer from the radiation exposure.

By: John C. Randolph

John C. Randolph — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:18:00 +0000

So, how do I print “get a warrant, you motherfucking jackbooted thug” on the side of my car in a way that’s clearly visible to the pornoscanner operator, but not to the unaided eye?

By: Kl-0

Kl-0 — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:59:00 +0000

Hi Acree, I respectfully disagree with your understanding of the 4th Amendment in this context. While I do agree that generally if someone has contraband in plain sight, then the state actor (police, or whomever) may seize the item without a warrant if they already have lawful access to that item (lots of complicated examples, an easy one is if police have a warrant for a person’s arrest, which allows them to enter, but not search the arresstee’s home. While there, they see an illegal item in plain view next to the arresstee).
If the police do not have lawful access to the item, then they may use the observation in a “probable cause affidavit” (although different jurisdictions call this different things) in support of granting a warrant (Again, tons of exceptions here, but not worth getting into really) -I believe this is the sort of thing you are talking about. However, in an instance where a state actor is using some kind of high-tech tomfoollery to see items which are not in “plain sight”, but are subjectively understood by the person carrying the item to be not displayed to the world, and that expectation or understanding is objectively reasonable, then using the high-tech doodad constitutes a search for 4th Amendment purposes. So, yea, if a person is driving down the road with something illegal in their hands, and an officer sees it because it is poking out the window, then the item would be subject to the plain view doctrine (and the officer could discuss seeing in his application for a warrant). If the illegal item was not exposed to plain view, and was only detected by the police because of the x-ray future device, then the the observation would not be a valid basis for the support of probable cause (ie. the officer could not use his knowledge, which was improperly obtained, to support the issuance of a warrant). This is all part of the “fruit of the poisounous tree” doctrine, which was created to keep state actors from doing shady stuff like x-raying everyone all the time, and similar unlawful searches without using a warrant (administrative searches aside).

Honestly, in my view this (and the Miranda rulings) are actually one of the more clear and understandable Supreme Court decisions regarding federal criminal procedure. I would be figuratively shocked if this problem (x-ray vans in public) even made it on to a crim law exam, much less into actual use(under current law anyways).

Finally, in case if it is not already obvious, I am discussing these issues extremely generally, and there are a variety of exceptions and so forth that are super interesting, but probably not appropriate in this forum.

By: austinhamman

austinhamman — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:35:00 +0000

sarcasm…

By: redesigned

redesigned — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:26:00 +0000

2 questions:

1. what is the range, do these look into people’s homes/houes as well?

2. does this mean google street view is getting an x-ray mode? :-)

By: penguinchris

penguinchris — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:36:00 +0000

Yep… the other people laughed, but I felt sick to the stomach when he said that!

By: penguinchris

penguinchris — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:36:00 +0000

Nothing you can do about it when they’re holding you at the border. Don’t travel to the US even by passing through Canada first.

By: EH

EH — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:57:00 +0000

Meanwhile, people get arrested for taking pictures of police officers in public.

By: donovan acree

donovan acree — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:13:00 +0000

While it cant be used as evidence in court, the observations of the operators can be used as evidence of possible wrong doing in order to obtain a warrant.

By: donovan acree

donovan acree — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:11:00 +0000

^ doesn’t know if this is sarcasm or if austinhamman doesn’t know we actually have been in a constant state of war since WWII.

By: euansmith

euansmith — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:53:00 +0000

“There are men in unmarked vans driving around town, irradiating your children and perving at their naked little bodies… time for a lynchin’!”

By: Sasha@librtee

Sasha@librtee — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 17:20:00 +0000

I’ve met a few people like this guy in the video: so totally immersed in what they are doing, that they are unable to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

By: Alan Bellows

Alan Bellows — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:15:00 +0000

Sloppy jalopy?

By: AwesomeRobot

AwesomeRobot — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:26:00 +0000

No, no I’m not Fidel Castro, I’m… uh… Raul Castrol. Yeah, that’s a name.

By: Matt Katz

Matt Katz — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:06:00 +0000

In the forbes comments,I was pleased to see someone question what right the ANSI had to determine what are safe levels of radiation.

By: Warren Grant

Warren Grant — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:04:00 +0000

And if they are scanning crowds of protesters they will likely wave any safety considerations in the interest of “security” right? I mean if you protest anything the government does who cares what happens to you down the road.
I sincerely hope someone can get this sort of tech banned before new forms of cancer are discovered in the first people who get hit with this stuff unknowingly.

By: Warren Grant

Warren Grant — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:57:00 +0000

Nah, I want underwear that clearly reads “F*** YOU!” when scanned by xray tech like this, but is otherwise invisible to anyone else :)

By: catherinecc

catherinecc — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:52:00 +0000

Just use a microwave oven with the side cut off. It’s not like the electronics will be shielded.

By: jackie31337

jackie31337 — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:55:00 +0000

It’s been done: http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html

By: Michael Smith

Michael Smith — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:52:00 +0000

Makes me wonder if (like a smoke detector) it uses a small radioisotope source as a way to analyze body fluids. A bit like a tiny gas chromatograph. If so, then external radiation could mess with the way the insulin pump works.

By: Michael Smith

Michael Smith — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:48:00 +0000

I don’t want to be within 1000 metres of an X-Ray which can see through metallic body panels.

By: catastrophegirl .

catastrophegirl . — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:50:00 +0000

not true. the manufacturer of my insulin pump says keep it away from magnetics and xrays, including backscatter. i wear the same model pump as a teenaged girl who made the news when the TSA broke her pump by scanning it. it affects the calibration in possibly fatal ways

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:25:00 +0000

deleted

By: Jonel Burge

Jonel Burge — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:07:00 +0000

There’s actually “pornoscanner pasties” :
http://www.flyingpasties.com/

By: p96

p96 — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 03:55:00 +0000

Look for these vans at your next protest march. Suspicious objects on people, another reason to crack some skulls.

If the authorities really want to look at my little guy all they need to do is legalize public nudity. It’ll cost much less than these vans.

By: p96

p96 — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 03:44:00 +0000

http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/