Backscatter Vans -- Coming To Your Neighborhood Soon?

[Drachasor]

I think the name may be a reference to the property of seeing through layers more than the spectrum of the energy source. Until I see a better explanation of how these things actually work, i'll continue to go by what i've dug up so far. If it was actually using x-rays, I would have expected someone to have gone through security with an x-ray dosimeter and report what the exposure is.

It's like 1/200000 of a CT scan. It's crazy small. That's on the ones using x-rays.

I'm not sure what the ones using high frequency radio waves are like, but since there's no way in heck a radio wave can damage you it is kind of moot.

 

[Kaylee]

I think the name may be a reference to the property of seeing through layers more than the spectrum of the energy source. Until I see a better explanation of how these things actually work, i'll continue to go by what i've dug up so far. If it was actually using x-rays, I would have expected someone to have gone through security with an x-ray dosimeter and report what the exposure is.

Rapiscan is one of the manufacturers of the backscatter machines.

Here's a quote from their web page describing one of their backscatter machines model "Secure 1000":

The Secure 1000 bounces very low energy x-rays off of a person to generate an image.

There is no doubt that the backscatter machines uses x-rays.

FWIW, there's another competitive technology used in airport screenings that also produces whole body images called millimeter wave scanners. Per Wiki, the millimeter wave scanner uses a frequency just below the THz.

However, millimeter wave scanners are not ionizing and AFAIK does not pose any health risks. They do pose the same 4th amendment issues as backscatter machines though.

ETA: Drachasor types faster than me. More concisely too. But I'm not gonna delete my post.

 

[Drachasor]

However, millimeter wave scanners are not ionizing and AFAIK does not pose any health risks. They do pose the same 4th amendment issues as backscatter machines though.

You're getting thousands of times more ionizing radiation taking a flight than from a backscatter scanner. There are no issues.

 

[Kaylee]

You're getting thousands of times more ionizing radiation taking a flight than from a backscatter scanner. There are no issues.

I plan on starting a thread in the Science Forum about that. I'd like to discuss the conflicting opinions. But in a day or two -- its waaay past my bed time.
G'nite for now!

 

[Horatius]

Given the fact that scattered radiation can come away from the scattering object in any direction, I'm curious how they can get any detail out of this kind of system. We do it fairly easily with scattered light because we can focus light, but there aren't lenses for X-rays; a lead cover with a pinhole would be as good as an optical pinhole, though.

Actually, there are lots of newer "x-ray optics" devices that act as lenses, and other optical devices, based on designs like the Kumakhov lens. The usually rely on x-ray reflection at a high incidence angle instead of refraction as in visible light optics, but with good design, they can produce almost all the same optical effects.

You can see a few patents for these backscatter devices at the Google Patents website:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=o-IVAAAAEBAJ&dq=backscatter+x-ray+imaging

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=9tMAAAAAEBAJ&dq=backscatter+x-ray+imaging

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3bSnAAAAEBAJ&dq=backscatter+x-ray+imaging

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XkwSAAAAEBAJ&dq=backscatter+x-ray+imaging


Notice that they all use a scanning beam of x-rays, so that the backscatter signal is coming from a known area of the target. They build up an image over time, instead of exposing a large area detector in a single exposure.

 

[Modified]

One possible solution:
_{(Ye Olde Tinfoille Hatte)}​

From the images on the AS&E website, it seems that won't work. Where can I buy lead foil?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, there was Kyllo v United States where the Supreme Court said the use of infrared cameras to search a house for drugs was unconstitutional.

Best part of the case: 5-4 decision

Majority Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

 

[Aepervius]

Such truck have been used for quite a long time here, on the highway from other countries, to scan for contraband. *shrug*. Not sure where the panic is here.

ETA: and they make sure there is no exposure of the drivers.

ETAETA: actually scratch that, those are real x ray truck device, not backscatter. Disregard my post.

 

[Aepervius]

You're getting thousands of times more ionizing radiation taking a flight than from a backscatter scanner. There are no issues.

There are actually conflicting opinion on that, the normal cosmic ray or x ray radiation exposure being calculated on whole body volume, but backs-scatter primarily affecting the skin surface, thus having a huge miscalculation of the real dosis by the TSA, by dividing a huge volume where in reality it should be a small one thus making the real dosis many factor higher.

 

[Fnord]

Does this thread have anything to do with pulsed 3.6THz quantum cascade lasers and synchronous microbolometer imaging arrays?

No, and it has nothing to do with the HAARP project or the Schumann Resonance, either.

 

[Cuddles]

there aren't lenses for X-rays

Yes there are.

You're getting thousands of times more ionizing radiation taking a flight than from a backscatter scanner. There are no issues.

It depends. Sure, if you only get scanned when you go flying then the dose from the scanning is insignificant. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily safe to have scanners all over the place constantly looking at everyone who walks past, since that could quickly add up to a significant dose.

 

[Shrike]

Oh God, nobody tell INRM...

 

[Drachasor]

There are actually conflicting opinion on that, the normal cosmic ray or x ray radiation exposure being calculated on whole body volume, but backs-scatter primarily affecting the skin surface, thus having a huge miscalculation of the real dosis by the TSA, by dividing a huge volume where in reality it should be a small one thus making the real dosis many factor higher.

Anything has to go through the skin surface. Even if you multiply the backscatters by a factor of 8 to compensate, you don't get a problem.

It depends. Sure, if you only get scanned when you go flying then the dose from the scanning is insignificant. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily safe to have scanners all over the place constantly looking at everyone who walks past, since that could quickly add up to a significant dose.

I agree filling the planet with backscatter scanners would be bad. AFAIK, that's not what they plan on doing. They'll be placed on a small number of key locations. That said, the radio-based FBS scanners seem like the better way to go generally.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm telling the government what I tell everybody: if they really want to see me naked that badly, they need to either take me out for a nice dinner or go ahead and pay the $14.95 membership to my website. Investing in lasers or whatever is simply ridiculous.

Hmm. I am struck with an idea. How about, as a form of protest, everyone who objects to these things sends anonymous photographs of their naughties to the TSA or Homeland Security or whoever? Once they get a few million in the mail they may change their minds about all of this.

 

[Horatius]

Hmm. I am struck with an idea. How about, as a form of protest, everyone who objects to these things sends anonymous photographs of their naughties to the TSA or Homeland Security or whoever? Once they get a few million in the mail they may change their minds about all of this.

I'm thinking of starting a movement among fat people and ugly people (and if you're fat and ugly, you're even better!) to "take one for the team" and insist on getting the rub-down searches whenever they travel.


I figure it would only be a matter of time before parody becomes reality.

 

[AvalonXQ]

We all like laws, and we all want the laws enforced, but there seems to be a point at which we say " this law is being enforced too well.". Corrupt people will use this technology for corrupt reasons and non corrupt people will use it for non corrupt reasons. To blame the technology for being good at its job is just silly.

As far as the radiation, that is a separate issue, but the ongoing trend of people to say " The law can't have the best technology available." , is something i find silly. Don't like a law? Work to change it. That may mean Dr. Smith will have to risk his career actually vocally supporting legalizing pot, instead of buying it on the side and hoping no one finds out. But isn't that the way the law should work?

I think that having "elbow room" where minor violations of laws are not detected is a good thing -- it gives people some opportunity to experiment with other ways of doing things than the law currently allows for, which can be a first step to modifying or changing a law.

 

[WildCat]

Oh God, nobody tell INRM...

INRM actually started a thread on this several months ago IIRC.

 

[Drachasor]

Well, there was Kyllo v United States where the Supreme Court said the use of infrared cameras to search a house for drugs was unconstitutional.

Best part of the case: 5-4 decision

Majority Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

Exactly, which is why they'd need a warrant for any sort of street-level scanner. I think people are overreacting.

This technology just gives the authorities the capability to move a scanner into an area where needed and justified.

 

[Kaylee]

I figure it would only be a matter of time before parody becomes reality.

Fat man wears kilt; goes regimental:

Officer Gill (again folks, he was a young’un) probably had no idea that most men in kilts are almost always wearing it regimental. His was a lesson that ended in a combination of metaphorical tears and probable gay panic. No sooner had the back of his hand hit the crease of my thigh (and he realized what his palm was cradling by default), his hand dropped to my ankle with near-light speed. He paused a moment. I could see the storm of trauma churning in his eyes, having accidentally felt up a fat man.

 

[Kaylee]

Exactly, which is why they'd need a warrant for any sort of street-level scanner. I think people are overreacting.

This technology just gives the authorities the capability to move a scanner into an area where needed and justified.

From FoxNews article (Oct. 22, 2010) , includes slideshow from ride along in Elizabeth, NJ.
Reporter didn't mention any search warrants ....

[ed. bold]Chaffetz [ed. Utah Congressman], who is working on legislation aimed at limiting the use of the backscatter body scanners in airports, says the vans need restrictions.

"There's an appropriate use for these machines -- at ports for instance, coming across the border and inspecting vehicles, hostage situations. But[ed. bold] the company that develops these vans says they've sold more than 500 of these roving vans and I don't know who's purchased them," he said. "I think we need to know."

But it's hard to know exactly who owns ZBVs (ed., American Science and Engineering, Inc's model name for their backscatter van aka as Z Backscatter Van), because AS&E has never fully disclosed its buyers.

"Due to the highly sensitive nature of the markets that our products serve, AS&E respects the individual requests of our customers to be confidential," the company says on its website.

In a June 2009 press release the company said it sold 400 ZBVs to 85 customers in 46 countries. The company has since raised that number to 500, saying some of those purchases are now going to local U.S. law enforcement agencies.

A search of the site and additional company press releases showed that its clients include:

- U.S. Customs and Border Protection
- U.S. Transportation Security Administration
- U.S. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
- U.S. Department of Defense, including U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Marines
- North Atlantic Treaty Organization
- Royal Thai Police
- HM Customs & Excise (U.K.)
- New Zealand Customs Service
- Hong Kong Customs
- Singapore's Immigration and Checkpoints Authority
- National Customs Agency of Bulgaria

Other releases are more vague, however, identifying the purchasers only as "the U.S government," a "Latin American customs agency," an "international government agency," "U.S. law enforcement officials," a "South American government," a "Middle Eastern country," a "Middle Eastern government," a "Middle East government agency," a "Middle East law enforcement agency," a "South American law enforcement agency," a "new African customer," a "European Union (EU) and an Asia Pacific (APAC) client," and a "Middle Eastern customer."

That ambiguity has Chaffetz worried.

"In a hostage situation you want to be able to peer into the house, I buy that," Chaffetz said. "But in the hands of a private individual? That scares the living daylights out of me.

<snip>

[ed. bold] FoxNews.com asked police departments in the Department of Homeland Security's five highest-ranked terror risk areas -- New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Chicago -- if they use ZBVs. The New York Police Department confirmed it does but wouldn't say how.

"Yes, we do utilize this technology; however, we're unable to divulge any specifics of the use due to confidentiality concerns," Det. Cheryl Crispin of the NYPD told FoxNews.com.

San Francisco PD said they do not use the vans. The other departments did not respond.

[ed. bold]Constitution Attorney Noel Francisco says most, if not all, 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.

"If you take this thing and point it at somebody's house or point it at somebody's car, you're engaging in a search of that individual," Francisco said. "You can't do that without a warrant or probable cause."

But since it's virtually impossible to detect a ZBV search, Francisco said the law would be harder to enforce, raising the need for more guidelines.

"It's certainly very useful for certain types of things, like anti-terror detection, but we may want to put into place some kind of guidelines on where and when they can use that. Much like wiretapping," he said.

Another issue with the machines is their potential health hazards.

"So long as a person is somewhere away, like tens of feet, the dose isn't that high, it's very, very low indeed," Arizona State University Professor Peter Rez, an expert in radiation physics, told FoxNews.com. But if a person were to walk next to the van while it was scanning, Rez said, "Then I would start getting worried."

<snip>

[ed. bold]Rez says one of his students reported using a ZBV at the U.N. while he was serving in the military.

"It was a secondary screening mechanism for trucks going into a loading dock, but it was on a public street and they were just scanning people and nobody was being told this was going on," Rez told FoxNews.com. [ed. bold]"That kind of shocked me. …I think they're being used in a more widespread manner than people would have one believe."

tl;dr version: read the parts in bold