• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

NYC using X-Ray vans

Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,148
Likes
70
Location
Florida
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Well, even Orwell couldn't have seen this one coming. If true (and the source is not a conspiracy site of the Alex Jones ilk and does tend to vet its sources), this is very bad mojo in my view. Would seem be be stretching the legality and Constitutionality of surveillance in public spaces. The obvious concern of X-ray radiation, however low level it may be, is not the same as passive video and or audio. Used only for specific applications where warranted, or randomly among the population? The bold is what I find most disturbing...

The NYPD Is Using Mobile X-Ray Vans to Spy on Unknown Targets

Dystopian truth is stranger than dystopian fiction.

In New York City, the police now maintain an unknown number of military-grade vans outfitted with X-ray radiation, enabling cops to look through the walls of buildings or the sides of trucks. The technology was used in Afghanistan before being loosed on U.S. streets. Each X-ray van costs an estimated $729,000 to $825,000.

The NYPD will not reveal when, where, or how often they are used.

“I will not talk about anything at all about this,” New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton told a journalist for the New York Post who pressed for details on the vans. “It falls into the range of security and counter-terrorism activity that we engage in.”

He added that “they’re not used to scan people for weapons.”

Here are some specific questions that New York City refuses to answer:

How is the NYPD ensuring that innocent New Yorkers are not subject to harmful X-ray radiation?
How long is the NYPD keeping the images that it takes and who can look at them?
Is the NYPD obtaining judicial authorization prior to taking images, and if so, what type of authorization?
Is the technology funded by taxpayer money, and has the use of the vans justified the price tag?

Those specifics are taken from a New York Civil Liberties Union court filing. The legal organization is seeking to assist a lawsuit filed by Pro Publica journalist Michael Grabell, who has been fighting New York City for answers about X-ray vans for 3 years.

Cont:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-unknown-targets/411181/?utm_source=SFTwitter
 
Some are claiming it's simply old tech (Backscatter x-ray trucks) as used in at ports and border control facilities (see below) But:

(1) NYC is neither a port or border control facility (2) the article indicates these are not typical Backscatter x-ray trucks. It’s quite possible, the source has it wrong and they are indeed old tech used as they are at port or border control facility, but article seems to indicate otherwise to me.

Therein seems to be the major issue. Why would a court case be required to simply find out if a warrant is issued? The (alleged) secrecy and (supposed) refusal of NYC to answer any Qs is what's obviously getting people all worked up over it. They don't have to divulge OPSEC, but they shouldn't have to be sued to find out the other Qs listed above in the OP. Would seem very simple and easy to clear that up, and their refusal to do so (3 years) only leads to rummer and tin foil hat stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good old fashioned consent-less search, brought to you by the NYPD.

They promise not to use them for evil, but refuse to tell you what they'll be used for, when/where/how/why they'll be used. I know it's city not federal, but: Most. Transparent. Administration. Evar.
 
Seems like they could just drive down anyone's street and see if they had any items of interest in their residence???
 
Time to ramp up the Glock 7 production.
[video=youtube_share;ecwK3UMxoxQ]http://youtu.be/ecwK3UMxoxQ[/video]
 
(1) NYC is neither a port or border control facility

There is a major port (and therefore a CBP facility) in NYC.

This tech is used at every port in the nation, but its used by CBP to scan commercial imports, not local police for other law enforcement purposes.

Like everything else, it is claimed anti-terrorism activity and is funded by the federal gov.

Any use by NYPD would be outside of this function, unless local PDs are helping CBP, but that is doubtful.
 
Is this a dupe?!? For some reason I feel like this was already discussed and we concluded this is in violation with the 4th.
 
Have a little thyroid cancer, no charge.
Courtesy or the NYPD.
Karma would be if they find out down the line the shielding in those things was sub standard.
Sorry to tell you this son, but you know the couple of years you spent violating other folks privacy?, well....
 
There is a major port (and therefore a CBP facility) in NYC.

The city has a major port, which is not the same as NYC being a port.

This tech is used at every port in the nation, but its used by CBP to scan commercial imports, not local police for other law enforcement purposes.

That appears to have changed...hence the case, article. etc. Likely something like:




Like everything else, it is claimed anti-terrorism activity and is funded by the federal gov.

Any use by NYPD would be outside of this function, unless local PDs are helping CBP, but that is doubtful.

You might be right, but their being unwilling to answer any Qs on their use is why people are upset, and also leads to tin foil hat activity and such.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That appears to have changed...hence the case, article. etc.

Yet the article cannot sight any example of this technology being used for anything besides its normal purpose of scanning commercial imports.

Seems like a bunch of BS to rile up the tin foilers to me.
 
Yet the article cannot sight any example of this technology being used for anything besides its normal purpose of scanning commercial imports.

.

That's because they refuse to to give any info on how they are used, etc. If they are being used for typical " normal purpose of scanning commercial imports" and such, why not say so? Hence, the refusal to give even basic info is what causes the tin foil hat assumptions to be made and worst case scenarios assumed. The actual court doc is linked at the article if you want more details vs the summary of the article. It's telling in my view. Your mileage may vary.
 
Back
Top Bottom