3 ms·

This made me wonder if it was illegal to bombard people with x-rays? If I had an x-ray emitter gun of some sort, and I walked around blasting people with unhea

by narkee 15y ago

This made me wonder if it was illegal to bombard people with x-rays? If I had an x-ray emitter gun of some sort, and I walked around blasting people with unhealthy doses of ionizing radiation without their knowledge (it would be silent and unnoticeable), how would I get caught and what would I be prosecuted with? I feel like it's not too difficult for someone today to build something like that and walk around terrorizing people...

Cushman 15y ago
Well, assuming you can afford competent representation... It would be next to impossible to link any particular case of injury to any particular action on your part, so you would quite likely avoid arrest forever and probably be acquitted if it came to trial. You would technically expose yourself to a massive amount of civil liability, but if you could make the argument that many other people are going around doing the same thing, you would wind up paying for a very small share of the damage that you caused. Outside of specific laws passed to punish your specific behavior, you probably get off more or less scott free. Of course, it has never been difficult to terrorize people like this, and what you're imagining is small potatoes. Just build a big building which does this on a daily basis for decades. We call it "pollution", and mostly shrug it off as the cost of progress.
- joeguilmette 15y ago
  Do you, by chance, work for Lucasfilm?
  - WalterGR 15y ago
    I doubt it. Why do you ask? I don't understand.
    - joeguilmette 15y ago
      Oops, meant to reply to Cushman, who has no contact info in his profile.
      - Cushman 15y ago
        Oh, that was a serious question? I assumed it was a reference I didn't get :P No, I do not work for Lucasfilm.
- drewcrawford 15y ago
  This is an absurd reply. Just for starters, it has actually happened, the actor has been convicted, and it was held up on appeal. http://www.uscg.mil/legal/cca/court_of_criminal_appeals_opinions/CalendarYears1997through1999/19970605%20United%20States%20v.%20Madigar,%2046%20M.J.%20802.pdf http://www.uscg.mil/legal/cca/court_of_criminal_appeals_opin...
  - Cushman 15y ago
    Eh, I appreciate the link, but I don't really see the connection. Aside from the common theme of radiation exposure, what you posted involves a medical technician performing unnecessary procedures on people. This makes it easy to demonstrate a) that the exposure occurred, b) that the tech knew the effect of the machine and that the procedure was unwarranted, and subsequently c)that his intention in doing this was to harm the victims, or something similarly sinister. It wasn't part of that appeal, but there's also the issue that he did this by taking x-ray images of women's bodies, and I'd imagine a large part of the conviction came from we really don't want a weirdo in the hospital getting off on x-raying female patients. Never mind that it was a court-martial, and that he was convicted of multiple counts of drug use and dereliction of duty at the same time. All in all, it has very little in common with our hypothetical, in which one invisibly, untraceably exposes members of the public at large to some unknown dose of ionizing radiation over a period of time. And you've really done nothing to address my observation that, in reality, people get away with that all the time in the form of environmental contamination. We can prove he ate the fish, we can prove he died of cancer, we can prove you're putting cancer in the water. That's just not enough to convict you for his death-- the worst you'll face is a stiff fine under a law that exists only to impose a stiff fine if you put cancer in the water and somebody dies.
VladRussian 15y ago
>how would I get caught lets hope that in post 9/11 world dosimeters are deployed at various important (i hope it includes "crowded with normal people") places. >what would I be prosecuted with? >walk around terrorizing people... seems like you answered your own question. >feel like it's not too difficult for someone today to build something like that your old CRT ("cathode ray tube") TV/monitor :)
nextparadigms 15y ago
"terrorizing people" - That's basically the basic definition of what a terrorist does. And whoever the original terrorists were, they've have succeeded in making the US Government "terrorize" its own people. This is just the beginning. I have a feeling the worst is yet to come. USA used to be the place where everyone wanted to come. I think more and more people will try to stay out of USA when they see measures like these implemented to mass-control their own population.
- hrktb 15y ago
  Completely agree, and that's becoming one of my pet peeves. I like to keep in mind that the "original" terrorists were a government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    Just stumbled onto this article here, which is even more terrifying, and yet I've already believed at least half of what he's saying was true: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/01/the-truth-about-the-national-defense-authorization-act/ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/01/the-truth-about-the-...
- easp 15y ago
  Yes, now some of the worst abuses of the past 10 years are becoming enshrined in law, creating a new-normal they can push the boundaries on. I'd like to think the constitution would keep things in check, but I see no sign the Supreme Court will go very far in checking these abuses of the bill of rights. So discouraging.
andrewpi 15y ago
You could be charged with battery.
- sneak 15y ago
  It's more cost effective to be charged from the wall outlet.
  - opendomain 15y ago
    Why is this marked down? I literally laughed out loud when I read this. I come to HN for Tech, but a little humor is OK
dotBen 15y ago
Sadly, there is a flaw in your argument in that you are not (I presume) a law enforcement officer/similar. Law enforcement, DOD and other similar agencies are always going to have rights that normal citizens don't have. Whether they should have the right to bombard you with ionizing radiation with your knowledge or permission is a good question, but you can't argue that it is wrong because ordinary citizens can't do this legally.
- zotz 15y ago
  "Law enforcement, DOD and other similar agencies are always going to have rights that normal citizens don't have." I'd nitpick here and say that there's a world of difference between rights and powers, whether those powers are legitimate or otherwise. They don't have the right to bombard us. They do have the power.
  - dotBen 15y ago
    That's fair enough I guess. I'm a non-citizen so the distinction between a right and a power is of little difference to me. A power can only be revoked by a citizen, and I'm not one.
libria 15y ago
Reminds me of the Soviet Union's incessant microwave bombardment of the US Embassy in Moscow. Presumably it was intended to eavesdrop via the "Great Seal Bug" but as a possible side effect, US embassy personnel suffered from a high cancer rate (e.g., Thompson, Bohlen, Stoessel). Street X-raying may not be as prolonged, but for it to be effective in a drive-by, I imagine they may have to crank up the intensity.

by narkee 15y ago

Cushman 15y ago

Well, assuming you can afford competent representation... It would be next to impossible to link any particular case of injury to any particular action on your part, so you would quite likely avoid arrest forever and probably be acquitted if it came to trial. You would technically expose yourself to a massive amount of civil liability, but if you could make the argument that many other people are going around doing the same thing, you would wind up paying for a very small share of the damage that you caused. Outside of specific laws passed to punish your specific behavior, you probably get off more or less scott free. Of course, it has never been difficult to terrorize people like this, and what you're imagining is small potatoes. Just build a big building which does this on a daily basis for decades. We call it "pollution", and mostly shrug it off as the cost of progress.

joeguilmette 15y ago
Do you, by chance, work for Lucasfilm?
- WalterGR 15y ago
  I doubt it. Why do you ask? I don't understand.
  - joeguilmette 15y ago
    Oops, meant to reply to Cushman, who has no contact info in his profile.
    - Cushman 15y ago
      Oh, that was a serious question? I assumed it was a reference I didn't get :P No, I do not work for Lucasfilm.
drewcrawford 15y ago
This is an absurd reply. Just for starters, it has actually happened, the actor has been convicted, and it was held up on appeal. http://www.uscg.mil/legal/cca/court_of_criminal_appeals_opinions/CalendarYears1997through1999/19970605%20United%20States%20v.%20Madigar,%2046%20M.J.%20802.pdf http://www.uscg.mil/legal/cca/court_of_criminal_appeals_opin...
- Cushman 15y ago
  Eh, I appreciate the link, but I don't really see the connection. Aside from the common theme of radiation exposure, what you posted involves a medical technician performing unnecessary procedures on people. This makes it easy to demonstrate a) that the exposure occurred, b) that the tech knew the effect of the machine and that the procedure was unwarranted, and subsequently c)that his intention in doing this was to harm the victims, or something similarly sinister. It wasn't part of that appeal, but there's also the issue that he did this by taking x-ray images of women's bodies, and I'd imagine a large part of the conviction came from we really don't want a weirdo in the hospital getting off on x-raying female patients. Never mind that it was a court-martial, and that he was convicted of multiple counts of drug use and dereliction of duty at the same time. All in all, it has very little in common with our hypothetical, in which one invisibly, untraceably exposes members of the public at large to some unknown dose of ionizing radiation over a period of time. And you've really done nothing to address my observation that, in reality, people get away with that all the time in the form of environmental contamination. We can prove he ate the fish, we can prove he died of cancer, we can prove you're putting cancer in the water. That's just not enough to convict you for his death-- the worst you'll face is a stiff fine under a law that exists only to impose a stiff fine if you put cancer in the water and somebody dies.

VladRussian 15y ago

>how would I get caught lets hope that in post 9/11 world dosimeters are deployed at various important (i hope it includes "crowded with normal people") places. >what would I be prosecuted with? >walk around terrorizing people... seems like you answered your own question. >feel like it's not too difficult for someone today to build something like that your old CRT ("cathode ray tube") TV/monitor :)

nextparadigms 15y ago

"terrorizing people" - That's basically the basic definition of what a terrorist does. And whoever the original terrorists were, they've have succeeded in making the US Government "terrorize" its own people. This is just the beginning. I have a feeling the worst is yet to come. USA used to be the place where everyone wanted to come. I think more and more people will try to stay out of USA when they see measures like these implemented to mass-control their own population.

hrktb 15y ago
Completely agree, and that's becoming one of my pet peeves. I like to keep in mind that the "original" terrorists were a government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Just stumbled onto this article here, which is even more terrifying, and yet I've already believed at least half of what he's saying was true: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/01/the-truth-about-the-national-defense-authorization-act/ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/01/the-truth-about-the-...
easp 15y ago
Yes, now some of the worst abuses of the past 10 years are becoming enshrined in law, creating a new-normal they can push the boundaries on. I'd like to think the constitution would keep things in check, but I see no sign the Supreme Court will go very far in checking these abuses of the bill of rights. So discouraging.

andrewpi 15y ago

You could be charged with battery.

sneak 15y ago
It's more cost effective to be charged from the wall outlet.
- opendomain 15y ago
  Why is this marked down? I literally laughed out loud when I read this. I come to HN for Tech, but a little humor is OK

dotBen 15y ago

Sadly, there is a flaw in your argument in that you are not (I presume) a law enforcement officer/similar. Law enforcement, DOD and other similar agencies are always going to have rights that normal citizens don't have. Whether they should have the right to bombard you with ionizing radiation with your knowledge or permission is a good question, but you can't argue that it is wrong because ordinary citizens can't do this legally.

zotz 15y ago
"Law enforcement, DOD and other similar agencies are always going to have rights that normal citizens don't have." I'd nitpick here and say that there's a world of difference between rights and powers, whether those powers are legitimate or otherwise. They don't have the right to bombard us. They do have the power.
- dotBen 15y ago
  That's fair enough I guess. I'm a non-citizen so the distinction between a right and a power is of little difference to me. A power can only be revoked by a citizen, and I'm not one.

libria 15y ago

Reminds me of the Soviet Union's incessant microwave bombardment of the US Embassy in Moscow. Presumably it was intended to eavesdrop via the "Great Seal Bug" but as a possible side effect, US embassy personnel suffered from a high cancer rate (e.g., Thompson, Bohlen, Stoessel). Street X-raying may not be as prolonged, but for it to be effective in a drive-by, I imagine they may have to crank up the intensity.