UK Police Test 'Temporarily Blinding' LASER 398
esocid writes "Called the SMU 100 it costs £25,000 and sends out a three-meter 'wall of light' that leaves anyone caught in it briefly unable to see. Designed by a former Royal Marine Commando, it was originally developed for use against pirates in Somalia. While tasers and CS gas work well over short distances the laser is said to be effective at up to 500 meters (1,640ft). Being targeted by the beam has been compared to staring into the sun before being forced to turn away. Paul Kerr, managing director of Clyde-based Photonic Security Systems, which came up with the design, said 'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.'"
What is with the UK and all this surveillance and (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy. Why does all these news always come from UK?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mostly because the other places that test this first don't let the reports out.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Interesting)
Normal civilians are prohibited from owning and using these devices ....?
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
It is worse than that. FTA:
Similar devices have already been used by British and American troops in Afghanistan to help protect convoys from attack.
It seems that "normal civilians" are now being treated no differently than your average throat-cutting, convoy robbing, wife-whuppin', goat-fucking Taliban Mujahedin* in the Iraq or the Afghanistan. Yay for Democracy, Freedom and other Western Values.
_____
* This image of the Taliban is based on post-Soviet era Western media portrayal. Before that the Mujahedin were brave, just, honest and peace-loving farmers who were badly abused by the Bloody KGB and only kept goats for the milk and the meat.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Its part of a pattern of using military weaponry against civilians. In The Battlefield Today? In Your Backyard Tomorrow.
The company's that produce these military weapons have fewer places to sell their products.
,Black and just generally different to their way of thinking people you have a ready made market for your products.
Stuff like fewer wars and more country's starting to sign up to and believe in Geneva conventions puts a dampener on things.
You know Peace can be a bit of a pain in the arse.
But do not worry when you have a nation , Insert god fearing christian nation here, thats freaked out by Musilm's
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy
Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. If the police aren't allowed to use this laser then they will have to shoot protesters. There is just no other way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They have guns in the UK?
I thought they only used those toy sticks and ran after people like in Benny Hill shows.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. If the police aren't allowed to use this laser then they will have to shoot protesters. There is just no other way.
Society under surveillance, blinded by the Met ... how much longer before V becomes reality?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering no other non-lethal has this range, and it is to be deployed by the military, yes this is an alternative to a bullet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not useful against protesters. The police use pepper spray on protestors to hurt and punish, not to protect themselves. A peaceful protestor siting with their arms linked can just close their eyes.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Insightful)
This. The police crack skulls and ask questions later. There was a recent eviction of travellers where one of them pushed a tazer through a fence and fired it blind, then kept pressing the trigger over and over again without seeing who he was electrocuting. Fortunately he missed and the needles landed in some earth, but we could easily have had another murder enquiry on our hands there.
Presumably if the police tried to assault you and in self defence you used some form of non-lethal weapon like a laser you would be set upon by his friends and eventually charged. Thugs join the police for this specific reason - they can kick the shit out of people for fun with almost total immunity, and even when they kill someone the ranks close and it gets covered up. It remains to be seen if the murder PC Hardwood will get away with it.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they're running for a train in London...
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that in the US, even if somone is shoting at the police, 9/10 times if they kill somone, they get fired.
Bullshit. Name one instance. Police are practically never punished for anything they do here. If you managed to find a single instance it would be one in a million. Although there are exceptions to every rule, the cops in the US are much, much worse than their UK counterparts. When I leave my house I am much more afraid of the police than I am of any criminals. Cops are far more dangerous and violent. And if they attack you they also throw you in jail and file false charges against you just for fun.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Informative)
You can find out how many people have been shot by police over the last 20 or so years here : http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody/police-shootings.
53 (about 2.6 a year). Compare that to other countries.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Interesting)
That article shows four fatalities in ten years. Four.
Nationwide.
Compare that with New York, where eight fatalities in one year is reported as a record low [nytimes.com]. And NY is one of the US's safer large cities nowadays - the numbers in Chicago or Los Angeles are way higher.
I defy you to even find any figures for nationwide police shootings in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me be the person that says it..
*WHOOSH!!*
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Insightful)
UK citizens should build their own and point them at all the cameras. Instant privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
However, when it's done from a kilometer away, how will they identify who hosed the cameras? People already walk up and burn them with tires, which seems decidedly more risky.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy
Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.
which means they will use this "harmless" weapon without hesitation in situations where they previously wouldn't use any more force than handcuffs. back when all they had was a gun and a baton they tended not to pull a weapon unless you did first. we've seen this now with pepper spray, tazers, etc. the less lethal they are the more quickly they get pulled out.
remember that asshole lieutenant cop who gleefully pepper sprayed lots of peaceful protestors at once? he could try to make an excuse for that, at least if he weren't caught on video being such a dick. he would have had no excuse for gunning down these unarmed people in cold blood. that would have resulted in him on trial for murder and selfish pricks like him look after "Number One" better than that. that's why he didn't use his gun. but now he has neat little "relatively harmless" pain-compliance type of weapons at his disposal that don't produce pesky dead bodies that must be explained away.
they are becoming less and less like peace officers and more and more like militarized thugs every day. this is what you want? more toys for them? if you weren't such a simpleton you would understand why new weapons like this make the situation worse, not better.
Re: (Score:3)
back when all they had was a gun and a baton they tended not to pull a weapon unless you did first. we've seen this now with pepper spray, tazers, etc. the less lethal they are the more quickly they get pulled out.
You must be talking about how it was in the UK or something, because here in the states they used to use bullets to break up riots, protests and strikes in the early 1900's. Back before there were non-lethal alternatives lethal methods were used, extensively.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:5, Informative)
Yet, you can clearly see the officer in the same video, going on the other side of the protester, walking over them casually without any difficulty, while waiving in his hand a can of pepper spray, just before spraying them.
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Informative)
Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention
The relevant international treaty would be the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons [wikipedia.org], but that only covers weapons that cause permanent blindness.
Re: (Score:3)
Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.
Though to be fair I would rather go blind the natural way 'as God intended'. Shaking the meat! Choking the bishop... etc
Re: (Score:3)
hi-tech human abuse?
Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy. Why does all these news always come from UK?
Dunno why they don't just use flashbulbs.
"Smile! You're under arrest!"
Does give a whole new meaning to Legally Blind, Blind Justice and Shedding a little light on the Crime.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dunno why they don't just use flashbulbs.
"Smile! You're under arrest!"
Does give a whole new meaning to Legally Blind, Blind Justice and Shedding a little light on the Crime.
No one wants to see a British smile.
'ere! 'e's got all 'is teeth sorted. Posh nob, 'e 'is. Give 'im an extra thump!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a (Score:4, Insightful)
Reflection? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reflection? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess this means mirrored sunglasses are going to make a comeback. Or did they already? I don't pay attention to fashion.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source."
I guess this means mirrored sunglasses are going to make a comeback. Or did they already? I don't pay attention to fashion.
Why, they'll be banned like the hoody!
'ere, e's wearin' mirrors an' a hoody. Bloody terrorist is what 'e is!
Re:Reflection? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source.
Source the to back (mirror?) reflect to way a out figure will someone sure I'm.
Re: (Score:3)
you know what they say: blindness in, blindness out
also, how much you wanna bet that if you DID turn a mirror on a cop using this, that you would be found guilty of a felony.
the state has rights now; citizens simply have to stay out of the state's way.
sort of a 'bulldozer concept'. get out of the way or get harmed.
this is what we have created and this is what our kids will inherit.
I weep for humanity, a lot, these days. I see all this ending very badly for us as a species.
Re: (Score:2)
or focus it back into the source.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source.
Yep. and make it a parabolic reflector at that. Increase the intensity many-fold.
Re: (Score:3)
Just wear eye protection. It's a bit like wearing a gas mask (assuming even that is legal nowadays, which I admit, is a longshot).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking more along the lines of sunglasses that work specifically at the frequencies put out by this device.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I was beginning to think the same thing.
The same weapons that are available to the police (and militairies) are generally available to the public.
There's only a certain amount of abuse you can hand to the general public at any protest or mass gathering. There's usually more protesters present than there are police. It wouldn't surprise me, if at some point the crowd turns on the police. Its only going to lead to serious injury and/or death. I'm surprised and glad that there has been restraint by the public.
Well now (Score:2)
If you can't please people: blind them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't please people: blind them.
Well, yeah, the Geneva Convention [wikipedia.org] doesn't apply to citizens, only enemy troops.
Seriously, though - the US is smashing protests with riot police and trying to do away with habeus corpus, the UK is turning blinding weapons on its citizens, the rest of Europe has a lit fuse in its fiscal powder keg - maybe "business as usual" has run its course.
Re: (Score:3)
It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision
Temporary != permanent. Which is why the US (and Britain) are already using these weapons in the field in combat.
Doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, just not a clear violation of basic human rights.
Re: (Score:3)
but that is what trials are for, so again we'll see.
Some of us will, some of us won't.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't please people: blind them.
Then there's collateral damage, the innocents caught in the line of fire sort of thing, as people cannot resist looking at an incident...
Nothing to see here, move on .. oh, right...
Day of the Triffids (Score:3)
I don't have a problem with this (Score:5, Funny)
Unless, of course, you're also going to be revved up like a deuce (or wrapped up like a douche).
Re: (Score:3)
as long as there's a bathroom on the right I'm OK with this!
Did you see the image? (Score:3)
Why does it look like a (laser) sniper rifle?
One thing not do do (Score:2)
What a waste! (Score:3)
Why not just project goatse images to make everyone close their eyes?
DD (Score:2)
New vital pirate gear... (Score:2)
Large mirror. Optionally, parabolic.
If you can't look at something you can't attack it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Flashbang = fire wildly in all directions.
Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack (Score:5, Insightful)
There's some sort of weird stupidity from the people buying these items for governments, so they believe all the hype about new gadgets, and don't ask what happens when the problem tries to route around it.
This is an excellent point. I mean forget about attacking the person who was pointing the weapon. Look at the big picture: Something terrible is wrong politically and a large mass of people are protesting it in a nonviolent way. You bring out your crowd control weapons. You disperse the protestors. Job done, right?
What do you think those people are going to do if you make nonviolent protesting unavailable? Thank you for your benevolence and then go home and give up? Forget all about the fact that they can't find a job and are heading for bankruptcy?
The protesters are not the problem. The protesters are the symptom. Fighting the symptom doesn't solve the problem. And not solving the problem will only give it enough time to turn into a disaster.
Glasses? (Score:2)
Is there any sort of eye protection for laser weapons like this that can be made inexpensively, for use by protesters and the like?
Something less unwieldy than welding glass, perhaps tuned to the laser's spectrum?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any sort of eye protection for laser weapons like this that can be made inexpensively, for use by protesters and the like?
Something less unwieldy than welding glass, perhaps tuned to the laser's spectrum?
Sure, I'm certain something can be made, but the instant this "weapon" turns into a Government contract, expect the price tag on that solution to increase by about 10,000%, so "inexpensively" kind of goes out the door...
Re: (Score:3)
This weapon will be ineffective against Dark Helmet.
Newest trend on Amazon (Score:2)
We'll see how long this lasts... (Score:3)
Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....
Re: (Score:3)
Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....
Eyes are a lot more durable than most people think. Even staring at the sun *won't* cause permanent damage, contrary to what your Mom may have told you. What it will do is give you a sunburn on your retina, and being somewhere you can neither get aloe on, or scratch or anything else... well, yeah, that'd suck. But it goes away. The sun isn't bright enough, nor the area of your iris large enough, to create enough heat to cause damage.
Re:We'll see how long this lasts... (Score:4, Insightful)
How many action movies have you seen lately? First of all, you would have to draw and pull up your mirror faster than the police fires the laser at you. Did you assume that you would reflect it precisely into the police officer's eyes, like in a comic book? Since you won't, you might as well just close your eyes instead of pulling up a mirror, that will presumably protect you
Now, finally, you are standing there with a mirror in front of you or eyes closed and you will probably get clubbed or arrested (or both) in that curious state.
One word (Score:2)
Mirrors.
Soylent Green (Score:3)
Wouldn't it be easier just to deploy those bulldozer thingies? Why beat around the bush?
Because..... (Score:2)
This will be very popular because blind people are sooooo much easier to hit with a baton.
Easy countermeasures (Score:2)
aaannd... now that I know about this, I'll just put some cheap flip-up dark filter glass on my piratical AK's scope, and now I have a convenient aim point, even if I couldn't otherwise see you!
Wavelength? (Score:2)
What is the wavelength of this laser? And were do I buy glasses? Thanks.
nice (Score:4, Funny)
So it's like a flashbang [wikipedia.org] but without the bang. That seems kind of... HOLY CRAP IT LOOKS LIKE A SNIPER RIFLE I WANT ONE!
Hello auto-darkening goggles (Score:2)
http://www.amazon.com/Darkening-Welding-Helmet-Torch-Welders/dp/B000HKZ73I [amazon.com]
Question (Score:2)
If so, put me down for half a dozen.
This seems pitifully useless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the laser is a tightly focused dot(in which case it won't be much use against a crowd) its intensity will vary rapidly with distance. In order to not be a complete toy at operationally useful ranges, it will very likely be downright dangerous at closer ones. Luckily, cops are technical experts and models of restraint, so that won't prove to be a problem.
In a similar vein, since lasers are a reasonably common occupational/hobby hazard these days, laser-protective eyewear, designed for strong attenuation of the common laser type of your choice, with minimal impact on general vision, is cheap and readily available. In order to have any effect on somebody wearing such, you'd likely need alarmingly higher power levels than you would need to have the same effect on an unshielded subject. So, either ~$20 eyewear gains you immunity to this fancy tech toy, or this fancy tech toy is powerful enough to stun protected users and fry retinas on everybody else. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the laser is a tightly focused dot(in which case it won't be much use against a crowd) its intensity will vary rapidly with distance. In order to not be a complete toy at operationally useful ranges, it will very likely be downright dangerous at closer ones. Luckily, cops are technical experts and models of restraint, so that won't prove to be a problem.
The parent is technically wrong. The parent doesn't understand Gaussian beams [wikipedia.org]. If a laser is tightly focused, the far-field divergence is large. The larger the focus, the less the divergence. A visible beam collimated to 5 cm diameter or so will stay collimated for over a kilometer.
If you can't look at something you can't attack it (Score:2)
That's the logic?
What about if someone has a gun, they may just start firing towards the general direction of the blinding light, hitting innocent bystanders,...
This tech could have saved a lot of Iraqis (Score:4, Informative)
You knew it was coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't laze me bro!
This thing is perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we can immobilize EVERYONE within 500 meters whether they're doing anything wrong or not, such as journalists and other so-called "innocent bystanders". Surely any person within 500 meters of a public disturbance is up to no good. All good citizens always stay at home where they belong. What a jubilant triumph for the brave defenders of our glorious homeland!
Add it to the Long List (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we've got the blinding light weapon, and the deafening sound weapon, [wikipedia.org] and that Ray Gun that makes your skin feel like it's on fire [wikipedia.org]. All this massive R&D going into novel crowd control technologies. It's almost as if the US Government anticipates needing fancy new riot gear. Wonder why that could be.
Plutonomy of a Police state (Score:3)
Somalian pirates, uppity citizens, same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, though, riot cops aren't bound by the convention, so it ends up being largely a matter of what they can get away with vs. what lawsuits make too expensive...
Re:seems like a really bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?
The Geneva Conventions only concern uniformed armies of sovereign nations in conflict. Basically, donning a uniform (and therefore identifying yourself as an active participant in the conflict) grants you certain protections above and beyond what a non-uniformed (often referred to as "unlawful", although the term does not actually appear in the conventions) combatant might expect. The Geneva Conventions don't really come into play in any domestic altercations, they only govern conflicts between sovereign na
Re: (Score:3)
What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?
Just because protesters consider a conflict to be a civil war doesn't count. For the Geneva conventions to kick in, the protesters must be organized against the current government, be have a military structure (e.g., chain of command that can give attack orders and surrender), be in actual control of some amount of territory (not just "occupy", provide at least minimal normal govermental functions) and exercise some sort of control over the population (have some reason that many of the folks in neigborhood
Re:seems like a really bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
Primary source:
http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm [un.org]
And, links to the wikipedia articles (if that's not considered too circular):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons [wikipedia.org]
Re:seems like a really bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons [wikipedia.org]
And yes, it does make a specific distinction between temporary and permanant blindness, so this thing is almost certainly legal as far as this particular protocol goes.
I should point out though, that the UK police have never even resorted to using water cannons outside of Northern Ireland, and use of riot equipment is a very serious political issue here. Breaking out the doom rays on a crowd of protestors is not going to happen lightly, and if it did happen, it would not be brushed off or ignored afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)
the UK police have never even resorted to using water cannons outside of Northern Ireland
False.
This was a quite prominent issue during the London riots earlier this year. Even with arson and city-wide looting, and with the vehicles available, water cannons weren't used. The political effect of breaking a precedent and using water cannons in mainland england for the first time was considered too great, even when the alternative was to let parts of Croydon burn.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or auto-dimming welder's masks. Maybe paint a Guy Fawkes face on it.
Re: (Score:2)
'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.' ...Famous last words.
Exactly.
Last time I checked, a heat seeking missile deployment vehicle doesn't come with it's own ophthalmologist. There are obviously other ways to "see" your target.
Re:least-worst alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather be lasered in the face than gassed or shot with bean bags or beaten
The mistake is thinking this is an either-or situation. First they blind you, then they beat the shit out of you. Now you can't ID which ones assaulted you even if you could get a criminal case going against them.
are you suuuuure? (Score:3)
Lasers are pretty dangerous. Look at what happens with lasers not even designed to blind people: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2403814/Russian-concert-laser-show-blinds-30.html [telegraph.co.uk]. Now you're going to trust something stronger in the hands of police and government? I got a bridge to sell you...
Re: (Score:3)
have you tried doing anything OTHER than welding while wearing a welding mask?
It virtually blinds you.
Yeah, yes I have. thats why I bought an autodarkening helm. They used to cost like ten times what a plain helm cost, now they're like 2 maybe 3 times.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming it's only as bright as the sun this could work. I can look directly at the sun quite comfortably through a pair of $30 sunglasses.