Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Now Police Can 'See' Through Walls 231

Posted by Roblimo from the move-along-there's-nothing-to-see-here dept.
Bram writes "Just found an article about another way to invade privacy." He's talking about hand-held radar systems police can use to detect breathing, beating hearts or other motion through walls and other obstacles. Sounds like a declassified version of the Ground Support Radar [GSR] units we used years ago in the Army. I can see why police would want them, and I can also see why Bram considers them a privacy threat. Depends on how they're used, I suppose.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cops Have Eyes on X-Ray Vision More

Cops Have Eyes on X-Ray Vision

Comments Filter:

  • From the labs at Georgia Tech Research Institute.

    Look here [gatech.edu] for the article from the Alumni Magazine. There's a nice picture, and they discuss some of the cooler uses, like looking at the heart rate for rifle people in the olympics.

  • Perform the same calculation on the population of the entire contry, and I feel that the ratio of bad:good is higher in the law enforcement subset. (I'll perform the study if anyone want to give me a sufficent grant)
  • Again, the problem arises because there is no law on the books regulating the police from using this particular technology from scanning houses in a casual manner. There won't be a law unless one gets passed, or a judge determines that use of this technology falls under the term "unreasonable". That judgement can only come after this technology has been used in a manner that brings a lawsuit.


    Of course, there can be local police force policy regulating the use of this technology, but I for one would not be happy with my privacy being assured by a 'policy' of my local police force.

  • My roommate built a noise radar that is capable of detecting movement, heartbeats, etc, out to about 50 feet, for about 5000 dollars, as an EE project. Standardize the parts, put it into mass production, do a little bit of refinement, and it will be under a thousand, easily, with better range and signal strength. That is dirt cheap for the ability to find someone reliably and undetectably (you can't detect a noise radar, that's the point in having one).
  • they want to catch people who are speeding. I cant see why you have a problem with that.

    I really don't care too much about catching speeding one way or the other. I'm just disputing the assertion that the police would rather 'eat donuts' that point radar guns at people that are not necessarily doing anything illegal.

    Selective enforcment of laws is part of the reason that people don't follow laws. If you know that you won't be pulled over for going ~9MPH over the limit, you will go ahead and break the law by goung ~9MPH over the limit.

    If you know that chances are high that you won't get caught at all, and the punishment isn't that great anyway if you do get caught, the likelihood of breaking the law increases.

    I pretty much guarantee you that if you knew that if you went so much a 1MPH over the limit, that you would receive a fine, that you would pay much more attention to the spedometer, and less attention to the relative speed of traffic around you.

    What I'm talking about is photo radar (the technology is improving, and the systems are getting cheaper for the city to purchase) Red light photo systems (to be implemeted soon here) and the like.

    These systems are not a threat to your privacy however, as you have no expectation of privacy driving down the road. I do have an expectation of privacy in my home. Heck, these systems aren't even a threat to your freedom, as the asct that you are commiting is already illegal.

  • This technology was quite well described in New Scientist several years ago. It did not come from any military division or anything. It's simply an ordinary product that took its ordinary invention-to-finished-product time. TA
  • IIRC, SI had done a series of articles on this device and found that it simply did not work.

    Test involved wooden crates randomly containing people. Inventor was to identify which crates contained people. Failed to do better than random chance would have indicated.

    IIRC, that is. Perhaps this message will trigger someone with a memory far better than mine.
  • The radar variant should be a great supplement to the existing infrared devices you already have. The radion waves won't be affected by heat. TA
  • Dude, chill out.

    Why do people like you immediately resort to name-calling and personal attacks when you see something you don't understand/fully agree with? I guess maybe that's why you posted as an AC; you're too embarrassed with yourself to fess up to it.

    In my very abstract example, I never said the curtains were open two inches, or open at all.

    If something is in plain view of the public, it need not be construed as a privacy violation to use what you see. It becomes illegal when someone must enter your home or otherwise make an active/covert effort to 'see' something they wouldn't ordinarily be permitted to see.

    That's the point I was trying to make.
  • Your average policeman doesn't track down actual criminals. He/she may be on the lookout for a specific car/person or may be in a chase/manhunt situation but not investigative work. Police Officers write tickets, arbitrate disputes, serve papers, protect crime scenes, cordone off criminal situations, write reports, arrest suspects and eat doughnuts.

    Having a group watch the police is a good idea; it keeps the police honest. I am, however, against this group getting in the way of the police. Such would be a violation of law: Obstruction of Justice and/or Aiding and Abetting. What if the group were to get inside a criminal situation? Then they become a liability. They could cause an officer or another citizen to get hurt.

    As long as the group doesn't physically alter the officer's situation or expose someone to danger then I have no problem with it. It's just another form of the press.

    As for the "through the wall" radar, I feel it could be misused. I don't think that the police would really be the ones to abuse it but I'll bet the Federal Authorities would make extensive use of such a device. Invasion of privacy comes up against National Security once again. I say, let the courts decide. In the meantime, it opens up a market for anti-radar devices. :)
  • Is the range on any of these devices more than three hundred yards? Most ARs are sighted in at three hundred, and I get upset when I have to "hold high" when disposing of a threat. Plus, if it's effective through more than a quarter inch of steel I'll have to switch to SS109 ammo... and that's more expensive, so I hope not.

  • Dude, I'm sorry, but if someone rammed a plunger up my ass, hospitalizing me, you'd better be damn well sure I will not only sue the police department responsible, but I would be pressing charges against the individuals there.

    I'm not saying abuses never happen -- I'm just saying that people are always ACCOUNTABLE for those abuses, which means they aren't LIKELY to happen.

    Along the same train of thought, how in the world are they really going to abuse a radar device such as this? So they can tell if someone is inside your home; perhaps they can count the number of people there. Assuming they do that without a search warrant and without probable cause to suspect your life is in danger, this still isn't a big deal.
  • I'm sorry, but in any state of the union, laws WERE broken. There's probably a lot more to the story than you were told, or perhaps crucial information was lost somewhere between the actual source and the person that told you.
  • We watch the history of abuses. We are already at near the bottom of the proverbial "Slippery slope".

    Those who forsake freedom for security deserve neither.

  • I'm pretty sure that the F.D.'s are using thermal imaging and not radar, not that it really matters but the thermal imaging scopes to 'see' through smoke have been around for a bit now.
  • More Invasions of privacy by Big Brother.

    That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
    JM
    Big Brother is watching, vote Libertarian!!
  • I used to use lead based paint to stop Superman from watching. Now what am I to do?
  • No way...I can't believe that is true..do you know the cost of one of those...

    I bet what you see are the traffic light controlling systems that departments use to trip lights to green for the right-of-way crossing intersections. There are strobe units, there are infrared and there are RF units in use.

    Also departments have cams in the lightbars as well, not all are dash/window mount.
  • well, the articles says it can detect breathing and heartbeats... seems to me that if the device detected highly elevated rates in one and/or the other, the obvious assumption might be made...
    ;)
  • Game Over! We're in some fruity sh*t!

    /* Bill Paxton rules! */

    "Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen."
  • When these devices become commonplace and perfected, firemen will end up with a near 100% success rate in locating people with these devices. There will no longer be a pressing NEED to do a thorough manual inspection of the debris because the device has found everyone they're going to find.

    If you wrap your home up in aluminum foil (or whatever you use), how are they supposed to know that your house is shielded in this manner? They will trust their instruments, which worked on the previous house and worked on the next house and will be less likely to do a thorough manual search of the debris. Sure they'll probably do a cursory check, Just In Case, but as they begin to trust their equipment more and more, there will be much less emphasis on checking by hand.

    Also what if you came home one day and a burglar was holding your wife and child hostage. You barely had time to get out a call for help before you were discovered and taken as well. Don't you think those radar devices might be useful for the police in a situation like that, for the purpose of locating, counting hostages, and getting you guys out safely?

    There are a significantly large number of reasons why you would WANT the police to be able to use these devices on your home. In all honesty, there's not much they can really SEE with these things aside from movement, location, perhaps the number of bodies inside, etc. IMO, the gains FAR offset the privacy issues you guys seem so concerned about.
  • There's a difference -- these devices are hardly field equipment yet. Do you really think a cop is going to go into the barracks, somehow give a plausible reason for checking out the radar device, and then go cruising down residential streets and alleys counting the number of people inside the houses and writing down where each person is?

    I mean come on, the privacy concerns here are minimal. It's not like you can get a full color video image of the contents of a room, or even really determine a person's identity.

    The cop you mentioned above needs to be prosecuted and put in prison. Period. That is out of the scope of this discussion, IMO. I'm not saying cops breaking the law are unheard of, I'm just saying that there's no real REASON a cop would want to try and "abuse" these devices, simply because there's very little you can gain of a non-tactical nature, and the scarcity of these devices will make the cops that need to use them subject to justification and scrutiny/attention from their superiors. Cops aren't allowed to just check out any old piece of odd equipment on a whim.

    "Yeah, Jim, I was wanting to take the bomb disposal trailer out to the lake tonight. Do you mind?"

    "Yah, no problem, just sign for it here and make sure it's clean when you bring it back."

    I don't think so.
  • Police forces have always been the first line of offense against citizens whenever the ruling government feels threatened

    Uhh, I don't know what country YOU live in, but here in the United States, this kind of thing doesn't happen.

    Besides, just because a person has a badge and a gun it doesn't mean they are free from criminal intent

    I'm not saying cops are angels, I'm just trying to say that there are aren't enough reasons (personal/illegal/whatever) for a cop to WANT to abuse one of these devices.

    First of all, they're not hardly perfected yet. The best you can do with them is catch some movement, locate people behind a nearby wall or in a nearby room, perhaps even count the number of people there. Do you really feel that cops are going to get anything out of this of a non-tactical nature? Do you really think cops are going to want to go driving late at night counting the number of people that are in the nearest room to the street?

    Secondly, these are not standard field issue, and probably won't be for a while. There will likely be "special" cops that are assigned to one of these units (much like K-9 units) or there will probably be a small number of these available from the department to cops that have a justifiable need for one.

    I really just can't imagine a cop wanting to use one of these devices for personal purposes. It seems like a whole lot of trouble and RISK (which was what I was trying to get at before) for VERY little gain.

  • All "radar" type devices are detectable, by definition. They emit a signal of some form (perhaps audio-frequency in the case of things like sonic ranging devices versus radio-frequency devices like conventional RADAR) and analyze the reflections. It's not possible to make something like this that is undetectable as you say.

    Perhaps you didn't mean to use the word "radar"? Maybe this project is just a super-sensitive microphone/amplifier? A passive device like this is likely undetectable as you suggest, but it would hardly be anything like RADAR.
  • we were talking about some radar to see in homes, now your talking about car radar, then photo radar!

    personally, if a cop wants to sit outside my home and have some blip on a screen showing him where I am in my house, thats fine with me.

    I think the benefits of a tool like this far outweigh any privacy concerns.


  • I meant that they'd know where I was as a result of the detector.
    ---
  • It's all paranoia, if you ask me. It's a tool, folks. Nothing else.

    Rob
  • It seems to me that if a cop has a search warrant or arrest warrant, that it would be fine to use this technology to execute the warrant. But without a warrant, no dice. It's an unreasonable search.

    But the Supreme Court has ruled it is "reasonable" for a cop to peer through a window-blind [findlaw.com]. Why would it be unreasonable for an officer to use one of these devices in the same manner, without a warrant?
  • Posted by Synsthe:

    There is no such thing as true privacy anyways, so if you're worried about this, I've got news for you: You're wasting your time.

    Look back through slashdot history alone and read all the articles on it. Privacy is a relative term - sure, you can take a shower without being seen (hopefully), and sometimes you can get away with talking on the phone without being heard in the next room. But all the security/government/yadda yadda agencies out there can subvert that privacy anytime they wish if they wanted to.

    So why worry?

    It's just another tool the cops can use to hunt out the bad guys and make "the world a better place".

    --
    Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
  • How would we know?
  • [Fastolfe] Dude, I'm sorry, but if someone rammed a plunger up my ass, hospitalizing me, you'd better be damn well sure I will not only sue the police department responsible, but I would be pressing charges against the individuals there.

    [me] I'm sorry too, but unfortunately, in the U.S., the people who are most likely to be treated in this way by the police are also the people most likely to be unable to either sue or press charges, due to fear and lack of money and, in some cases, lack of education as to their rights.

    =wl
  • I remember that the courts had a similar problem with infrared scanners. They illegalized infrared survailence because it was possible to watch people having sex. I wonder if that applies to pre-raid examinations of a premisis.
  • Good heavens. I never thought I'd see someone who really believed that "the innocent man has nothing to fear from the police." I particularly liked the bit about "big brother(sic) ... can protect you." Have you actually read 1984?

    "Catching more criminals" is all very well, but you DO always have to offset such things against civil liberties infringements. Even if it meant the abolition of petty theft in the whole country, I don't think I would be willing to accept, say, video cameras in every room of my house. There has to be some sort of a balance.

    Personally, I think this bit of gadgetry is going to be sufficiently useless -- I saw a demo' on UK television a while back, where they tried to "see" a woman through the wall, and it only really worked because they knew she was there already, and couldn't tell them very much -- that they're not going to be used invasively for quite a while yet. But when they do, I hope I for one won't just lie down and let the government walk all over me, even if it is in the cause of "protecting me." There's only so much protection I can take before I need some fresh air instead...
  • In fact, Time Domain [time-domain.com] has a long and sordid history of announcing products that they can't deliver. If you read their web page it is full of spectacular pulse radio technology that never seems to materialize. They have plenty of excuses (The government is suppressing us! Livermore has patented everything! It only works if we're doing the test!) but never have delivered.

    It's too bad, too, because I'd like to believe in them! The idea of an undectable, unjammable, milliwatt radio that works over a hundred miles is enticing. Ultra-wideband radars that detect anything is exciting. These things should be possible, but are hard to realize.

    There's a company called Aetherwire [aetherwire.com] that was mentioned in /. a few months ago. They've actually got some reasonable working pulse-radio hardware.

  • now i have a cool motivation for making all kinds of cool moving things around my house. always wanted to build a phone that twitched when it rang.
    (no, i do not trust my local police)
  • Very true.

    Has anyone found a anti-snoop HOWTO for building a new house?

    While it's true that the only real protection from big brother is to be completely anonymous and not draw attention to one's self; I am more concerned with local busy-bodies (like the kind who get a kick out of listening in on wireless phone conversations.)

    If anyone has a link to information on practical methods to shield a building, please post it.
    THX.
  • Then it won't be long before they're on sale at Walmarts. Now, I don't mind too much if the police can detect where an intruder is in a building, but I =do= mind criminals, vandals and opportunist thieves having resources like this.

    I also object to the idea of the media being able to get hold of such devices. Would you be happy if your local newspaper decided to monitor how often people went to the bathroom?

    The police are the least of my concerns, for something like this. My other concerns are fairly trivial ones, anyway, but that one is so minute it doesn't bother me in the least.

  • This seems a pretty harmless version of what is essentially a motion sensor, from the way the article reads. There's already a large amount of research into making millimeter-wave radar available for airports and other security checkpoints.

    Remember the tunnel that Arnold walked through, and the gun he was hiding showed up in detail on the screen? It's in the works. Not only guns, but the change in your pocket, anything radar-reflective you have on you.

    (I can see the people with genital piercings complaining already)
  • If it is like an old GSR it operates in the same general freq range as a Cop doppler radar. For you real paranoid delusionists use your car radar detector and hold REAL still everytime it goes off.
  • You all watch too many phony Hollywood formula movies.

    I'm really getting sick of all you infantile whiners complaining about "invasion of privacy". Businesses and politicans might use such 'spying' technologies for their own benefit, but what will some cop benefit from watching you read the newspaper? Most of them are too busy to have time to worry about the honest citizen anyway (you're an honest citizen, aren't you?). Sure, there's the odd corrupt cop, but what's stopping him from buying this existing technology on the black market and using it on you anyway? Not much.

    You would be amazed at the stupidity police have to go through every day just to do their jobs. Hours upon hours are spent composing warrants which have to be completely bulletproof, because even after a warrant is initially authorized, another judge (who is nothing more than a lawyer who sucked up to some politician) can throw it out at a later date because of a spelling mistake, making all the evidence obtained under that warrant "inadmissible". The North American justice systems are not about finding the truth, they're about lawyers playing games with people's lives; even when the truth is found, people whine about "convict's rights", instead of the rights of the victims and of the public. Good laws are made, but lawyers (judges, etc) dilute them to nothing. And we wonder why crime is so high!

    So these technologies will probably be restricted by warrants anyway. Only criminals and the ignorant would oppose technologies that would help put dangerous criminals in jail.

    And don't give me the old complaint about the cops wasting their time putting dopers in jail. It's bad enough we have drunks on the streets (and in our hospitals at our expense), now we should have baked dopers there too? But that's irrevalent, we're talking about dangerous criminals: people who would need a SWAT team to be dealt with. And nothing is better for SWAT teams than something that lets them see into the building they're about to hit, where YOU are being held hostage. I think then you'd be wishing you hadn't lined your walls with lead foil.

    So what if the odd corrupt lame-excuse-for-a-cop is invading your privacy? There's a lot of worse people to worry about than cops. Terrorists and the like are able to get spy devices anyway. Wouldn't you like your rescuers to be able to use these devices as well?

    I would.
    --------
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • Being able to actually watch people through walls is one thing (and you thought lead paint was bad). But it appears this systems basically just says "yeah, there is a person 2 feet behind the door on the right. Sounds like a great idea to me, I'd hate to be the cop walking through a door not knowing where someone with a gun is standing.
  • Folks have been arrested in the so-called War on Drugs for growing marijuana after police using infrared sensors identified 'hot spots' on interior house walls indicative of high-intensity light sources, such as those used as grow lights. The results of these scanners were sufficient to get a real search warrant, and have been upheld as legal searches.

    This does not seem very different from handheld radar. Concluding that the police will be constrained by the threat of violation of privacy lawsuits presumes that one isn't a member of a scapegoated group. Does anyone really think this or any other device would not be used in the war on drugs?

  • What a waste of bits.

    I can't remember what I read a week ago, and you expect the /. staff, who posts *hundreds* of messages a week, to remember something in APRIL?

    I imagine you don't ever lose your keys, either. The rest of us, however, aren't as perfect as you. So, please, go rant somewhere else.

    Jim

  • Or... (Score:1)

    by Xkill_ ( 66601 )
    it could be the two dogs living at the house haveing sex, or it could be the womans boyfriend giving her a nack rub, or it could be tai-bo night at the Jones residence...

    if the police busted in to interrupt a back rub it would be law-suite city, especially in sue crazy America. Until these divices get better, fear of making a multi-million dollar law suite would keep most police departments from using such a device in this way.

    not to say that this would never happen, but the risks seem too high for it to be a widespread occurence. more likely the police i know and love would use it for some stupid task like tracking illegal shipments of beanie-babies to and from canada.

  • This is the only intelligent posting I have seen about this topic. Privacy is freedom! Protect your rights to privacy.
  • While I that agree our friend here is being overly picky, surely it would be *pretty* simple for the guys at /. to file their postings with associated keywords and then to check any new posting against these. If there is a keyword match then the old postings could be browsed manually for same-ness and the new one could be rejected before it hits the press. I am aware of course that if something like this isn't in place already that it could be a royal pain to retro-fit the posting system.
  • Building jammers should be quite trivial to do,
    Just generate "white noise" in the em spectrum.
    Jammers that respond actively are a lot harder, I'd recon.
    But fcc regulations would not allow you to sell them,
    as they would be have to wide spectrum which is just
    the problem the manufacturers are experiencing in getting approaval.

    Besides, aren't active rf-jammers outlawed?
    I know for sure that in most parts of europe they are.
    That became an issue when restaurants, theathers and
    cinemas started to use them, to block the signal of cellular phones,
    don't you just hate when the person in front of you gets called or paged!

    Alluminium walls will shield some of the electronic radiation,
    but most buildings aren't designed to shield, besides
    the windows and doors are still open, most people will notice that
    their radios and televisions receive a clear signal indoors.
    Most buildings are already grounded, btw. Either as protection
    against lightning, or just via the plumbing.

  • What happens if you aim a fire-control radar at a police speed radar?

    Funky. Add anti-radar stuff to your car. Cop lights you up, have your car automatically launch chaff, and possibly a HARM.

    Is that legal in USA?

  • No, I didn't mean to imply that they could use it in that fashion either! The specific problems I was making reference to are:

    1. it leaves our hypothetical dissident less
    time to hide/escape/destroy documents --
    if they can just walk down the hall checking
    each room with the detector instead of
    bursting in and searching each one "manually"
    it goes a lot faster

    2. even if the hypothetical dissident could
    conceal himself, it wouldn't do any good.
    They'd use the detector to sniff him out
    in the priesthole or whatever he was hiding
    in

    There, happy? I'm not attributing magical powers to this thing, okay?
    ---
  • When I said this kind of thing doesn't happen in the US, I was talking about the original poster's comment that the police tend to turn into tools used AGAINST the people by a desperate government, which does not happen here.
  • Try Pleasanton, Ca. It's a place of total Yuppie desolation :)
  • Posted by Synsthe:

    Since when is what I said giving up? It's called accepting facts. If you get yourself in an uproar over this, you're taking the issue much too seriously.

    It's nothing new. So now they have a tool to look through your wall or whatever. Big deal? Before if they needed to, they could kick down your door and look directly at you. The only difference is now that you may live out your days never knowing who was peaking through the walls.

    --
    Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
  • Well said.
    Maybe he meant that *HE* was 'Easy to fool' :)

    And yes, I know my .sig has bugs. v0.02 will be out shortly. 'Till then, stop /.'ing my mailbox :)
    char *sig =
  • True, but if a cop *was* going into your house and realized his "People-o-meter" was being shielded, that'd probably make him a bit jumpy.

    Hey, I'm a uberprivacy advocate too; but, I don't see a short range heart beat/breathing detector as a realistic threat to privacy. This could be due to a misunderstanding...

  • Thus, any true invasions of my privacy are illegal and I can prosecute those that do it.

    Would that that were the case. Unfortunately, in many places in the US, it is not illegal to spy on people. A couple in MD had neighbors who spied on them by installing cameras in their house. The couple found out and tried to take their neighbors to court, but found that neither state nor federal law was broken, so they had no recourse.

    IANAL, but I believe this is still the case.

  • There's no need to remember all the submissions - just the ones that made it to the front page.

    I don't mind the occasional repost that much. I did think it was pretty funny when Rob and Hemos both posted the same story in the same hour that one time :-)
    --

  • Yes, I believe active RF "scramblers" are illegal in the US. FCC rules prohibit any device from knowingly/wilfully causing "harmful interference" to any other RF signal/device.
  • More insane delusions by Slashdot reader. Shouldn't you be hiding out in your "compound" cleaning your rifle?
  • fewer of them will got shot up and die when getting the bad guys.

    really, cops would rather eat donuts than use radar to mess with innocent peeps.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Then you should get X-Kryptonite, which will give you super powers (assuming you're an ordinary human being). Then you can either use your new powers to get rid of nosy cops, or build a Fortress of Solitude(TM) in some desolate area. Perhaps New Jersey.

  • No. (Score:1)

    by Fastolfe ( 1470 )
    They still need a search warrant. It's just as illegal to use a device like this in the manner you suggest as it is for cops to poke their heads inside your window and do a similar visual inspection of your home without your permission.

    Search warrants aren't slips of paper giving law enforcement the permission to enter your home, they're slips of paper allowing them to do just what their name implies: Search. Without one of those warrants, anything they discover through non-obvious means can't be held against you.

    Cops can easily listen to your wireless phone conversations just like the 13-year-old down the street with a radio scanner. Does that mean it's legal? Does that mean they do it? No, of course not. Stop being so paranoid.

    If you really don't trust your police force, perhaps it's time you voted some new elected officials into office, wrote some letters to them and your local police department, or if nothing else, move to some other town where you can actually trust your local cops.

    The amount of uneducated paranoia on Slashdot just amazes me sometimes...
  • I don't find any of the laws regarding how and when "sniffing" and "wire-tapping" can be done to be particularly privacy-invading. Thus, any true invasions of my privacy are illegal and I can prosecute those that do it.

    If you guys that keep preaching "privacy invasion!" have actually been so invaded, please contact a lawyer. You will end up rich.
  • Ahem, well to play Devil's Advocate here..

    I think the point not being acknowledged here is that the temptation to use it badly
    is the real issue.

    Say J. Random Lawman (fill in your favorite TLA* agency name) decides to use this device (or the ones adapted from it**) on your residence or business.

    Now of course a non sanctioned, no warrant use would be inadmissable in most courts. But who's saying that information developed from such use couldn't lead to arrest or legal woes later on?

    Ah, hold it right there. I can see people saying but W.D., how are they going to show development of evidence without revealing the unwarranted use of this Radar? Can you say informant? Heck I bet a lot of you can even spell informant.

    Do you know the type of folks that will perjure themsleves 8-ways from Sunday to get off a minor bust? The police certainly seem to know a enough of these fine citizens.

    I guess all I'm trying to say is that lining your house with foil may be a bit extreme but blindly trusting that noone will abuse this new tool is just as silly a response.

    just my .02
    ~WDM
    p.s. loved the goofiness of the chaff
    & flare concept.. the defense response
    of an F-15 from a stationary object. ^_^


    *TLA- three letter acronym

    ** What, you think the publicly available specs are the limit of what can be done with this?
    (shyearight)

  • This is a good point. But I hope everyone can have access to these. Then we can spy on the cops high fiving each other, spanking each other on the ass, and otherwise reinacting in the locker room how they 'kicked some ass'.

    Privacy is relative, but in a legal sense it applies only to the government.

    We don't want powerful governments in this country. While this is not how it is implemented, the bill of rights is a limit on governmental power.

    You may spy on me. But when Uncle Sam does it is an illegal invasion of my private interests in relation to the governmental interests.

    Of course these devices make law enforcement's job easier. The SS loved it when they could storm houses, loot belongings and turn up whatever chargeable evidence of anything conceivably illegal.

    In the US power emanates from the citizens (in theory). The justification that these devices are OK for the police to use because it brings in the bad guys (and I'm not a bad guy, don't do bad things, so they can watch me) is very very very foolish. It's foolish because it tells the government the following "go ahead and do whatever you want; I trust you." Governmental interests are not always your interests. It is those times when governmental intersts are in conflict with your interests that the Bill of Rights must be waived like a flag.

    Your trust is misplaced. Authority must be questioned, kept in check, and constantly scrutinized. They must be forced to justify every action. Efficiency is not at the core of democracy; it is at the core of totalitarianism. We need to decide what we hate more private criminals or governmental ones.

    Ompages.com [ompages.com] is an unincorporated association that seeks to develop publically available privacy policies and technologies implemented across the network. Join. Help. Save the world. The network needs you.

  • You almost can tell that this device can be used for nefarious purposes. I guess companies will have to develop an "Anti Person Finder" like the radar detectors and the like.
  • Has anyone for a second thought that those cards were just the stores being nice to you? Well, actually, my mom did, and then for some reason a friend of hers told her about that incident you just described... She was disturbed, but not enough so to change her behavior.

    Really, information is the most valuable resource in the world right now. Not money, not weapons... Information. It's amazing how readily people give it away for the convience of saving a few dollars on their groceries...â
  • Yeah, the only city that gives out money for police abuse on a regular basis is my home town, Los Angeles!!

    ;)
  • While I have nothing to hide, I am content living with the fact that if a cop *does* abuse this technology and I catch him, not only will he be in a world of hurt, but I stand to make a reasonable profit from my lawsuit.

    He knows this; I know this. For that reason, I think the chances of my privacy being invaded (without just cause and/or a search warrant, obviously) are pretty slim, and the benefits gained by allowing law enforcement access to these types of devices FAR outweigh that extremely slim chance.
  • Yeah, but if it's the DEA, and their in a
    helicopter, you can bet it's the wrong
    people, doing it for all the wrong reasons.
    8)
  • I know this is offtopic, but I don't care. :-P

    Such a law was probably written a long, long time ago, when Christian values had more of a stranglehold on American perception of sex... Any sex besides sex between a married couple trying to conceive was probably considered amoral and dirty. Keep in mind, this is just speculation...

    How'd you find out about this law? Any idea where I can find similar information for my state (Minnesota)? I'd like to know if I'm breaking the law...

    paranoid.android
  • It's probably not legal where there are littering laws... Heh.
  • I simply assume I have no privacy unless I take ample steps to preserve it. I'm act as though I'm positive my ISP knows where I go on the internet. The company I work for knows what my emails say, someone IS listening in on my phone conversations, etc...

    The best way to protect oneself if this is trully what is occuring (which I'm not sure of) is to act unassuming and draw no unneeded attention...

    There fore, I use Anonymizer for browsing, except at sites where it's either impossible, or the usefulness of the site goes way (SLASHDOT)... I also wish that there was an SSL enabled secure proxy out there...

    Of course, Anonymizer itself could probably raise some flags, as I'm sure encrypted email does as well... Kind of a no win situation, if you ask me. The act of trying to preserve your privacy draws unneeded attention to you!

    So far as email goes; I use PGP when my correspondant has it. Never say anything on email you don't want to come back and bite you (even in encrypted email... afterall the recipient can still read it, and if you typed it on your computere, there's things such as keyboard monitors, etc... Basically once you type something, you're not very assured of it remaining prive once you've typed it... Unless your'e using an OS such as OpenBSD or Linux or something...))

    What I really would like, by the way (hint hint! :) is web-based email accessable through anonymizer or something like that which does not require any other email address in order to register... If anyone's got any ideas... Let me know... I may even supply the server
  • Actually, they don't cost all that much. GM is supposed to offering an IR camera hooked to a console display as an option on their sedans in a couple years (2002 product year, IIRC). I've seen some demo's on the news; very cool. AFAIK, you can already buy something like it after-market. I've also seen at demo of an FLIR hooked to a HUD on the windshield which was very, very cool.
  • that everyone worried about privacy is considered paranoid or is expected to live in a buker somewhere in the forrest? Because I would like a semblance of privacy in my life I have something to hide? Why yes I do, my personal life. Sure this technology has a good and upstandingu se in law enforcement, it would allow police to get a better grip of a situation inside a building. But there's also other uses that aren't so upstanding. It can easily be used for invasion of privacy by pointing it at my house to see what I'm doing at that time. Oh no I sound paranoid, I must have a cache of weapons buried in my back yard. No I don't, but I have seen other surveilance technologies used to spy on law abiding citizens. ECHELON and various monitoring systems the FBI uses both read the average Joe's e-mail for no real reason other than for thought control, who would want to exercise their right to free speech? I don't need anyone reading my e-mail or anyone watching me while I read my email, I'm not paranoid, I'm not an automaton that believes everything my government tells me either.

  • Why would you want to block it? (Score:3)

    by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Wednesday August 18, 1999 @08:09AM (#1739796)
    Probably not, since your walls are not similarly "protected".

    Of course, why in the world would you want to build your home so that it *blocked* these types of things? In all likelyhood, the only time you might EVER see one of these things in action near your home is after an earthquake or an explosion that has demolished your house and you are trapped beneath a rather heavy pile of debris.

    Fireman: "Nope, I'm getting no reading at all from under this structure..."

    You (whisper): "Urmmph..! hh..hhell..hhellpp..."

  • Maybe, but I'm alittle more practical. If somebody is scanning my house, I want a detector, and optionally, a response mechanism to block their scans. Also, it'd be a really cool and geeky thing to do. ;) Definate hack value.

    --

  • (I can see the people with genital piercings complaining already)

    So, how do they (and those with body piercing in general) get through airport metal detectors now? It can be bad enough for people with surgical screws, plates, etc. I had to submit to being frisked by a burly Russian with a submachine gun in the Moscow airport because the eyelets on my boots set off the metal detector. I can imagine the problem people with lots of hardware have.


  • Get real. We have a state that thinks evolution should not be taught. Free world my ass.
  • really, cops would rather eat donuts than use radar to mess with innocent peeps.

    Really?
    Can you explain why those pastry loving law enforcment officials are always pointing radar guns at me when I'm driving down the road?
    Heck, in the next town over, they have photo radar stations on trailers that will point the radar at you and then take a picture of you if you are speeding. You are ticketed through the mail, no officer needed.

  • It's paranoid technophobia, plain and simple.
    It's ain't the tech. It's the fact that's in the hands of the people who brought you COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the enemies list, the War on (some) Drugs, the Waco massacre, the CDA...need I go on?

    It's not a question of what they could do with it. It's the fact the we know what they're going to do with it.

  • Sorry, no desolation here. Try Texas.
  • Hehehe, Game over? Affirmative.

    We're on the express elevator to Hell, going down!

    Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but we just got our asses kicked!

    Paxson/Hudson was great, and he had all the good lines. He was the techo-geek of the Marine outfit. He was my hero. I cried when they got him. You want some this? Oh yeah? How about you? Aaaaaaaa! I wish there was a slashdot poll about our favorite movie by different categories, but not the ones that are obvious like scifi. Categories more like movies with the best kick-ass aliens, or movies with aliens that you would have sex with. Maybe we should skip that last one as I would really hate to see the comments.

  • I mentioned this in another post.. but why would you really want to block this type of thing? In all likelyhood, the only time you will probably ever see this thing in action around your home (if at all) is after a natural disaster when your home is levelled and you are trapped under an uncomfortable pile of debris.

    If you "privacy-proof" your home like you suggest, they might never find you.
  • If they did outlaw it, it would probably be from a safety standpoint, since by wrapping your home in something that blocks these devices, and your home or whatever building is destroyed in a natural disaster, firemen will lose this precious tool when trying to find survivors.

    "...The tornado demolished 5 residential blocks today. Survivors were fished out of the debris with only minor injuries, with the exception of one man who had shielded his home from the radar devices firemen use to detect and locate survivors..."
  • Right -- That's what I'm saying. Cops aren't stupid. Any "invasion of privacy" caused by these devices is just as illegal as conventional invasions of privacy. Cops aren't going to do it without a damn good reason.
  • You're right; the world is a fucked up place. We even have people that are so paranoid and deluded that they honestly believe that cops are going to, on a daily basis, use radar to look into people's homes, and despite the fact that the technology can't do it yet, actually see what it is they're doing.
  • The article may not have explicitely mentioned it, but it's been discussed in a bunch of the comments. The technology being discussed is basically the same thing that's being trialed in a variety of fire departments and emergency response units.

    The best that these things can do is detect movement such as what occurs when you breathe or your heart beats. These things are going to be pretty expensive at first, and I doubt police are going to be assigned individual radar devices for a long while, which means there'll probably be a high demand within a police department for these things. That doesn't leave a whole lot of time for indiscriminant "spying" (if you can call it that -- you really can't get a whole lot of sensitive information from these things) on the part of stupid cops.
  • Yep, sniffer's and wire-tapping devices are just tools too. But problems arise with how they're sometimes used.
  • Saw this, oh, ten years ago in Popular Science. The main "use" back then was finding people buried in rubble after a major event [e-quake].

    Anyway, this ought to improve the dating scene. Now you can find out if they're breathing from across the room.

  • Re:No. (Score:2)

    by Python ( 1141 )
    Please. You act as if the police never abuse their authority. What about the New York Police Departments actions with ramming a plunger up a suspects rectum until he had to be hospitalized?

    If this sort of incredible abuse of police power occurs in a city like NY, it can happen in *any* police department - and abuses occur ALL THE TIME. Its absurd to expect something as innocuous and as hard to detect as this technology to not be abused by some police officers and departments.

    Thats why technologies like this worry people. Your faith in the police is misplaced. They are people just like everyone else, with the same temptations, emotions, irrational responses and so on. The only difference is that they have TREMENDOUS power to ACT on those impulses with impunity which no one else has.

    I hate to reuse an oft repeated phrase, but He that gives up essential Liberty for Security, shall recieve and deserves neither. Alot of tools could enhance the polices ability to deter crime, find criminals, even convict criminals. But that ends NEVER justifies the means. Privacy, as difficult as it is to maintain, is still an important right that needs to be protected from further encroachment. Its a RIGHT! Not some lofty goal, or something you "can't have because its hard to keep anything private". Its inalienable. Just because its hard to get true privacy in our society, does not mean that its not worthwhile to get SOME guarantees of privacy. And the whole issue of not being able to get perfect privacy is a red herring anyway. Thats not the point! The point is that police agencies DO abuse their powers, this tool can be used to illegally invade peoples privacy and it is of questionable value in the "war on crime". Is this tool worth the cost to our personal privacy is the issue on the table, not whether or not privacy can be obtained or whether or not the police can be trusted with this technology.

    We all want to see a society with less crime. We all want to make it easier to stop the bad guys. Just not at the expense of everything else. This tool will be abused by the police, and the cost to personal privacy is simply worth the supposed benefit of this technology in stopping criminals.
    --
    Python

  • I pity those who cannot trust. After all, it's their mistrust that makes the (percieved) "other side" mistrustful.

    What makes it ironic is that they were TOLD to be mistrustful, in the first place! Talk about sheep! The Government tells you it can't be trusted, so you believe it. DUH!!! Is that thick, or what? The people tell the Government that it can't trust them, so it believes them. Double DUH!!

    Do Americans get off on beating themselves up and portraying themselves as the evil monsters, ready to spring at any moment?

    I've better things to do, like code, maintain the project I'm running, read, have a life, etc. I don't have time to get into circular paranoid delusions on a continental scale.

  • Those shackles are nothing more than a tool, yes. And I'm not going to get paranoid over the invention of shackles. I will get annoyed if you put them on peoples' legs unfairly, though. But, if you don't, I don't care whether they exist one way or another.

    With all of the technophobia that we have bashed over the years, you would think that we slashdotters would be immune to this sort of paranoia. But whenever a government agency gets new technology, we go crazy with the possibilities of what the could do with it, whether they're actually doing it or not. Isn't that the same reaction our bosses have when they realize that we know more about the company's systems than they do?

    It's paranoid technophobia, plain and simple.

    Rob
  • if the police busted in to interrupt a back rub it would be law-suite city, especially in sue crazy America. Until these divices get better, fear of making a multi-million dollar law suite would keep most police departments from using such a device in this way.
    Sue the police? Yeah, good luck.

    If the cops get the address wrong, bust down your door, trash your house and scare the shit out of your family - guess what? No one's liable. They don't even have to replace the door.

    Make no mistake: the USA is a police state. If you happen to be a middle class, mostly law abiding citizen of European descent odds are it won't decide to crushr you. But if it does, forget about it. You have little legal recourse to defend yourself against the state.

  • Question for the wire-heads out there - radar usually operates by doppler / pulse mode. I'm assuming these are similar. How hard would it be to build a device that sync'd to the pulse and returned a variable-amplitude return? That should, in theory, severely degrade the quality of their signal.

    Also, what about aluminum siding on homes? If you grounded it, you'd have a pretty effective faraday box.

    --

  • You know, he handles over 500 submissions a day, or about 3500 a week. Now, given that the original whois was posted almost a month ago, how do you expect any sane individual to remember 14,000 submissions?

    Try to keep in in perspective - so what if things are reposted once in awhile? That's the price we pay to get our news as soon as it hits the wire.

    --

  • I'm in my company's office in Germany at the moment, but nevertheless I'll use US law here, since it's the only stuff I'm familiar with.

    The US 4th amendment reads:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The only ambiguous term in the above is what is "reasonable", so the courts determine that. But generally speaking they decide whether a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given situation. And no, I don't think it's reasonable for some cop to go scanning houses at random to see what he can see; I at least hope that judges would agree.

    It seems to me that if a cop has a search warrant or arrest warrant, that it would be fine to use this technology to execute the warrant. But without a warrant, no dice. It's an unreasonable search.

  • I imagine that most have spent so much on doctor's bills that flying anywhere is probably not really an option.

    On the other hand, I could easily imagine opportunist security people saying: "You've metal studs -where-? Prove it!"

  • My thinking is that police will use a radar scanner as a way to get around having to obtain a search warrant. Why obtain a search warrant when you can search someone's house without even stepping on their property?

    In many states, there are laws against premarital sex, homosexual sex, oral sex, anal sex, &c. These are almost never enforced because, as long as the act takes place between two consenting adults within a dwelling, the police can't just barge in and arrest people for breaking this law.

    Now, let's put this scanner in the hands of the Jerkoff County, SC Sheriff's department. They drive down a residential street until they catch two people in close proximity, accelerated heartbeats...all the signs of copulation. Is there a married couple in there? A quick check of a countywide information system tells them that this residence belongs to a single woman with a teenage daughter from a previous marriage. Inspired by righteous morality, they break down the door and arrest the couple -- the single mother and her boyfriend -- for adultery.

    The ACLU sides with the couple and fights the case all the way to the Supreme Court, eventually making it illegal for the police to use radar scanners without a search warrant. But the couple goes through years of Hell in the process -- and who knows how many other couples are busted the same way.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller

Close