General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew police radars can 'see' inside homes
WASHINGTON At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concerned about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.
more
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)Oh yeah:
2naSalit
(86,803 posts)Revanchist
(1,375 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)I've seen 5th Element more times than I can remember!
I may have to rent Eraser. Minus the Russian dubbing, of course
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)We the People, like. Little people.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Just not ever going to happen in this upstanding world.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)FLIR equipped choppers have been outlawed from spying on us - why this?
lpbk2713
(42,766 posts)When one strategy is outlawed they move on to something else.
Or, they continue to use the old prohibited stuff and claim the
bust came from an "anonymous tip" or confidential informant.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)then go to collecting evidence. They'd keep the first part to themselves because of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" but the article mentions its use hasn't been revealed for public scrutiny so it appears they even kept the device existence itself to themselves.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)the purchase of any new technology to the public within 90 days.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)For the most part we have great laws, great court system (though most misdemeanor courts are set up inherently unfair), great for of government, freedoms, rights, etc. The problem is we have humans behind all those things, running all those things.
Unless there are robots that never make mistakes, never cut corners and really wouldn't work anyway, I'm relegated to that's some "scary shit".
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but there is a good reason why you wouldn't trust a human that is a judge, or human that is a police officer, or a human on a jury, etc. Am I saying all our like this, no. I'm just fully aware of the potential of abuse but more laws or this or that won't fix the human aspect of this. Just because someone can't doesn't mean they won't.
On edit - Even if I was serious, humans would still be in charge of programming the robots so that wouldn't work on that point either.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)they really did mean total.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I guarantee something like this will be abused.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)anything to be abused be it computer records to something simple like fire.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)And I'm pretty sure there's going to be cops using it in just that way and almost certainly already have.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)The technology though has some good potential benefits that outweigh those negatives imo though.
For example it could be used to tell if someone is say trapped somewhere like in building after an earthquake or in an avalanche even potentially trapped in a burning building.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There is no way I would trust cops with something like this.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Cops can be on such teams, but most are firemen.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)for awhile.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But a warrant means that if police officers are using this to say, spy on their ex-wives or their neighbors or someone they find attractive or just for fun, then they could be subjected to internal review, maybe even dismissal.
The warrant guarantees that there was a reason for invading someone's privacy and tbat there is a record of the privacy invasion.
That's why there should be a warrant.
We fought our Revolution in part over taxation without representation and in great part over general warrants that gave the British the authority to just enter our homes and businesses and snoop and take as they wished.
The Fourth Amendment will eventually be interpreted to prohibit all these invasions of privacy. We cannot have human dignity when a few of us are given the authority to hover above the homes of the rest of us, watch us brushing our teeth, preparing for bed, doing whatever we do in bed, etc.
This is a serious assault on our human dignity.
The benefits of this technology can be obtained with a warrant.
We have helicopters overhead a lot in our neighborhood. They are a disturbance of the peace, and an intrusion on our privacy and liberty. We don't need them. We aren't doing anything against the law.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)The inside of your home is deemed to be part of "the public space, where one should have no expectation of privacy"?
Not at all long, I'll bet.
daleo
(21,317 posts)There is a lesson in there, somewhere.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)just for the military?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
daleo
(21,317 posts)About invasion of privacy too.
I was getting at the idea that techniques used against an enemy in a questionable international "police action" can soon become part of the equipment of domestic police. And when a state develops a taste for ignoring international law, it is a relatively small step before it begins to ignore its own laws.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)safety.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)where we wouldnt need any technology at all.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)that someone might be injured for not needing a warrant.
yuiyoshida
(41,864 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)When called to a burning building. They could go straight to the location and save time during a rescue effort.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)It radar it tells you an object is there, its not a picture its a radio signal bouncing off a person and back to the unit. They function that same way traffic radar works.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)It could be a pet or a person with no way to tell the difference unless it somehow shows size or shape.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)RANGE-R applications include:
Police / SWAT Determine the presence and location of assailants or hostages in a building
Search & Rescue Locate injured people inside buildings
Firefighters Quickly determine whether people are trapped in a building.
RANGE-R complies with Part 15 rules and is certified by the FCC for operation in an urban environment (FCC ID: YKD-25TWD3000).
http://www.cyterra.com/products/ranger.htm
They makes a second version only for the military. Which means it doesn't work on the frequencies allocated for police radar.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)Lightweight objects attached, pets, etc... I wonder if items like this could obfuscate their detection system.
(I've had to deal with a peeping tom before. This seems as bad.)
Trillo
(9,154 posts)is so unreasonable, there are so many privacy concerns. Won't people think of the nearly naked folks in hospitals and their sacred privacy?
7962
(11,841 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... police state list. Hey, if they can make those things, why can't someone come up with the opposite technology: A detection device with an alarm, or a danger sign lit up in red in every room, that will make the resident know when someone is pointing one of those contraptions from outside. Or make the alarm a foghorn that goes off on the exterior of the house: scare the shite out of them.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)KG
(28,753 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Radar uses radio waves on a specific frequency. So now, the hostage takers who are smart (the scenario in which the Federal Agencies say they absolutely need the thing) will have jammers installed. They'll broadcast the radio frequencies on a more powerful signal, and blanket the thing until it is worse than useless.