New police radars can "see" inside homes

[unixwizzard]

Just what we need.. :\

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

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.

If the police are supposedly forbidden from flying overhead homes using infared cameras to find "grow" houses or other purposes (Kyllo v. United States), how is using this technology legal?

 

[rudeguy]

Well since this device needs to be directly against a wall and doesn't actually show anything other than there was movement, its not really an issue.

Its nothing new. A cop place the device against a wall and it takes a reading. The reading lets the cop know if there is movement inside the house. It doesn't tell them what kind of movement, how big, any kind of idea. Just that there was movement. They can't sit outside your house and look to see what you are doing.

Put away your tinfoil hat buddy. I'd much rather cops use these things than no knock warrants where they come in shooting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wonder how much it would take to retrofit a house into a Faraday cage. Way too much.

The problem isn't with the technology per se, but it will be used inappropriately despite people like Bush, Feinstein or Obama saying otherwise. All invasive technologies are on the table, it's just a matter of who can use it and when. Since there is no technical limit in effect I think that the best thing is to have a paradigm shift where people who use such devices outside of strict guidelines should not only be deprived of livelihood, but liberty if they are the beat cop or President. No exceptions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Put away your tinfoil hat buddy. I'd much rather cops use these things than no knock warrants where they come in shooting.

They can learn relatively little, but when (not if) in perhaps 10 years or so indoor imaging equipment is developed and abused? I think it better to create a policy sooner than later.

 

[unixwizzard]

Well since this device needs to be directly against a wall and doesn't actually show anything other than there was movement, its not really an issue.

So.. then this ruling of the US Supreme Court is bullshit and should just be ignored?

Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

My understanding, the use of infared, FLIR, and presumably this radar technology would be legal only if a warrant has been issued.

Of course we all know many times warrants tend to be worth less than bits of used toilet paper stuck to the side of the bowl..

 

[cbrunny]

Simpsons did it. Season 6 episode 9. Kent thinks homer is inside the oven.

 

[rudeguy]

They can learn relatively little, but when (not if) in perhaps 10 years or so indoor imaging equipment is developed and abused? I think it better to create a policy sooner than later.

meh..that's a different thread.

This thread is the OP saying the police can see inside your house and comparing it to flying overhead with IR. The police can't see inside your house and this is nothing like IR.

Stupid thread is stupid.

 

[rudeguy]

So.. then this ruling of the US Supreme Court is bullshit and should just be ignored?

My understanding, the use of infared, FLIR, and presumably this radar technology would be legal only if a warrant has been issued.

Of course we all know many times warrants tend to be worth less than bits of used toilet paper stuck to the side of the bowl..

The article says this is only being used when doing raids or in hostage situations.

Stupid thread is stupid.

 

[shira]

Well since this device needs to be directly against a wall and doesn't actually show anything other than there was movement, its not really an issue.

Its nothing new. A cop place the device against a wall and it takes a reading. The reading lets the cop know if there is movement inside the house. It doesn't tell them what kind of movement, how big, any kind of idea. Just that there was movement. They can't sit outside your house and look to see what you are doing.

Put away your tinfoil hat buddy. I'd much rather cops use these things than no knock warrants where they come in shooting.

Maybe the initial device discussed is limited in this way, but if you read further in the article:

Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.

A drone-mounted device that can see people inside a building is clearly not limited in the way you indicate. And the under-development systems funded by the Justice department would clearly take this several steps farther.

So I think it's reasonable to question right now where this new technology is headed, and to legislate clear constraints on the use of this technology.

 

[unixwizzard]

This thread is the OP saying the police can see inside your house and comparing it to flying overhead with IR. The police can't see inside your house and this is nothing like IR.

I guess you didn't either the article or the whole article.

The fact is the police have a device that can "see" through a wall.. that is it can detect if there is someone or something moving inside.

Granted this device seems rudimentary.. but..

Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.

The radars were first designed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. They represent the latest example of battlefield technology finding its way home to civilian policing and bringing complex legal questions with it.

I guess it doesn't bother you then, that the courts are for the most part turning a blind eye to it. I'm sure you are of the camp who think it would be fine for the police to sneak up on a house in the middle of the night, and while everybody is sleeping use this technology to map out the inside of the house and pinpointing exactly where everybody is located so they know where to toss the flash-bangs.

You can ridicule all you want, call me a kook, call me paranoid or whatever you wish. I just don't happen to walk around with rose colored glasses thinking that every new technology will be used for only "good" purposes.

I see this is yet more military technology being turned to be used against the very population that it was supposedly designed to protect.

 

[Brian Stirling]

There is a whole range of spying tech in development and if used by police they would crush the already crumbling notion of the right to privacy. One such device, a micro drone that can crawl under doorways, might be able to enter your home, photograph everything including documents, and leave without being detected.

And, if the government applies the same logic to that data as they do with the mass data collection that's now being done they could argue they don't need a warrant to do this. If this drone record this data and the data is filed away without human eyes on it the government could make the same claim they now make that since human eyes were never on it then they don't need a warrant.

This is beyond the slippery slope and we are gaining speed without any oversight.

You know, the US Constitution was good while it lasted!


Brian

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess you didn't either the article or the whole article.

The fact is the police have a device that can "see" through a wall.. that is it can detect if there is someone or something moving inside.

Granted this device seems rudimentary.. but..

I guess it doesn't bother you then, that the courts are for the most part turning a blind eye to it. I'm sure you are of the camp who think it would be fine for the police to sneak up on a house in the middle of the night, and while everybody is sleeping use this technology to map out the inside of the house and pinpointing exactly where everybody is located so they know where to toss the flash-bangs.

You can ridicule all you want, call me a kook, call me paranoid or whatever you wish. I just don't happen to walk around with rose colored glasses thinking that every new technology will be used for only "good" purposes.

I see this is yet more military technology being turned to be used against the very population that it was supposedly designed to protect.

Oh, please. Given Scotus rulings wrt FLIR & K9's, It's perfectly obvious that this tech will fall under the same legal constraints.

And if the courts are turning a blind eye, then you should be able to cite numerous examples, so have at it.

 

[master_shake_]

ah the patriot act, the gift that keeps on giving

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Anne Frank probably wouldn't have liked this technology much.

 

[Darwin333]

While reading that article I saw something about a cell phone spying system called Stingray and holy shit, you think the radar is bad check this shit out!

The increasing use of the devices has largely been kept secret from the court system and the public. In 2014, police in Florida revealed they had used such devices at least 200 additional times since 2010 without disclosing it to the courts or obtaining a warrant.[1] The American Civil Liberties Union has filed multiple requests for the public records of Florida law enforcement agencies about their use of the cell phone tracking devices.[30]
Local law enforcement and the federal government have resisted judicial requests for information about the use of stingrays, refusing to turn over information or heavily censoring it.[31] In June 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union published information from court regarding the extensive use of these devices by local Florida police.[32] After this publication, United States Marshals Service then seized the local police's surveillance records in a bid to keep them from coming out in court.[33]

In some cases, police have refused to disclose information to the courts citing non-disclosure agreements signed with Harris Corporation.[31] The ACLU has said "potentially unconstitutional government surveillance on this scale should not remain hidden from the public just because a private corporation desires secrecy. And it certainly should not be concealed from judges.

Holy fucking shit batman, since when did LEO get to use non-disclosure agreements for not turning over evidence in a trial??? And since when can the Marshals seize evidence to prevent said evidence from coming out in court?

Then the worst part about it, they are using this device without obtaining any sort of warrant. How in the name of everliving fuck does a LEO agency get away with literally hundreds of illegal wiretaps (and worse!) for 5 years and they are still getting away with it?!?

Another, possibly better, question is: Does a device like that have ANY legitimate LEO use other than circumventing warrants? Can't the service provider give LEO any information that could legally be gained with a warrant already, meaning if they have a warrant they could just go straight to the service provider instead of running a much more complicated man in the middle attack?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker

 

[Darwin333]

meh..that's a different thread.

This thread is the OP saying the police can see inside your house and comparing it to flying overhead with IR. The police can't see inside your house and this is nothing like IR.

Stupid thread is stupid.

IR doesn't let you see inside of homes either, it simply lets them see heat exiting your home (at least the vast majority of the ones cops use). Seems like a good enough analogy to me, besides the supreme court has already ruled on technology such as this.

 

[werepossum]

I guess you didn't either the article or the whole article.

The fact is the police have a device that can "see" through a wall.. that is it can detect if there is someone or something moving inside.

Granted this device seems rudimentary.. but..

I guess it doesn't bother you then, that the courts are for the most part turning a blind eye to it. I'm sure you are of the camp who think it would be fine for the police to sneak up on a house in the middle of the night, and while everybody is sleeping use this technology to map out the inside of the house and pinpointing exactly where everybody is located so they know where to toss the flash-bangs.

You can ridicule all you want, call me a kook, call me paranoid or whatever you wish. I just don't happen to walk around with rose colored glasses thinking that every new technology will be used for only "good" purposes.

I see this is yet more military technology being turned to be used against the very population that it was supposedly designed to protect.

As long as they have a warrant, I'm all for it. Maybe they won't accidentally toss a flash-bag into a baby's crib. In fact, if they are going to serve a warrant - especially a no-knock warrant - or take down hostage-takers, the better the info the better. Even a rudimentary hand-held motion sensor can help.

It's worth pointing out that depending on building construction, wave length, power, and processing power, things like millimeter wave radar can provide pretty damned good images through walls.

 

[gevorg]

another step towards surveillance state

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Well since this device needs to be directly against a wall and doesn't actually show anything other than there was movement, its not really an issue.

Its nothing new. A cop place the device against a wall and it takes a reading. The reading lets the cop know if there is movement inside the house. It doesn't tell them what kind of movement, how big, any kind of idea. Just that there was movement. They can't sit outside your house and look to see what you are doing.

Put away your tinfoil hat buddy. I'd much rather cops use these things than no knock warrants where they come in shooting.

I see. This is in no way an incremental step toward reaching what you are describing. I'm sure you're gonna tell us that if cops got a device that allowed them to see into houses, and if they somehow were given permission to do so, that they wouldn't. Because they so value my privacy.

Put away your tinfoil hat buddy. I'd much rather cops use these things than no knock warrants where they come in shooting.

OK so maybe I'm just not putting 2 and 2 together. How would this device replace a no knock warrant?

 

[Darwin333]

As long as they have a warrant, I'm all for it. Maybe they won't accidentally toss a flash-bag into a baby's crib. In fact, if they are going to serve a warrant - especially a no-knock warrant - or take down hostage-takers, the better the info the better. Even a rudimentary hand-held motion sensor can help.

And this I completely agree with, key point being having a warrant.

That is the really unfortunate part of this story, this is a great tool that can be used to protect both civilian life and LEO. It's the assholes that abuse stuff that fuck it up for the rest of the people with good intentions, sound familiar to anyone else?

 

[TreVader]

At what point are they going to just shoot through walls? I mean if they know where you are in the house, and every cop already has high caliber assault rifles that can easily penetrate several walls, whats the issue? They can just point the radar and blast you.


And don't think they won't try it. If it increases the safety of the officers, why not? We can see that Police do not take the public's safety seriously but they are VERY much interested in their own safety. What is safer than standing behind a wall and just killing people inside?

If you think cops will stop no knock warrants or SWAT assaults just because they don't need to do them you haven't been paying attention. Police already abuse this system and I can see it becoming much, much worse as technology improves. Who the hell is giving cops this crap anyway? They aren't inventing it themselves. It appears the US MIC is somehow integrating itself into our police forces and sharing tech. I wonder when cops will ask for an F16 and a few missiles for "pinpoint strikes on gang members"?

 

[TreVader]

And this I completely agree with, key point being having a warrant.

That is the really unfortunate part of this story, this is a great tool that can be used to protect both civilian life and LEO. It's the assholes that abuse stuff that fuck it up for the rest of the people with good intentions, sound familiar to anyone else?

Warrants are rubber stamps. Any cop can get one for anything! When was the last time you even heard of a search warrant request being denied? It is such a rare occurrence as to appear to not exist!

 

[DrPizza]

IR doesn't let you see inside of homes either, it simply lets them see heat exiting your home (at least the vast majority of the ones cops use). Seems like a good enough analogy to me, besides the supreme court has already ruled on technology such as this.

IR and Visible light are two types of the same thing. Claiming that you don't see inside with IR is akin to saying you don't see inside if there are windows - you only see the light that's passing through the windows.

 

[alcoholbob]

House burglar edition coming soon.

 

[halik]

First thing my mind went to: