Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#51

Post by ScottBurson »

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #39
greenyoda wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrared radiation (e.g., from body heat) is in the terahertz range[1], and might be what these sensors are picking up. And there are definitely passive sensors for infrared, e.g., night vision goggles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared (300 GHz to 430 THz)

+1. These things are basically fancy infrared goggles, detecting heat emitted from your body.

Oh. Well, in that case it seems to me that the objection to them can't be that they're invasive. We have a well-established principle that says it's okay to take photographs or video of people in public places where there's no expectation of privacy. I'm not sure I see how the fact that this uses non-visible wavelengths removes it from the scope of that principle. Can you explain that?

(I'm sympathetic to your goals here, but I think the tough questions need to be asked. They certainly will be in court.)

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#52

Post by derekp7 »

ScottBurson wrote: post #51
tsaoutourpants wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. These things are basically fancy infrared goggles, detecting heat emitted from your body.

Oh. Well, in that case it seems to me that the objection to them can't be that they're invasive. We have a well-established principle that says it's okay to take photographs or video of people in public places where there's no expectation of privacy. I'm not sure I see how the fact that this uses non-visible wavelengths removes it from the scope of that principle. Can you explain that? (I'm sympathetic to your goals…

The simple answer is that most people expect clothing to provide privacy for what is kept under them (such as your wallet, cell phone, genitals, etc). Now when the day comes that everyone normally wears augmented reality glasses that can see terahertz / infrared radiation, and that one would normally check themselves out in a mirror with such glasses before going out, then I guess there would be no expectation of privacy for what is under you clothes.

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#53

Post by thwest »

greenyoda wrote: post #32
ScottBurson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. Terahertz waves are absorbed by the atmosphere, so those emitted by the sun don't reach the Earth's surface. So a terahertz scanner has to emit its own radiation.

Infrared radiation (e.g., from body heat) is in the terahertz range[1], and might be what these sensors are picking up. And there are definitely passive sensors for infrared, e.g., night vision goggles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared (300 GHz to 430 THz)

Not quite as simple as that. Terahertz != Short Wave Infrared != Midwave Infrared != Longwave Infrared ("thermal"). These all require different photosensitive elements in your detector. They also have extremely different atmospheric absorptions. [1]

These particular sensors might indeed be passive, but it would limit their range and SNR. Be wary of manufacturers simply selling the emitter as a second SKU to garner the label passive on their detectors.

[1] I work at a company making SWIR/MWIR imagers.

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#54

Post by SoftwareMaven »

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #25
potatolicious wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC the subway is critical infrastructure, as important as electricity or water, denial of its use should not be taken lightly. Denial of this service to people who would not submit to a search, IMO, makes this highly coercive and the search can no longer be considered strictly voluntary. One has to remember that having seen the flip side of the urban coin, New York City has taken the stance that quality of life o…

In NYC the subway is critical infrastructure, as important as electricity or water, denial of its use should not be taken lightly. Denial of this service to people who would not submit to a search, IMO, makes this highly coercive and the search can no longer be considered strictly voluntary. Being a frequent user of BART (SF Bay Area Rapid Transit), I understand where you are coming from about how so many people have…

I can imagine all sorts of bad things. That doesn't mean we have to try to protect against all of them all of the time. You can reasonably protect against black swan events, and trying to do so is costly in so many ways: money, liberties, convenience, etc.

Everybody is so afraid of dying that they don't dare to live.

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#55

Post by sneak »

king_jester wrote: post #29
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NYC the subway is critical infrastructure, as important as electricity or water, denial of its use should not be taken lightly. Denial of this service to people who would not submit to a search, IMO, makes this highly coercive and the search can no longer be considered strictly voluntary. Being a frequent user of BART (SF Bay Area Rapid Transit), I understand where you are coming from about how so many people have…

> Being a frequent user of BART (SF Bay Area Rapid Transit), I understand where you are coming from about how so many people have come to really rely on the public transit systems. But I don't think the NYC subway or BART is anymore critical than air travel. If you were not able to take the subway, you do have other options (bus, cab, walk, etc). Yes... those other options are a lot less convenient and/or more costly…

So why do we of the Internet still pay their salaries?

After two years in Manhattan I moved overseas. The basic rule of law is gone from the USA and this fact is obvious to anyone who cares to look.

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#56

Post by codex »

From what I can tell these devices cannot look under one's clothes. The image is just too blurry. In fact, these scanners could be considered cameras that capture light outside of the visible spectrum. Are we to now say that one can't take photos in public? That seems to be quite extreme. I would like to preserve my right to do so, even with an infrared camera.

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#58

Post by bluedanieru »

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #35
Zimahl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, "Bong Hits for Jesus". That SCOTUS decision sincerely and utterly gnaws at my core. One of the worst decisions in the last 30 years.

For those who are curious and ignorant of this SCOTUS decison (as I was): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

>Morse initially suspended Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but later increased the suspension to ten days after Frederick quoted Thomas Jefferson.

What an asshole.

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#59

Post by stevvooe »

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #35
Zimahl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, "Bong Hits for Jesus". That SCOTUS decision sincerely and utterly gnaws at my core. One of the worst decisions in the last 30 years.

For those who are curious and ignorant of this SCOTUS decison (as I was): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

What doesn't make sense about this decision is its clear lack of constitutional basis. How does an opinion (via statute) on illegal drug use conflict with a constitutional amendment?

Re: Lawsuit Filed Against NYPD Street Body Scanners

#60

Post by chris_wot »

stevvooe wrote: post #59
Wingman4l7 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who are curious and ignorant of this SCOTUS decison (as I was): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

What doesn't make sense about this decision is its clear lack of constitutional basis. How does an opinion (via statute) on illegal drug use conflict with a constitutional amendment?

I'm trying to work out how the First Amendment was trumped for students based on historical opinion! Can someone clarify?
Post reply on HN