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

New police radars can 'see' inside homes

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#41

Post by Sir_Substance »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #8
throwaway90999 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already been a ruling saying this isn't ok: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Kyllo was about thermal imaging but the opinion is quite clear. There's a much, much stronger case for thermal imaging equipment than there is for a device which probes via radio waves.

Just a few thoughts. Very simplistically... FLIR is a special camera that detects infra-red light. IR is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted from objects with heat. RADAR emits a more "traditional" radio wave, and then detects objects when the radio wave reflects back. Unlike FLIR (which is passive), I would consider RADAR to be active. I would think (rather naively so) that the case against using RADAR without…

But consider:

Your house is constantly saturated with radio waves from TV stations, radio stations, wifi etc.

What if I were to design a device that passively received reflections of these signals rather then generating it's own to achieve the same function as the device in this post.

So I now have the same result, but I am "merely" receiving reflections, rather then making my own.

There is no difference in the function, this is rules lawyering at its best.

I am willing to let police observe emissions on visible wavelengths ONLY because that is a slippery slope to not being allowed to look into windows.

Anything you need a device to view is not ok to view without a warrant, no matter the technique.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#42

Post by ssully »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #24
funkdobiest wrote: post #18

So does using these new devices mean they will be using the flash bangs less? They should be able to see who all is inside and realize a child or person that is not the suspect?

It doesn't sound like it can positively identify people; just pinpoint where they are in the house.

It could help determine if there are infants or children in the house before a raid.

Then again it really isn't hard to determine if there are children in a house without advanced tech...

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#44

Post by woodman »

systemtrigger wrote: post #37
jonahx wrote: post #13

As disturbing as the police use is, I am more disturbed by the possibility (inevitability?) of devices like these, and similar audio devices, becoming so cheap and readily available that even basic privacy from strangers while in your home becomes a thing of the past. It seems to me that before too long anyone could pick up audio and video devices for a couple hundred bucks that would allow them to see you in your ow…

Bouncing lasers off window panes to detect audio is a worrisome development. The counter-measure is to install dual pane windows equipped with acoustic transducers that vibrate the panes with white noise. For the device mentioned in the article, when the technology becomes available to consumers and/or is open-sourced, anyone will be able to count the occupants of any location near to them. The question again becomes…

Development? The technique has been well known for a long time, I remember hearing about it in the late 90s. It isn't widely used because it isn't practical. Also, your countermeasure doesn't work if there is another reflective surface inside the room.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#46

Post by zaroth »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #41
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a few thoughts. Very simplistically... FLIR is a special camera that detects infra-red light. IR is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted from objects with heat. RADAR emits a more "traditional" radio wave, and then detects objects when the radio wave reflects back. Unlike FLIR (which is passive), I would consider RADAR to be active. I would think (rather naively so) that the case against using RADAR without…

But consider: Your house is constantly saturated with radio waves from TV stations, radio stations, wifi etc. What if I were to design a device that passively received reflections of these signals rather then generating it's own to achieve the same function as the device in this post. So I now have the same result, but I am "merely" receiving reflections, rather then making my own. There is no difference in the funct…

If you look at Gizmo's quotes, I think it's pretty clear they considered these kinds of technology tricks in deciding Kyllo, and 'taking the long view' that high tech collection of passively emitted information requires a warrant. I think the general approach is it's the result that matters, not the specific approach, e.g. 'expectation of privacy'.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#47

Post by themodelplumber »

jonahx wrote: post #13

As disturbing as the police use is, I am more disturbed by the possibility (inevitability?) of devices like these, and similar audio devices, becoming so cheap and readily available that even basic privacy from strangers while in your home becomes a thing of the past. It seems to me that before too long anyone could pick up audio and video devices for a couple hundred bucks that would allow them to see you in your ow…

What if you could get a discount on e.g. your insurance payments for a similar device, permanently mounted on the outside of your residence, and readable on location by law enforcement or other responders (like rescue)? Would you be OK with other people taking the deal?

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#48

Post by baddox »

gizmo686 wrote: post #35
baddox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous). Of course, they could come up with a workaround. Like perhaps it's not a violation of property rights for invisible and virtually harmless waves to enter private property, and if they happen to bounce off something and come back to the source for collection and analysis, so be it.

It is most certainly not a violation of property rights; radio waves are a notable exemption to normal property rights. Not to mention the fact that their are many other radio waves that already enter your private property. They still would need to argue that it is not a 4th amendment violation.

The 4th amendment pretty clearly exists in an assumed system of private property. Searches and seizures both imply action that would normally be a violation of property rights. The quote you cited is also talking about property rights.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#49

Post by finid »

> and similar audio devices, becoming so cheap and readily available that even basic privacy from strangers while in your home becomes a thing of the past.

Even at current price ($6000), the thing is cheap, taking into account what it can do.

As for privacy, forget about that, at least privacy by default. that's so dead. Start thinking about counter measures.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#50

Post by ynasser »

ftcHn wrote: post #36

Any examples of the display output of the radar device?

It only tells you if there are people inside, either moving or breathing, and how far away they are. There's only text output, no actual images.

---------

From the manual: "RANGE-R is designed for simple one-handed operation. Holding RANGE-R to a wall, door or other building structure, the operator simultaneously presses buttons on the sensor’s two sides to begin the analysis. Within three seconds, the system returns a range-to-target result as well as the status of the target, which is indicated as either a mover (Mov) or a breather (Br). The result is displayed to the user in terms of distance in feet to the target on the unit’s LCD. RANGE-R is also capable of detecting and displaying the range of multiple targets. In such cases, the display will alternate through the different ranges of the targets."

Post reply on HN