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…
New police radars can 'see' inside homes
81–90 of 117 posts
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#82As 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…
During a typical 2nd Amendment[1] debate ("flame war", really) a common argument was raised about how various "big, modern weapons" required a different set of rules. Regardless of how one felt about people having "small" (i.e. traditional arms with which society has experience), surely it must be obvious that "big" (new, unknown) things like nerve gases or atomic bombs are so dangerous they must be kept from civilia…
Disagree completely. This smells of a "busywork" solution - we know something needs to be done, but we don't know what, so we try to do something for the greater good, hoping that we can redeem ourselves and somehow be protected (or at the very least more protected) from the threat.
Incidents such as mass shootings, which you highlighted, don't tend to have roots in racism or poverty situations, but rather psychopathy; a dramatic disconnect from the wholesome core of our human nature which develops in the soul of a deeply troubled individual.
This is a problem that our society with its culture is not equipped to handle. I do tend to think that there have been societies in the past, which did have the ability to contain such problems - I don't see a murderous psychopath arising within the company of Buddha and his travelling ashram of monks.
21st century Western civilization is taking a radically different path, investing itself fully in technological progress at the expense of everything else, and will reap the fruit of this choice, good and bad.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that line of thinking is that you're really arguing that an entire technology is 'uninvented' because it could be used for evil. Suggesting that we ought to give up doppler radar entirely, with all its benefits like detecting victims in natural disasters, finding people trapped in fires, detecting criminal suspects, etc because it might be used by the next evil dictator is ridiculous. It's a complete…
That's absolutely not what parent was arguing, though. Also, that "line of thinking" not necessarily leads there. Accepting the technology is but one step. But we still need to raise moral and ethic questions about it. All parent was really saying is, that the nazis wouldn't have thought twice about using said technology to kill even more people.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#84What if it's passive? Wifi from the routers of homes emit the RF energy and all the police do is use a detector I could see that as legal since it's energy being emitted just as if it were light shining out a window and you were a silhouette. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see-... >The system, devised by Karl Woodbridge and Kevin Chetty, requires two antennae and a signal processing unit (i.e…
It's worth noting that a normal human without engineering training is aware of silhouettes or even if the window is open - if they do things in plain view, there is onus on them. It takes specialised knowledge to even know this hi-tech stuff is possible for the most part, so you can't really equate passive collection of undetectable-by-human radiation to things like windows and silhouettes, when it comes to the average person.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#85As 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
#86My first reaction is that Anne Frank's diary would have been much shorter had this technology existed then.
The problem with that line of thinking is that you're really arguing that an entire technology is 'uninvented' because it could be used for evil. Suggesting that we ought to give up doppler radar entirely, with all its benefits like detecting victims in natural disasters, finding people trapped in fires, detecting criminal suspects, etc because it might be used by the next evil dictator is ridiculous. It's a complete…
Wait who did that? I missed that...
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#87That device is more useful for firefighters than for cops. Firefighters need to find people inside burning buildings. Looking for trapped people is one of the more dangerous jobs in firefighting. The fact that it's being sold more to cops than firefighters indicates that cops are getting too much money for tactical gear. The device is a fairly basic Doppler radar, although the sensitivity is impressive. Someone might…
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#88That device is more useful for firefighters than for cops. Firefighters need to find people inside burning buildings. Looking for trapped people is one of the more dangerous jobs in firefighting. The fact that it's being sold more to cops than firefighters indicates that cops are getting too much money for tactical gear. The device is a fairly basic Doppler radar, although the sensitivity is impressive. Someone might…
To give an idea of just how whacked the priorities of the Police are, with the recent announcement from the Attorney General of the US that the Federal government would no longer cooperate with civil seizures of property unless a crime has committed our locals (Atlanta and Dekalb county) are now pushing the state to expand civil seizure laws. This is for seizure of property without proof of a crime. They want it expa…
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue the opposite. The dissenting opinion's rationale doesn't hold up in this case > Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building. In the case of thermal imaging, you measure light waves that is already leaving the building. In the case of radar, you are actively sending in light waves to bounce off the ins…
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.
While Kyllo was obviously decided correctly, I don't think the reasoning of the dissent is ridiculous. Arguably, it's better scientifically.
Premise: It's not an unreasonable search if police stand on the public street outside a house and hear someone shout: "I killed Jake!"
Argument: Use of thermal imaging is indistinguishable from standing on the street hoping to hear a shout. Sound waves and infrared light waves are both generated inside the building, escape into public space, and are captured by passive receiving devices (ears, IR cameras). It's arbitrary to treat sound and infrared light differently.
The above may be a good example against hyper-technical reasoning in court cases (but see: everyone's support of the argument advanced by Aereo), but it's not a scientifically unsound argument.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#90The 21st century attitude.
People, seriously, we need to do something about it until it is too late.