New police radars can 'see' inside homes
usatoday.com
New police radars can 'see' inside homes
1–10 of 117 posts
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#2I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#3I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
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.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#4I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
Kyllo v. United States [1]
Law enforcement used a thermal imaging camera to detect hotspots consistent with marijuana growth inside Kyllo's house. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a 4th amendment violation.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#5Does the US use "sarking" [1] (metal foil insulation) in house construction?
Most Australian houses are wrapped in a layer of metal foil insulation. Presumably that would offer some attenuation to radar, though the windows must still allow radiation though, as mobile phones typically work inside. Perhaps a house with metal foil based window tinting would offer a reasonably complete Faraday cage?
[1] http://www.bradfordinsulation.com.au/Products/Residential/Th...
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#6I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
One's home is, demonstrably, not sacrosanct anymore. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America.
This (too?) will sound like hyperbole, but.. get out while you can. Look, the staggering insanity of North-Korea has lasted for more than half a fucking century. Would you like to spend the rest of your life in North-Korea? What about an equivalent America?
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#7I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
Kyllo v. United States [1] Law enforcement used a thermal imaging camera to detect hotspots consistent with marijuana growth inside Kyllo's house. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a 4th amendment violation. [1] http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508
That's pretty close. I could see it going the other way just as easily.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#8I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.
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 a warrant would be stronger, given that the government would have to actively affect your house. To play devil's advocate, the pot grower was emitting a signal in the FLIR case...
Anyone more educated than I able to cast light (haha) on this?
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kyllo v. United States [1] Law enforcement used a thermal imaging camera to detect hotspots consistent with marijuana growth inside Kyllo's house. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a 4th amendment violation. [1] http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508
That's pretty close. I could see it going the other way just as easily.
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 inside and return to you.
Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes
#10Does the US use "sarking" [1] (metal foil insulation) in house construction? Most Australian houses are wrapped in a layer of metal foil insulation. Presumably that would offer some attenuation to radar, though the windows must still allow radiation though, as mobile phones typically work inside. Perhaps a house with metal foil based window tinting would offer a reasonably complete Faraday cage? [1] http://www.bradfo…
People use a lot of different construction materials and techniques across the country, but I don't think this "sarking" is common for residences.
People don't want to live inside Faraday cages though, for the reason you already mentioned: their mobile phones wouldn't work. Not to mention broadcast television, AM/FM radio, garage door openers, etc.