New police radars can 'see' inside homes • Hacker News Board

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#101

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #89

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.

> That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous). 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…

I would argue that if the police require any equipment in addition to the normal range of human senses to detect evidence, the use of such equipment should be considered a search. Whether the feet physically move onto the property or not, the equipment is breaching a privacy barrier.

If you confess to murder in your own home on an ultrasonic carrier wave, and the police happen to be outside on the sidewalk pointing an ultrasonic microphone at your house, no reasonable person could deny that was a search of your home.

A visible-light camera with an audible-range microphone that coincidentally covered your home in the course of otherwise lawful activity, on the other hand, would be more in the nature of accidental eyewitness than intentional search.

When people take steps to create a private space for themselves, they judge by their own senses whether their precautions are sufficient. If I stand outside my own house and cannot see, hear, smell, or otherwise sense any activity within, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I typically do not use a wi-fi packet sniffer, or a FLIR camera, or a laser microphone to ensure that my activities are safe from interception from random passers-by, because they do not carry such equipment.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#102

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:48 PM UTC

Luyt wrote: post #71

This quote from the article made me think immediately of the 'motion trackers' as used in the Aliens films, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yNOT6lWedA "The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving."

For the speculative future sake of humanity, if you ever work on the GUI for one of those things, make sure it has an elevation indicator.

More than 1m below the detector, show a downward-pointing triangle. More than 1m above it, show an upward-pointing triangle. Within 1m, show a square. Change the relative size of the icon according to the size of the moving object. Add telltale lines extending from the center of the icon in a contrast color to show direction of motion and speed.

I realize that the shortcomings of the device UI were critical to the dramatic tension, but whenever I see that scene in Aliens, I can't help but sympathetically think about the poor military-industrial-complex gadget developer who wasn't even allowed to think about the user experience, because the requirements were determined by someone who would likely never use it, and cast in concrete long before anyone was hired to implement them.

And the thing that really kills me is that the person who created those requirements probably based them on a device seen in a sci-fi movie. This is why it is so important for film directors to employ technical consultants whenever they include gadgets and computer monitors. Anything seen on the big screen will have an ongoing and possibly unintended future influence on design.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#103

Post by danielweber » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #101

rayiner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous). 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…

I would argue that if the police require any equipment in addition to the normal range of human senses to detect evidence, the use of such equipment should be considered a search. Whether the feet physically move onto the property or not, the equipment is breaching a privacy barrier. If you confess to murder in your own home on an ultrasonic carrier wave, and the police happen to be outside on the sidewalk pointing a…

I would argue that if the police require any equipment in addition to the normal range of human senses to detect evidence, the use of such equipment should be considered a search.

What if the equipment is extremely common? Anyone can stand outside your home and see your WiFi networks. Should the cops need a warrant to say "from the street, I turned on my iPhone and saw a wireless network?"

What if 75% of smart phones had FLIR and people regularly used them?

NB: I'm not necessarily convinced of this. It might turn out the best way is to start at "normal range of human senses" and explicitly add to that, say by legislation.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#104

Post by ryanmarsh » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

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…

New homes (at least where I live) all have TechShield (or similar) radiant barrier installed for energy efficiency. It's basically siding or insulation covered with a thin layer of foil. It's effective enough as a Faraday cage that some of my friends with new homes can't get a cell signal in their home. I wonder if this will be enough to thwart the casual eavesdropper.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#105

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #101

rayiner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous). 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…

I would argue that if the police require any equipment in addition to the normal range of human senses to detect evidence, the use of such equipment should be considered a search. Whether the feet physically move onto the property or not, the equipment is breaching a privacy barrier. If you confess to murder in your own home on an ultrasonic carrier wave, and the police happen to be outside on the sidewalk pointing a…

> If you confess to murder in your own home on an ultrasonic carrier wave, and the police happen to be outside on the sidewalk pointing an ultrasonic microphone at your house, no reasonable person could deny that was a search of your home.

What if I broadcast my guilt on un-encrypted FM radio?

Again, I think Kyllo was rightly decided. But I don't think the dissent's argument was "ridiculous." I think there's some logic to asking: why the heck should the 4th amendment treat sonic and EM emissions differently depending on their wavelength?

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#106

Post by pdkl95 » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

fluidcruft wrote: post #92

pdkl95 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... trying to keep technologies bottled up as "forbidden knowledge" is at best only a delaying tactic ... > ... a real risk that technology will happen faster than our ability to assimilate those technologies ... > ... the alternative is to give into natural selection as yet another species that didn't adapt to its environment fast enough. I guess if you came across a hole in the dike, the small thing you can chang…

That would depend on the purpose of the dike... and who/what was downstream.

That said, see my profile for a description of "PDKL 95". There is a good chance I'd grab the jackhammer if it would somehow lead to a useful re-framing of the consensual hallucination.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#107

Post by pdkl95 » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

neuronic wrote: post #79

pdkl95 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would be so interested to see some research about information spread during active containment efforts. Obviously many institutions have developed highly effective measures of containment. They all involve coercing involved people into silence (NDAs, threats of criminal prosecution etc.) combined with, at least attempted, strict controls of where the data goes. I feel like information just sort of succumbs to entro…

Obvious problem with that research: any information that was successfully contained are tautologically things we would not know about.

I completely agree with the entropy/leaking-gas analogy, and it may suggest an explanation for why information "leaks" so easily: compared to matter, the energy of information is extremely small. The energy cost of copying or moving is trivial, and easier movement implies faster diffusion.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#108

Post by badpeaches » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 6:17 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #99

systemtrigger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can always do what they did in burn notice and simply tape a vibrator to the window.

What a great idea for a new concept industry. Vibrator Windows™. If the windows are shaking, no one can hear you're makin' bacon.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#109

Post by Animats » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #66

Animats wrote: post #54

That 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…

> Someone might want to look up the FCC approval data for it to get the full technical specs Someone using a new account named throwawayranger did that and posted the results, but the comment was promptly killed because it was a new account posting via TOR. For those without "showdead" enabled, here is the content of the dead post: ---------------------- L-3 Communications RANGE-R Operator's Manual http://blockyourid…

It's a low power device (35mw), but it's in a radiolocation band, so they had to get a wavier from the FCC. That's an interesting read, because it lists the uses. They're getting surprisingly good range for only 35mw radar power.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2482A1.p...

The patent is for a different device - that's for a better version of those wands used in security screening. The approach is similar, but the power is much lower.

Re: New police radars can 'see' inside homes

#110

Post by spyder » Tue, Jan 20, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

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…

... or just use thick soundproof curtains.