New technology lets police "frisk" from a distance (for guns)


PDA






GuyWithQuestions
January 18, 2008, 06:45 AM
This was an interesting article about technology that allows police to be able to tell if you're carrying a firearm under your clothing from a distance away. Hopefully it doesn't get abused if the FCC approves it and it gains popularity. http://www.policeone.com/police-technology/radar/articles/1459733/

If you enjoyed reading about "New technology lets police "frisk" from a distance (for guns)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ZeSpectre
January 18, 2008, 06:57 AM
Well then I guess we might as well push for universal open carry

Claude Clay
January 18, 2008, 07:38 AM
lets just zap everyone with more 'rays' and technology till we finely do to our society the same as the romans 2 millennium ago did to theirs. no mistake about it , though, we are now doing it under the guise of safety ( and as they did: convince).:mad:
the navies 'right' and 'need' for ELINT trumps the sea's mammals right to live.
our governments 'right' and 'need' for (sic) intelligence trumps the individuals right not to have our bodies unknowingly and frequently exposed to various 'rays'.
all this in the name of safety. sad, very sad.

Dorryn
January 18, 2008, 07:54 AM
lets just zap everyone with more 'rays' and technology till we finely do to our society the same as the romans

Frisking for firearms using technology is going to cause a military revolt against the economic policies of our split empire, inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City?

Claude Clay
January 18, 2008, 08:08 AM
the romans employed 'new' technology to devastate their off spring. to wit: the constructed 'advanced' indoor plumbing for convince but made their pipes of lead. thus poisoning themselves, children & servants. kinda hard for a brain damaged society to make proper plans & decisions.

re: scanning--do we know even now how much cancer is caused by waves-micro,x,radio,tv,airport scanners etc?? long term, we will find out. and if its a bad thing (likely), do we know how to reverse a damaged gene?

Dorryn
January 18, 2008, 08:24 AM
their pipes of lead.

Actually lead piping would do little damage RE: ingestation of lead. Other threads here on THR have spoken at length about the various physical states of lead and how this relates to absorption. While lead poisoning did occur, it was more likely the practice of sweetening wine with dissolved lead, NOT "technology" that had an impact.

The Romans also had "advanced" frequent bathing. Technology is not evil. Unless youre Ted Kaczynski.

MakAttak
January 18, 2008, 08:54 AM
Frisking for firearms using technology is going to cause a military revolt against the economic policies of our split empire, inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City?

Somehow I doubt this is going to happen, but hey, maybe the Goths and Visigoths would allow firearm possession!

mgregg85
January 18, 2008, 09:00 AM
If they used this at random wouldn't it be a violation of the fourth amendment?

ZeSpectre
January 18, 2008, 09:11 AM
inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City?
Now THAT was a bellylaugh that I sorely needed today. Thanks!

brickeyee
January 18, 2008, 09:18 AM
I always figured the Vandals had already taken over NY city.

Headless
January 18, 2008, 09:18 AM
mgregg85, I suppose that depends on what is defined as 'unreasonable' in the eyes of the law...

Blackfork
January 18, 2008, 09:20 AM
The Visigoths had the NFL network in their cable package?

I hope they aren't zoned out in front of the TV. We might need them. There isn't any power the government has assumed that it hasn't later abused in a large way....or given up even though they have abused it.

LKB3rd
January 18, 2008, 09:29 AM
Hopefully it doesn't get abused if the FCC approves it and it gains popularity.
OF COURSE IT WILL BE ABUSED. Pay attention to what governments throughout history do with power and money. THEY ALWAYS ABUSE BOTH.
Sorry for the caps lol.
The framers of the constitution knew this. They saw it firsthand. This is why we have guns.
I think a lot of the problems we are facing in this country today are because we have had milk and honey for so long that we don't recognize tyranny and oppression when we see it all around us. Well, soon it will go from being seen to smacking us in the head. Hopefully people won't wonder what just hit them at that point.

RKBABob
January 18, 2008, 09:30 AM
it was more likely the practice of sweetening wine with dissolved leadI was just going to point this out. The lead-lined aquaducts wouldn't contribute as much lead to the drinking water as one might think. Lead doesn't dissolve readily in just water, and the lead would soon be sealed with calcium, lime and other minerals from the water itself. FYI, copper is also poisonous to ingest, as I recall, but the minerals in our water seal our coper pipes from the inside.

Romans would sweeten their wine with lead, boiling the lead with vinegar to dissolve trace amounts of it, and pouring the resulting sweet poison into their wine. The resulting brain damage was probably blamed on excessive drinking.

Back to the original topic: I don't want any wavelength of radiation passed through my body in the name of "safety" I also don't see any use for the technology. Metal detectors already exist... this device would only be used to search people from a distance, and without their knowledge or consent. Wouldn't they need probable cause to do so?

The police brass will probably push for this, saying it could be useful in a standoff sitution, to determine in the BG is really armed. However, I guarantee you the officers will completely ignore any "no gun" response the machine gives, and assume the guy claiming to be armed is armed, until they can confirm the machine's response the old-fashioned way. What's the point?

GuyWithQuestions
January 18, 2008, 02:30 PM
I guess it depends on how it's used.

It said that it's waiting FCC approval right now and they're already making units in anticipation that it'll pass.

If it's used to target random people walking down the streets, then that would be bad. A lot of people have valid concealed permits. Police don't randomly pull over cars and say "Just checking to make sure you have a driver's license." Instead, they ask for it if they pull you over for something else. That would get annoying and if they embarrass you in front of others, unnecessary, if they stop and question you just because they targeted you randomly and it said something. If it's a secured area like a courthouse or the secured area of an airport or locked down mental health facility, then I wouldn't have a problem. Any place that uses a metal detector wouldn't be a violation, on condition they have to let you know before hand and you should have the option of not going into the area if you don't want to be checked by the device. I guess the other situation would be if they're trying to apprehend a suspect. I can't see other situations, though. I don't know, that's just what I think.

ZeSpectre
January 18, 2008, 02:34 PM
Somehow I have this vision of a new "census" being run where they just sit there with this equipment and quietly take down names and faces. Then again maybe I just need a "tin foil beanie" today <grin>.

I guess the thing that troubles me is that, used at random, this seems to me to be a violation of "secure in their persons". They may not be physically touching you but it's still a search.

kd7nqb
January 18, 2008, 02:35 PM
kyllo v. united states already said that the could not use stuff like this at random. BUT here is an option, use it for TSA screening so it would be quicker and easier and no more belt buckles be treated as threats.

TallPine
January 18, 2008, 03:09 PM
inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City

Now that is an inspiring thought :)

230RN
January 18, 2008, 03:19 PM
The impulse radar transmits a pulse with a duration of several hundred picoseconds and an amplitude of many kilovolts per meter. Such a device is quite expensive, large and heavy, and has many limitations.

They keep popping me with their radar bursts and I'm going to get a little browned off. :fire:

Between automatic door openers, radar guns, the new radar speed signs around schools, microwave towers, TV News trucks with their u-wave transmitter dishes, et cetera, I may start wearing a conductive hat after all.

On a less serious note, you suppose they could fine-tune it to detect a Concealed Carry Badge along with the gun? :D

Rumble
January 18, 2008, 03:59 PM
Concealed is no longer concealed. Er, if this actually works.

Owen Sparks
January 18, 2008, 04:05 PM
"Police don't randomly pull over cars and say "Just checking to make sure you have a driver's license." Instead, they ask for it if they pull you over for something."
_________________________________________________________________

The heck they don't! Where I live there are random roadblocks set up every Saturday night. The public tolerates it because these random license checks are marketed as "getting drunks off the road" but the police are really are "fishing" for violations. Mainly they are after DUI's as that is where the big money is but any violation like expired drivers license or a busted tail light means more money for the government. You must display a valid license to pass. Don't think that this new technology won't be misused in the name of public safety and for the children. There was a similar thread a few months back about a company that had developed an x-ray like device that could spot guns in passing vehicles. Even those in metal containers!

JColdIron
January 18, 2008, 04:07 PM
Police don't randomly pull over cars and say "Just checking to make sure you have a driver's license."

Actually they do. They are called checkpoints. Usually to "check" for seatbelts or DWI, but they cast a wide net.

Zoogster
January 18, 2008, 04:24 PM
Besides all the potential for abuses and imposing of tyranny, which is important think of the problems.
What if you are carrying something else made of metal? Many polymer firearms like Glocks have little more metal than non firearm items.
How many cell phones, batteries, change, and many other items will give false positives resulting in assumptions and abuses of that individuals rights?

What about legal carry?

Health concerns by exposing people to directional radiation? What happens when that is frequently done in many locations?

Society is getting many tools in place and developed now that will enable tyranny to reign supreme in the future. The average person is not distrusting, and will not see it till after it is done. The founding fathers were wise men, it is a shame wisdom is so rare now.

armedandsafe
January 18, 2008, 04:48 PM
inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City

Where do I donate? :D

Pops

Zundfolge
January 18, 2008, 04:53 PM
Hopefully it doesn't get abused
There is no way for this technology to be used that isn't already abuse.

If they walked down the street frisking everyone they came in contact with, that would be seen as CLEARLY unconstitutional.

Shouldn't matter whether the frisking is done with hands or rays of energy.

Kind of Blued
January 18, 2008, 07:47 PM
There are so many levels to this...

As I hear about it TODAY (1/18/08), I think, that's great, all of the criminals who carry illegally and use their handguns for crime are screwed.

If I heard about it before concealed carry became overwhelming legal in one way or another, I would think "so now all of the brave and patriotic men who dare to carry in order to protect themselves and their families as our forefathers wanted are going to be arrested by lesser men"?

The fact is that I heard about it today. When I take a second to guess what I will think in the future, most likely, it will be another way that the government made it easier for criminals to be criminals, and for law-abiding citizens to be victims.

molonlabetn
January 18, 2008, 07:57 PM
Where's my tin-foil hat...



...and vest? :D

230RN
January 18, 2008, 11:41 PM
zoogster: Health concerns by exposing people to directional radiation? What happens when that is frequently done in many locations?


Exactly my concern (post 15), from a technological point of view. It is known that areas of the electromagnetic spectrum are dangerous. There is no sharp "cutoff," either in power level or frequency, above or below which electromagnetic radiation suddenly becomes "safe." There are safety "stndards," but these standards are set for low enough levels at given frequencies that show "undetectable" damage. "Undetectable" does not mean it is not there. And "undetectable" damage is cumulative and usuallly irreversible.

Yeah, sure, call me paranoid.

Ever notice how mashed potatoes in your u-wave oven take forever to heat up, while meats and things like corn cobs absorb the radiation and heat up readily?

Are you a potato or a corn cob? Only answer that when you're sixty or seventy and you're getting cataracts from the cumulative effects of radar door openers, permanent radar speed displays along residential routes, etc, as I mentioned above (post 15). Or when the vitreous humour of your eyeballs start to be "detectably" clouded up, like the white of an egg in a frying pan.

Yeah, sure, call me paranoid.

Are you susceptible to asbestos dust? Fifty years ago, the risks of loading and unloading shiploads of asbestos fiber were not even considered. Nowadays you find one old building with an asbestos-lagged boiler and they have to call out the hazmat teams to get rid of it.

Yeah, sure. Call me paranoid.

Then there's the legal question. So many things are done today which were unthinkable only decades ago. No-knock warrants? DUI checkpoints? Form 4473s?

The list goes on.

Yeah.

Sure.

Call me paranoid.

de wd0xxx

Dionysusigma
January 19, 2008, 01:07 AM
There are already a ton of Goths in NYC. Just go look in Club Alchemy on a Monday night. :D

I agree with 230RN, I gotta say... :uhoh:

jakemccoy
January 19, 2008, 02:05 AM
The Fourth Amendment (no search & seizure without probably cause) should still apply. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy for items underneath clothing. If law enforcement ignores the 4th, well then there goes another Amendment. I'm tired of having to wait the long wait for courts to decide my rights. Eventually, a sufficient number of citizens will decide that the Constitution means nothing. At that moment, we will no longer have a country.

230RN
January 19, 2008, 07:36 AM
There is no Fourth Amendment any more. It went away with Kelo.

"Unreasonable" siezure? See Kelo. You do not have property rights any more.... depending on whether a slavering pack of attorneys can convince a Court that their version of "reasonable" pertains.

And "unreasonable" search? Same thing, but now, since you have no property rights, you don't own anything, so how can you object to a search of what is not your property?

Feh. I don't want to amplify. I'm urinated off enough already. Maybe we'll come full circle someday and get back to the notion that the "public good" hangs mostly on the "private good."

Feh, say I.

Sorry, mods.

Double-feh.

another okie
January 19, 2008, 09:10 AM
In the UK the police occasionally just seal off a street and make everyone there walk through a metal detector. I hope the courts would stop that here, but who knows?

Is the kind of gadget we've seen tested for airport use? I mean the one that strips your clothes off and shows an image of you naked.

Hook686
January 19, 2008, 09:29 AM
Zoogster wrote:

...

What about legal carry?

....

If government begins using this device, there will no longer be a need for CCW, so it will be made illegal.

brickeyee
January 19, 2008, 10:46 AM
"Many polymer firearms like Glocks have little more metal than non firearm items."

I rarely carry things around (other than a gun) that have as much metal as even a Glock in the slide and barrel.
It sort of weighs down you pockets.

And 230RN, you ARE paranoid.
Many of the absorption bands for EM waves are relatively narrow, but it actually depends on how many degrees of freedom the molecules have i theor vibration modes.

Microwave ovens use a frequency tuned to excite water.
Less water, less absorption.
More water, more absorption.

The best models we have for EM effects indicate that absorbed power is required, and it must be high enough to produce heating effects.
No other effect has been shown despite hundreds of tests designed to identify other mechanisms.

Randy in Arizona
January 19, 2008, 11:19 AM
inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City?


And this is supposed to be a bad thing? How? :evil::evil::evil:

230RN
January 19, 2008, 03:53 PM
And 230RN, you ARE paranoid.

Well, thanks. Paranoia is a survival trait.

I'd just like to add the following.

(1) We are not just talking about microwave ovens here. We are talking about radar energy of unspecified wavelength (but probably pretty small) to detect little items on your body. It is well known that many molecules are resonant to many frequencies of electrostatic, electromagnetic, and magnetic fields. And one molecule may be resonant at several different frequencies. Many of these resonances are not very sharp, and many different types of molecules are in your body.

(ETA: Just to be able to say I tried it, I took a new bottle of vegetable oil, opened the seal, and dumped about half a cup into a paper bowl and stuck it in my little 600W uwave. Within two minutes it was up to 201 dF as measured by a J-K thermocouple. No water, and if there had been, it would have gone away at that temp at this altitude. So water is not the only thing u-wave ovens excite, according to this 'sperimink.)

(2) Water is not particularly sharply resonant at microwave oven frequencies, even if we were talking about only microwave ovens. Twenty-four-fifty MHz is a compromise between the penetration you get at lower frequencies and the lack of penetration you get at higher frequencies. (And to keep 'em out of the ham band at 2500MHz, no doubt. :) ) And there's a water absorption band in either the X-Band or the K-band, I forget which right now. This, to illustrate that substances can have many resonance points.

(3) There is no way to "prove" something is "safe" without testing every individual in the population with that something. As an example, take 100 people and feed them peanuts with no effect. Conclusion: Peanuts are safe. Yet add the one in umpteen hundred people who is allergic to peanuts and you might well come to a different conclusion. One of my bete noires is when someone reports that there is "no significant difference" between Group A and Group B, with the implication that something is "safe."

My frustration is when the readers of the report jump to the conclusion that therefore, there is no difference. No. All the original report was saying was that at the level of confidence we chose (usually arbitrarily), we can infer with that level of confidence that there is no difference. We could be wrong.

Confidence levels are usually chosen between 5 "percent" and 1 "percent" depending on the level of assurance desired. And therefore the conclusions drawn could be wrong 5% or 1% of the time.

So when someone says "it's safe because there is no significant difference between groups bathed in all these little sources of UHF and EHF energy," how often do you want them to be wrong? Five percent of the time, or perhaps one percent of the time?

The upshot here, in my view, is that on technical grounds, they shouldn't be fooling around with beaming short-wave energy at us, just because some fool engineer thought it would be "cool" to see if it worked and found that it did, and then developed a "cool" system to detect firearms in the general population.

Anyhow, my apologies for wandering afield.

I'll shut up go stand in the corner now, with my new badge reading "paranoid." Anyone else can go stand in front of a radar emitter all they want.

ilbob
January 19, 2008, 04:14 PM
BUT here is an option, use it for TSA screening so it would be quicker and easier and no more belt buckles be treated as threats.
You are making the false assumption that the current TSA procedures are oriented towards reducing the chance of guns getting on aircraft. I assure you, that is way down on the list of why the TSA exists, and why it does things the way it does.

230RN
January 19, 2008, 04:42 PM
BUT here is an option, use it for TSA screening so it would be quicker and easier and no more belt buckles be treated as threats.

You are making the false assumption that the current TSA procedures are oriented towards reducing the chance of guns getting on aircraft. I assure you, that is way down on the list of why the TSA exists, and why it does things the way it does.

Besides of which, they shouldn't be beaming UHF and EHF energy at us, as some paranoid old fool mentioned somewhere above, but I can't remember who or where.

Me go now.

jakemccoy
January 19, 2008, 06:24 PM
...they shouldn't be beaming UHF and EHF energy at us...

I agree.

GuyWithQuestions
January 19, 2008, 09:13 PM
It says that the device that's being submitted for FCC approval uses low power radar in X-band. Isn't that the same type of radar that some law enforcement uses for their radar guns in pulling over speeders, don't they use X-band, K-band, and Ka band? I know that police quite often target your vehicle just for kicks even if it's quite obvious that you're not speeding, at least that's what my radar detector leads me to believe when I see a traffic enforcement vehicle just standing there targeting me and there's no other vehicles anywhere in sight. I think some of them think of their radar guns as toys to point at anything that moves, even if visually it looks like it's going under the speed limit. Don't they also use X-band in some of the motion detecting automatic doors? I know that my radar detector says X-band or K-band when in the parking lots of some certain stores.

My concern is that they're going to harass legal concealed permit holders and let all their acquaintances know that they're carrying. Many people think thoughts about people who carry, regardless if they're carrying legally.

Coronach
January 19, 2008, 10:01 PM
Frisking for firearms using technology is going to cause a military revolt against the economic policies of our split empire, inspiring the Goths and Visigoths to sack New York City?Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please!

:D

Mike

The Lone Haranguer
January 19, 2008, 10:22 PM
IF this device is only directed at a specific person at a specific time based on reasonable suspicion, I don't see a huge problem. Rightly or wrongly (perhaps best as another topic), "stop-and-frisks" and checkpoints are already constitutional.

stubbicatt
January 20, 2008, 10:04 AM
Big Brother is watching you.

brickeyee
January 20, 2008, 10:36 AM
"lack of penetration you get at higher frequencies."

There is your answer.
The skin depth is very shallow and the power levels are well below any heating.

These are strictly EM waves, no electrostatics here.
I have plots of absorption from VHF to well into mm-wave for transmission.
As I stated, some resonances are sharp, others are not depending on the degrees of freedom in the vibration modes.
O2 is sharp.
N2 is very sharp.
H2O is wider in some places, still narrow in others.

You do realize you are producing currents in your body simply by moving in the earth's magnetic field?

Most of the statements they make are just advertising puffery.
The chirp-Z transform has been used on radars for years.
Trying to make decisions on frequency domain returns like this is a waste of time.
Terahertz imaging has already been demonstrated, so why go backwards.

Mannix
January 20, 2008, 10:47 AM
"stop-and-frisks" and checkpoints are already constitutional.

Depends on the state, they're illegal in MN and 9 other states, IIRC. Actually, I didn't know drunk driving roadblocks existed until I read about them on the internet.

230RN
January 20, 2008, 11:26 AM
I've often wondered if the absorption spectrum of those frozen u-wave pot-pie dinner plates and burrito wrappers covered parts of the detection radar bands.

These have that grey coating on the plates which absorb 2450 MHz energy, thereby converting it to heat and in turn, thereby "crisping" the crusts of these pot pies and burritos. These coating are also seen on frozen burrito packets to crisp your burritos.

I was tempted at one point a decade ago to eat enough Pot Pies to use the plates to cover the front end of my car to 'sperimink with speed radar detectors. If they absorb that energy, then there would be nothing to reflect back, and my car would be invisible to them. Then I'd go buy a bucket of the stuff and paint my car with it.

I never bothered to try it because I rarely speed. (So watch, tomorrow I'll get tagged, right? :) )

However, extrapolating on this way-out idea, if the absorption spectrum indeed went up to the 20-30 GHz radar detection bands, I wonder if you couldn't just cover your CCW in Burrito wrappers or Chicken Pot-Pie plates to keep the detection energy from reflecting back to their snoopy radar guns.

Wouldn't that be hilarious? To cover your CCW with a "black body" made of Burrito wrappers?

I've also wondered, along the same lines, if steel chain mail might not absorb energy in those bands. It strikes me that if the chain mail had the right dimensions, each steel link might act like a loop antenna for energies in those bands, and thereby convert the impinging rays to heat.

I once made a really close-to-perfect black body by stacking a bunch of sewing needles together, with the points facing the radiation source. If you imagine two needles together, you can see that radiation impinging on the needles will reflect back and forth, deeper and deeper into the tighter and tighter gap between the needles until it is all converted to heat. Even the shiny surface of the needles reflected only about 70% of the impinging energy, so by the time it had reflected a dozen times between the needles, it had been reduced to about 1.4% (-18.6 dB) of its original amplitude.

Maybe even steel wool would work this way to trap the radar waves. I can see it now.... Uncle Mike's building a holster with a layer of steel wool between layers of cloth. Uncle Mike's "Stealth" radar-proof holster.

Reminds me of the old artillery-armor escalation.

You build a cannon to defeat the best armor of the enemy, then the enemy devises new armor to defeat the new artillery shells, und so weiter ad infinitum.

I guess the latest on that one is armor that detonates and disrupts the penetrating jet stream of the shaped charge in the shell.

Jes' ramblin' and specilatin' on a Beautiful (but cold) Sunday Morning (BbcSM) in the High Country (HC).

Time for another cuppa coffee and to hold Court in the Throne Room.

jakemccoy
January 20, 2008, 03:01 PM
IF this device is only directed at a specific person at a specific time based on reasonable suspicion, I don't see a huge problem. Rightly or wrongly (perhaps best as another topic), "stop-and-frisks" and checkpoints are already constitutional.

The problem here is the title of this thread. This technology amounts to quite a bit more than a "frisk". This technology amounts to an all out search and then some. A search requires probable cause, which amounts to a search warrant usually.

This technology is available (or almost available) for searching homes. Imagine this: A cop drives by your house and stops across the street. He points a device at your home and gets to see all the goodies you have. Maybe he did it just for kicks. How would you ever know? You tell me if you think a "reasonable suspicion" would be sufficient for you to allow such an invasion of privacy.

alan
January 20, 2008, 03:32 PM
GuyWithQuestions writes:

New technology lets police "frisk" from a distance (for guns)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was an interesting article about technology that allows police to be able to tell if you're carrying a firearm under your clothing from a distance away. Hopefully it doesn't get abused if the FCC approves it and it gains popularity. http://www.policeone.com/police-tech...icles/1459733/

--------------------

Welcome to that Brave New World. Having said that, readers might consider the following two points.

1. It has been said that "the largest room in the hotel is room for abuse, and that such room is almost never left long unoccupied".
2. Maybe I'm overly suspicious, but I've long wondered as to why it seems that virtually every power granted is, sooner or later, perhaps sooner than later, abused. By the way, I do not believe that those "tin foil hats" mentioned now and then enter into the question at all.
3. I thought that somewhere in this, the FCC was mentioned, re the expressed hope that that body would exercise some control. Looking at the furor they allowed and partook of related to that very fleeting display of Miss Jacksons breast, it strikes me that expecting the FCC to use some comon sense is akin to urinating up that well known piece of twine.

ilbob
January 21, 2008, 12:20 PM
There is zero chance such a device will not be abused, and the sad state of the current thinking on governmental power versus individual liberty makes it unlikely that the courts will be of much help.

I would not object if it were used in place of, or in addition to metal detectors where they are used, but just to walk around with it random targeting people for no reason whatsoever seems like a real bad idea.

It might be a good idea to preempt that kind of use by encouraging state and federal legislators to ban their use by police, or at least to severely restrict their use.

alan
January 22, 2008, 12:45 PM
ilbob writes:

There is zero chance such a device will not be abused, and the sad state of the current thinking on governmental power versus individual liberty makes it unlikely that the courts will be of much help.

I would not object if it were used in place of, or in addition to metal detectors where they are used, but just to walk around with it random targeting people for no reason whatsoever seems like a real bad idea.

It might be a good idea to preempt that kind of use by encouraging state and federal legislators to ban their use by police, or at least to severely restrict their use.

-------------

Re your closing suggestion, last couple of lines, good idea, except for the following. Strikes me that this amounts to asking the wolf to help the fox "guard the henhouse"

boilingleadbath
January 22, 2008, 03:45 PM
I'm not terribly familiar with radar systems, but wouldn't a bag made of conductive material, ie. aluminumized mylar/aluminum foil, be opaque to this frequency of radiation?

That makes bypassing this system so easy that it's ridiculous, unless they decide to physically check everyone carrying a mylar bag.

Browning
January 22, 2008, 04:01 PM
I'm guessing that this technology is going to be expensive as hell.

Expensive as hell ='s into this kind of thing not being in widespread use since most Law Enforcement agencies are on a budget where the actual necessities (vehicles, the gas to run them, insurance costs and maintenance fees for all the vehicles, the building and jail, food and medical care for all the prisoners, medical insurance for all LE personel, pistols, shotguns, rifles and tear gas guns, ammo for all those weapons, money for training, ASP's/uniforms/belts/holsters/pouches/handcuffs/pepper spray, K-9 dogs and training and all the other things like computers, telephones, paper, pens, filing cabinets, video cameras, digital cameras, forms, office chairs, cleaning products, air conditioning/electricity/ water and sewage, coffee and coffee pot etc etc) that let a police department run on a daily basis come before everything else.

If they're ever able to make it affordable and portable, then police departments will probably get technology like this and like everything else it has the potential for misuse. Even when the engineers and programmers solve the size and expense issue some method of defeating it will come up and they'll be back to the drawing boards for round two.

GuyWithQuestions
January 22, 2008, 04:16 PM
Maybe just like like they sell radar/laser detectors and laser jammers (which sends out a small infared beam that makes it so the LIDAR laser guns don't get a reading similar to how some military aircraft jam up radar that's after them), they could make special holsters that evade detection from gun detectors! Just a thought for entertainment. Radar detectors are legal in every state except Virginia, D.C., and military bases. Laser jammers are legal in almost every state except for a few, including mine :( Radar jammers are basically illegal for trying to evade traffic enforcement. But what if they found a way to design a holster that would be protected by some random law that was passed from a while back? Radar detectors are legal in most places because there was some Communications law passed back in the 1930's (I think that was the decade the random law was passed). Laser jammers are legal in most states because lasers are regulated by the FDA while radar in regulated by the FCC, so usually laser jammers are legal while radar jammers for cars are not. That would be fun if they designed holsters that could evade detection by these "frisking devices" and by almost random chance are protected by some law that was passed long ago. Then it could be a small arms race (in techology) between the friskers and gun owners:D Just like law enforcement is always designing better radar guns, LIDAR laser guns, and VASCAR speed enforcement devices, while the radar detector and laser jamming businesses are doing their part.

grimjaw
January 22, 2008, 04:29 PM
Wait a minute, did I hear a claim earlier in this thread that indoor plumbing caused the downfall of the Roman empire?

---

So, "they" wand you with this detector and SUSPECT (b/c I can't imagine the thing is foolproof) you have a concealed firearm, thus they have just cause to search you.

Hrm. I'll think on that one.

---

If the DetectoMagic doesn't go off, does that mean they *can't* search me, even if it looks like I've got an AK under my poncho?

jm

thorn726
January 22, 2008, 08:53 PM
try READING the whole article

wow guys. OK YES it starts out with what they wanted, a handheld, transportable device. then they tell you what they actually got.

all this thing really is
a high speed screener for places you would already get screened at.
afraid of radiation? ask for private screening which will take longer.

here are some of the more useful parts of the article

Applications

While the CTD can process a large amount of people sequentially, it is likely of best value in low volume situations. Such high value screening points would include:

* Embassies

* Government Buildings-mints, legislative offices, court houses, administrative offices, etc.

* Public buildings-schools, libraries, museums

* Transportation hubs-bus terminals, train stations

* Sporting events

* Border crossing points

* National monuments

* Research facilities and laboratories

The screening process is simply to have a person being checked walk into a marked test box, face the prompter monitor and put their arms out. The reason for arms out is to reveal the area under the armpit, where a weapon like a gun in a shoulder holster could be hidden from the radar by the flesh of the upper arm. The instrument detects the presence of the individual and begins the measurement process. During the process, three sets of readings are taken and the final decision is made by polling the readings and then looking at the total score. In the vast majority of cases, when a weapon or threat is present, the first two readings are conclusive. In those cases, the third reading is not taken and the results are immediately presented. This situation requires only about three seconds to complete the screening process.


Conclusion

A standoff concealed threat detection system has been developed and produced that is capable of detecting objects concealed under a person's clothing that can be considered dangerous. This system operates at a low power level in X-band. The typical range of operation is on the order of 15 feet and can be extended to 100 feet or more by the use of a higher gain antenna. Accuracy and performance depend on many factors, but under normal circumstances the detection rate is in the very high 90s percentile with an associated false alarm rate of only a few percent.

fred in nc
January 22, 2008, 09:33 PM
I can see it now: the Department of Homeland Security issues new rules that make it a federal violation to carry anything that could be considered pocket clutter in any pocket on one's person so that it can't interfere with radar frisking. It would go right along with those of us who already feel like they are flying rude, crude, and in the nude!

DMK
January 23, 2008, 07:34 AM
This thing will never work for schools.

1) Public schools can't even afford proper educational supplies. They won't be able to afford putting one of these at every school, much less every entrance.

2) I can't imagine getting every kid and teacher to stand in a box and raise his/her arms every time they enter the buildings. That would happen for maybe a week, if at all.

3) How good would this thing be at detecting a gun tucked between the laptop, the ipod and the cell phone?

In fact, whereever you put these things, they will greatly restrict traffic flow.

If you enjoyed reading about "New technology lets police "frisk" from a distance (for guns)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!