ThruVision Camera can detect hidden weapons?


PDA






pdowg881
March 9, 2008, 06:28 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080309/tc_nm/security_britain_technology_dc

LONDON (Reuters) - A British company has developed a camera that can detect weapons, drugs or explosives hidden under people's clothes from up to 25 meters away in what could be a breakthrough for the security industry.

ADVERTISEMENT

The T5000 camera, created by a company called ThruVision, uses what it calls "passive imaging technology" to identify objects by the natural electromagnetic rays -- known as Terahertz or T-rays -- that they emit.

The high-powered camera can detect hidden objects from up to 80 feet away and is effective even when people are moving. It does not reveal physical body details and the screening is harmless, the company says.

The technology, which has military and civilian applications and could be used in crowded airports, shopping malls or sporting events, will be unveiled at a scientific development exhibition sponsored by Britain's Home Office on March 12-13.

"Acts of terrorism have shaken the world in recent years and security precautions have been tightened globally," said Clive Beattie, the chief executive of ThruVision.

"The ability to see both metallic and non-metallic items on people out to 25 meters is certainly a key capability that will enhance any comprehensive security system."

While the technology may enhance detection, it may also increase concerns that Britain is becoming a surveillance society, with hundreds of thousands of closed-circuit television cameras already monitoring people countrywide every day.

ThruVision came up with the technology for the T5000 in collaboration with the European Space Agency and from studying research by astronomers into dying stars.

The technology works on the basis that all people and objects emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Terahertz rays lie somewhere between infrared and microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum and travel through clouds and walls.

Depending on the material, the signature of the wave is different, so that explosives can be distinguished from a block of clay and cocaine is different from a bag of flour.

(Reporting by Luke Baker)





Can anybody explain how this works? Any thoughts on if it will ever be used in the United States?

If you enjoyed reading about "ThruVision Camera can detect hidden weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Greell
March 9, 2008, 06:30 PM
i'm going to go off on a sci-fi thought, as I am not a scientist but I have heard of types of detections devices that can detect different densities.

obviously the metal in a gun is more dense than your average clothing and bones.

perhaps this has something to do with it? I couldn't say, but that is very cool.

DMK
March 9, 2008, 06:35 PM
uses what it calls "passive imaging technology" to identify objects by the natural electromagnetic rays -- known as Terahertz or T-rays -- that they emit.Huh. Passive RADAR?

This thing sounds expensive.

MASTEROFMALICE
March 9, 2008, 06:42 PM
This thing sounds expensive. More importantly, it sounds like a hi-frequency bombardment similar to what we use to cook things in a microwave. Infrared cooks things, and microwave cook things, so any frequency in between most likely cook things.

Perhaps if everyone in England is rendered sterile the decline of their country can be halted in one generation.

Sans Authoritas
March 9, 2008, 06:47 PM
Here's a link to the kind of image they're talking about. It's passive, so it's not bombarding anything, as backscatter X-rays do. It's much like a thermal imager.

This early prototype will probably be followed by much higher-quality models very quickly. Outside of medicine, I guarantee this technology will not be used by wise or virtuous men.

http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/493BA57A-A0A5-40A3-9096-418B319ABCBA/0/ConcealedWeapon.jpg

-Sans Authoritas

Bones11b
March 9, 2008, 06:52 PM
I know for a fact that certain soldiers have claimed to villagers that a GPS was a weapons detector. This would prompt persons ignorant of the facts to retreive hidden weapons from their own homes. Pretty funny and effective.

Sans Authoritas
March 9, 2008, 09:12 PM
Bones, do you think soldiers should be disarming civilians anywhere?

-Sans Authoritas

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 9, 2008, 09:15 PM
OT Sans.

Bones11b
March 9, 2008, 09:39 PM
Bones, do you think soldiers should be disarming civilians anywhere?

-Sans Authoritas

Sorry if the retelling of an experience offended you Sans. I'm sure it was better than the alternative which would be higher up brass not being satisfied with the amount of weapons found. This in turn would sooner or later cause houses to be searched for weapons. This way I got a chuckle, the persons volunteered a weapon winning favor with us, homes were kept intact, and the war machine kept grinding on.

Eightball
March 9, 2008, 09:44 PM
Perhaps if everyone in England is rendered sterile the decline of their country can be halted in one generation.Heh heh heh.

Here's a thought--what would they do if they saw a person wearing body armor?

Though, this sounds like "harassment central" to me. "Why do you have that gun?" "What gun?" "That one" "For defense.....(etc)" or "Why do you have that body armor?" "For defense" "From what?" etc....

Cesiumsponge
March 9, 2008, 10:07 PM
More importantly, it sounds like a hi-frequency bombardment similar to what we use to cook things in a microwave. Infrared cooks things, and microwave cook things, so any frequency in between most likely cook things.

EVERY frequency will cook things if you apply enough power, including visible electromagnetic radiation--ie light. Terahertz wavelengths are below visible light. Its deep IR but above microwave (which is in the GHz range).

fchavis
March 9, 2008, 10:25 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is sort of a black body radiation detector. It can't really see weapons or explosives, just the difference between them and a person's body. The shape is noticeable in contrast. It should also be completely passive, working on the same principals as normal ccd cameras. I think the fourth amendment is going to be tried to the limits in the near future.

inkhead
March 9, 2008, 11:42 PM
Actually this already exists, it's based upon square reflection of light instead of refraction. Google Lobster eyes see-thru. And you'll found out all about it. I've actually seen a unit used, they do have some portables, and yes it sees firearms, it sees clearly with different focus levels through about anything that isn't 6 inch of solid steel. It sees though lead, and especially highlights items with metal well.

These devices are great because they use a lot less radiation.

Cesiumsponge
March 9, 2008, 11:49 PM
It takes highly energetic wavelengths to see through incredibly dense materials like lead or 6" of steel. Highly energetic wavelengths...like hard x-rays (100kv+) That is why such materials are used to begin with in nuclear environments...to shield against damaging particle and electromagnetic radiation.

The technology inkhead speaks of cannot be the same thing this article speaks of because the high energy levels required to see through half a foot of steel is definitely NOT a passive sensor device. The wimpy x-rays at the dentist or doctor's office operate the tubes at under 100kV and they won't resolve through simple titanium implants. If someone is aiming a radiological device at you that can resolve through a steel vault door, say hello to cancer.

TSinVT
March 10, 2008, 01:08 AM
X-rays and nuclear radiation are particle based. That is why you would need immense energy levels to pass through dense material. Magnetism is wave based and is not generally affected by dense objects. Put your compass inside a safe, I bet it still works.

Cesiumsponge
March 10, 2008, 01:37 AM
TSinVT said:
X-rays and nuclear radiation are particle based. That is why you would need immense energy levels to pass through dense material. Magnetism is wave based and is not generally affected by dense objects. Put your compass inside a safe, I bet it still works.

Wrong. X-ray is electromagnetic. Gamma radiation is electromagnetic. Alpha and beta decay is particle-based radiation.

Also if you put a compass inside a steel box (or any material that has reasonable magnetic permeability factor), you just effectively magnetically shielded it from the outside world. Magnetic shielding is a popular and well known science that has trickled down to consumer electronics.

Ever try putting non-shielded loudspeakers next to your TV (hah, well CRT televisions) and then compared shielded loudspeakers next to your tube TV? Tell me which magnet assembly pulls on your electron gun beam more. The shielded unit with the steel bell cap over the magnet assembly deflects flux lines which would otherwise interfere with the gun beam.

TSinVT
March 10, 2008, 09:48 AM
X-ray is essentially a beta particle (electron) with a different energy level. The only difference is it's source. It is generated from valence electrons where beta is nucleus generated. Gamma is more relative to light as it's both a wave and a particle depending on it's interactions and energy level.

As far as I can remember, speaker shielding had more to do with geometry than anything else. The bottom line is that this camera is a passive system so you aren't sterilizing people with high levels of radiation.

Edit: You're a nuke worker aren't you? I'm 400 hours from an 18.1 jr Hp.

Sans Authoritas
March 10, 2008, 09:57 AM
Sans Authoritas wrote: Bones, do you think soldiers should be disarming civilians anywhere?


Bones11b wrote: Sorry if the retelling of an experience offended you Sans. I'm sure it was better than the alternative which would be higher up brass not being satisfied with the amount of weapons found. This in turn would sooner or later cause houses to be searched for weapons. This way I got a chuckle, the persons volunteered a weapon winning favor with us, homes were kept intact, and the war machine kept grinding on.

My question had nothing to do with offending me or not. I asked what you thought of the objective justice of such an act.

What I got in return is, "I'm willing to embrace a small moral evil to prevent a bigger evil." Sorry, Bone, but you can try to justify a lot of acts by that logic. For example: "Well, if we didn't slaughter and burn an entire town as an example to the Czech people, we might have to slaughter and burn the entire country. And that would be really bad. And we can't have that, can we?"

You can't peform an evil act (lying and disarming peaceful civilians) in order to avert an evil act. If you're a Christian who follows scripture, you have to believe that. You can't do it morally, period.

But if the child-like natives were awed by your superior technology, hey, why not lie to them and confiscate their weapons. After all, if you didn't, you might be coerced to carry out some worse loathsome acts.

You can go for the rest of your life trying to justify and rationalize immoral acts, Bones, or you can man up, admit they were wrong, regret them, and move on.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
March 10, 2008, 10:01 AM
Taurusowner wrote: OT Sans.

We were talking about the ramifications of this technology. That includes the fact that people will be disarmed. Everyone knows people are disarmed by those with power. What is infinitely more important is who is being disarmed, and whether they should be disarmed.

You'll never get people to destroy this technology, just like you'll never get people to destroy their firearms. Education will prevent people from abusing both of these technologies, however. The best way to prevent the disarmament of innocents is to convince those who would disarm them of the injustice of such an act.

My comment was eminently on topic.

-Sans Authoritas

strat81
March 10, 2008, 10:11 AM
Regarding the image here:
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/493BA57A-A0A5-40A3-9096-418B319ABCBA/0/ConcealedWeapon.jpg

Would a metal-lined holster obscure the clear image of the gun? Could something as simple as a layer of aluminum foil sandwiched between two layers of leather work?

Sans Authoritas
March 10, 2008, 10:18 AM
Strat, it looks as though a shirt that was entirely lined with some sort of fine copper mesh would work just fine. This might allay the likely reaction of the operators to an area-specific opaque area: "What is that strange readout in that one particular area?"

-Sans Authoritas

lbmii
March 10, 2008, 11:22 AM
I wonder if a dense plastic would mask the metal and not show much of an image. I see a market for Terahertz blocking fabric.

strat81
March 10, 2008, 12:02 PM
"What is that strange readout in that one particular area?"

I get ya. But, considering what some people carry on their belts and in their pockets that aren't firearms, they're gonna get some interesting readouts. Pepper spray, pocket knives, multi-tools, flashlights, cell phones, PDAs, smart phones, insulin pumps, wallets, etc...

The copper mesh shirt idea is kinda interesting! Maybe this will be a reason to wear chain mail. ;)

Cesiumsponge
March 10, 2008, 09:12 PM
X-ray is essentially a beta particle (electron) with a different energy level. The only difference is it's source. It is generated from valence electrons where beta is nucleus generated. Gamma is more relative to light as it's both a wave and a particle depending on it's interactions and energy level.

As far as I can remember, speaker shielding had more to do with geometry than anything else. The bottom line is that this camera is a passive system so you aren't sterilizing people with high levels of radiation.

Edit: You're a nuke worker aren't you? I'm 400 hours from an 18.1 jr Hp.

Electrons can release all sorts of wavelengths depending on what energy levels you're exciting the electrons to jump to. All the photonic emissions in various wavelengths by excited atoms come from valence electrons returning to their ground state level as you stated. An X-ray of some arbitrary wavelength is not really any different than a strong 656nm band from hydrogen emission because its produced in the same manner, just at vastly higher energy levels required. You aren't going to get a nice x-ray band from an emission spectrum lamp at a measly 10kV of course.

I see the ambiguity though as the product from beta decay is the electron (or positron), and that electron itself is a particle. However, x-rays are liberated from the electron itself releasing a photon, and x-rays are that photon, and photons are exclusively an electromagnetic radiation. I don't see how the photon released in the x-ray wavelength is any different than IR or UV. The methodology we use to get x-rays is much different, but its still a photon when all is said and done. I don't see how it's a particle unless you're talking about the particle/wave duality of EM radiation, but that applies to the entire spectra.

When looking at a traditional x-ray tube, the stream of electrons coming off the cathode are particles, and what we have is a particle beam, but that isn't x-ray radiation. It's the interaction of the high energy electrons and the collision with the tungsten which liberates those photons when electrons get tired and give up their energy.

I probably just made matters worse though by rambling. I like this discussion though :)

devilc
December 7, 2008, 11:37 PM
I wrongly posted this again in Activism.
Just as an update:
DoD is using these in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DHS has purchased some of these.
Their corporate website is:
http://www.thruvision.com/
A quick Google search will pull up a number of articles about this technology.
It's not sci-fi nor is it bombardment.
Economy of scale and another Mumbai or Columbine will see these at the doors of every WalMart.
Wait for it.

heron
December 9, 2008, 04:00 PM
I saw an interesting thing in the latest Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog today -- a billfold made of stainless steel. They weave a cloth out of .001" SS wire, and sew the billfold together out of it.
Perhaps a shirt made of this would confuse the scanner enough to conceal something under it. Maybe not. Could be a little added protection from some injuries as well. No telling where you'd find the stuff, though.

damien
December 9, 2008, 04:07 PM
I saw an interesting thing in the latest Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog today -- a billfold made of stainless steel. They weave a cloth out of .001" SS wire, and sew the billfold together out of it.
Perhaps a shirt made of this would confuse the scanner enough to conceal something under it. Maybe not. Could be a little added protection from some injuries as well. No telling where you'd find the stuff, though.

I wonder how that theoretical garment would react if someone was wearing one and hit by a beam from an active denial system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_denial_system

If putting aluminum foil in the microwave is any indication, it could be bad.

RP88
December 9, 2008, 04:17 PM
I think the fourth amendment is going to be tried to the limits in the near future.

it already has been tried to its limits. Anything else is going to kill it.

Economy of scale and another Mumbai or Columbine will see these at the doors of every WalMart.

won't do much good, nor is it likely. I could however see this as a revolutionary replacement of the metal detector.

JImbothefiveth
December 9, 2008, 04:26 PM
What if they can see weapons? Weapons which are legally carried, and it's not against store policy to do so.

Bones, do you think soldiers should be disarming civilians anywhere?

I'd say the person could be justified, depending on the circumstances.

If they handed them over only after they thought the people had a "weapons detector", chances are the people had them illegally, or were up to no good with them.

Kind of Blued
December 9, 2008, 04:34 PM
Screwing up civil liberties seems highly more likely than the potential for this to "stop terrorism".

Zoogster
December 9, 2008, 04:58 PM
Actualy this is already being used in the US and similar technology has been used at a few airports and at some border checkpoints unofficialy.
In fact vehicles have been being unknowingly scanned at some checkpoints with radiation for awhile. They can detect things like hollow compartments in vehicles and better detect contraband like drugs etc. (Which also means people are radiated without consent.)
They usualy keep such things unknown for a few years and pretend they are finding things with dogs or other conventional means so the smugglers don't get the hint and start working to defeat the unknown technology.
Essentialy, someone could be seen in a vehicle with packages stuffed into some vehicle compartment that nothing should be in. The officers can then have them stop, and take a dog around. Whether the dog detects anything or not they already know something is really there and can simply act like the dog did detect something.
The smugglers are busted and nobody is informed of the existence of the new technology.
The drug smuggler thinks he is trying to beat a dog's nose when he is actualy being detected by another technology. So he works harder to better defeat the dog's nose in vain.

That is how it is for many technologies when they are first used. They are most successful when people do not know about them and looking for ways to defeat them.


This specific technology is now being officialy used at a court house according to the very company website. They say it cannot be used as a "nudity" camera and it cannot see the body. That is false, the units (especialy the trialed public relations units) are just tuned so thier resolution is fairly poor resulting in no graphic and clear representation of the body. That is not a limitation of the technology just intentional adjustment of the specific units.
The public outcry could be so strong as to greatly limit business if they don't ease those fears of seeing through clothes.
However when tuned for better and clearer resolution they can both detect 'contraband' even better and see body parts very clearly. It is all just how they are setup. They optionaly have decided to make the body unclear so as to not hurt sales so nobody will consider it "too much" of an invasion.
Since even better resolution can allow much easier detection of contraband, it goes without saying that the intentional limitations imposed for public relations at this point are temporary.


Further, these are primarily to detect non-metalic items a metal detector could not detect. They can be used both as checkpoints and of course in the future to "investigate" random "suspicious" people going about thier lives.
Consider London, where it is the job of some LEO to monitor CCTV all day and spy on people all throughout the city.
Combine that would facial recognition software and technology like this and it allows for a lot of "investigation" without ever letting the indvidiuals know.
In fact several US states are not even letting people smile for driver's license pictures anymore just so a driver's license photo can be used in facial recognition databases (it matches bone structure and other features not usualy altered.)

leadcounsel
December 9, 2008, 07:42 PM
Anyone know if it's in use in the US anywhere?

I've heard that Heathrow Airport uses it. Can anyone confirm?

Archie
December 9, 2008, 08:20 PM
Use of this sort of mechanism constitutes a Fourth Amendment Search. Therefore, any use of this sort of mechanism requires either immediate 'probable cause' or a court order.

The United Kingdom has no 'Fourth Amendment' limitation. (Sucks to be them, huh?) For that reason, the UK's use of this sort of thing will quite possibly happen much faster than here.

As for 'screening' from this sort of device; there's no point in 'screening. F'instance, when screening baggage for loading onto aircraft, if something shows up as 'can't see it', the operator immediately signals to open that bag and determine the item. No observer is going to pass on something 'unidentified' in such a case.

What about WalMart or even commercial airlines? If one wants to enter a WalMart store, one enters into an agreement with WalMart. WalMart - at least under the current court rulings - does not have a Constitutional mandate to allow anyone entry. Same with the airlines. If United Airlines declare being scanned is a condition of getting on one of their airlines, a traveler can take it or leave it. However, at present, there is no Constitutional right to fly on commercial aircraft.

I'll be interested in seeing the development of this technology. As someone suggested, I foresee a future in either some cloth or other technology that will mask the passive radiation from certain common objects. The technology race is never over, is it?

Leadcounsel: No, this is not being used in the United States currently. If it were - and when it is tested - the agency involved will have all sorts of advisories, announcements and signed permission forms to try it out. This sort of thing is a Fourth Amendment Search without question.


Am I being overly offensive to suggest Zoogster is just a little eager about his knowledge of technology and U. S. law enforcement agencies?

The Deer Hunter
December 9, 2008, 08:30 PM
Big brother is coming to get us...

This is some pretty scary stuff. Do the engineers who made this thing up even consider how people might take it?

It seems like governments get more and more paranoid, like for some reason they need to keep citizens under constant surveillance. Do the people who want to institute this ever go outside? It's been 18 and so years and counting and never once have I seen any kind of battle erupt in the middle of everyday tasks.

SSN Vet
December 9, 2008, 09:45 PM
We ran crates for a company in MA called Millivission that makes a similar system.

Our sales guy got to see a demo and said it was awesome.

They can put the system in the walls of a building corridor and scan people coming in without their knowing it.

Just as an interesting side note, you can see their body form beneath their clothes as well :scrutiny:

benEzra
December 9, 2008, 10:41 PM
EVERY frequency will cook things if you apply enough power, including visible electromagnetic radiation--ie light. Terahertz wavelengths are below visible light. Its deep IR but above microwave (which is in the GHz range).
People shine like lightbulbs in the millimeter-wave range (ordinary thermal/blackbody emission), and those wavelengths penetrate clothing. They don't penetrate denser materials, and cooler objects don't radiate. So, a millimeter-wave camera can see weapons through clothing, as dark shadows against a bright background.

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div815/QITT_Project/Images/QIT_fig2_mm-wave.png
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div815/QITT_Project/Accomplishments.htm

Backscatter X-ray gives much higher resolution (to the point that you can tell if a man is circumcised, or if a woman has body piercings in discreet areas), but requires an active emitter. Millimeter-wave imagers are passive, like FLIR.

Zoogster
December 10, 2008, 04:50 AM
Am I being overly offensive to suggest Zoogster is just a little eager...
Oh I clearly understand it makes the technology less useful to share it. However not under contract or binding law to keep such things secret, and also seeing them as a clearly effective tool for those inclined to tyranny, I feel sharing such information so the legalities can be discussed and figured out sooner rather than later is more beneficial to everyone.
Further, similar technology is also being used by foriegn governments to scan vehicles, shipping containers, and even people, not just by the US government. So it is not some state secret.

What about WalMart or even commercial airlines? If one wants to enter a WalMart store, one enters into an agreement with WalMart. WalMart - at least under the current court rulings - does not have a Constitutional mandate to allow anyone entry. Same with the airlines. If United Airlines declare being scanned is a condition of getting on one of their airlines, a traveler can take it or leave it. However, at present, there is no Constitutional right to fly on commercial aircraft.
Yes, I thought the exact same argument would be used, except some of the very places such technology is being used are places that people have no choice to go or not to go.
The website of the this specific company ThruVision even highlights it is being trialed at a US court house.
Citizens do not have a right to decline entry into a court house. Whether for criminal or civil prcoeedings or for other things like if summoned for jury duty.
They must legaly show up or they will have a bench warrant issued for thier arrest.
They are not consenting to a search, but they must be screened to be allowed entrance and not break the law by missing court.


Our sales guy got to see a demo and said it was awesome.

They can put the system in the walls of a building corridor and scan people coming in without their knowing it.

Just as an interesting side note, you can see their body form beneath their clothes as well
Yes as I stated in the previous post, units tuned for optimal resolution see absolutely clear. You can make out everything almost as if clothes are not even on. Such technology in various units does not require checkpoints to use and some even works on people on the go. Great in a police state to "investigate suspicious persons" without ever having to let them know, unless you see something...like a firearm.

There is also a few similar technologies that operate slightly differently. Some can even see some internal things, like something hidden in a rectum, or swallowed. Those of course are a bit more harmful, but if the person does not know, they can't really complain about the health risks.
Those use x rays, and different ones use different power levels.

Lower level radiation ones like the Rapiscan 1000 just see the surface (perfect name.) http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000.html
The TSA just signed a large contract for the Rapiscan baggage system in October http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS147409+30-Oct-2008+BW20081030 , but the human screening is more limited, though they have been trialed at some airports for quite awhile.

According to USA today such technology is just barely being tapped, and the wonderful new things possible in the future are endless:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080606/a_bodyscan06.art.htm
The TSA says it protects privacy by blurring passengers' faces and deleting images right after viewing. Yet the images are detailed, clearly showing a person's gender. "You can actually see the sweat on someone's back," Schear said.

Here is an article about Germany trying to figure out ways to stop the technology from showing nipples:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/germany-tries-t.html

I would give some of the more detailed examples of the screening, but that would be nudity and might not be appreciated on THR.
Most of the press release example pictures they give to media are very misleading. The details of some units are absolutely clear.

Here is an example of some the less offensive and detailed pictures of similar technology being widely used:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1335251,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1335269,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1220976,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1220985,00.jpg

These are not the higher resolution units of such technology.

I saw an interesting thing in the latest Hammacher-Schlemmer catalog today -- a billfold made of stainless steel. They weave a cloth out of .001" SS wire, and sew the billfold together out of it.
Perhaps a shirt made of this would confuse the scanner enough to conceal something under it. Maybe not. Could be a little added protection from some injuries as well. No telling where you'd find the stuff, though.
Are you kidding? If such technology became common they would just outlaw things intended to defeat it, and make attempts to intentionaly defeat it a crime.
No different than they outlawed knives and guns that can defeat metal detectors. Ceramic knives for example by default are undectable. They have to add additional material to the composition or end product to insure it sets off regularly calibrated metal detectors to not be commiting a serious crime.
In Britian various places are already restricting "hoodies" (hooded sweatshirts.) Nobody with nothing to hide needs anything that might defeat CCTV obviously. :rolleyes: The official reason is often they are associated with criminals, but various statements make it rather clear there is more reasons.

If you enjoyed reading about "ThruVision Camera can detect hidden weapons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!