ThruVision Camera can detect hidden weapons?

[heron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Screwing up civil liberties seems highly more likely than the potential for this to "stop terrorism".

 

[Zoogster]

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]

Anyone know if it's in use in the US anywhere?

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

 

[Archie]

From a Legal Standpoint

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]

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]

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

 

[benEzra]

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/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]

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:





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. The official reason is often they are associated with criminals, but various statements make it rather clear there is more reasons.