Slashdot Mirror


Homeland Security Funds LED Light That Blinds, Disorients

katzmeow writes "Ryand Singel's Wired blog notes that Homeland security has developed an LED flashlight that uses 'powerful flashes of light to temporarily blind, disorient and incapacitate people.' The idea is to use it to incapacitate people — 'arrest them' — on airlines, borders, etc. without using traditional weapons. The company's president Bob Lieberman says the tool is perfect for confronting 'border jumpers.' 'You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody,' says Lieberman. 'With this, they don't need to know English to comply.' The 'light saber' can even be scaled up to bazooka size for subduing crowds."

455 comments

  1. Vlad calls it the evil color by UncleWilly · · Score: 1

    But seriously, I predict if they make them look like guns, there is a chance for success. They are trying to sell them to guys who like guns. Also, you don't want users to accidentally confused this with a normal flashlight.

    1. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by arivanov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually the opposite.

      Guns can be detected even if they are disguised. It is difficult to hide a chamber, rounds, etc from an X-Ray (not impssible, just difficult). Now this will be trivial to disguise like anything you want starting from a mobile phone and finishing with accessories normally sold in Ann Somers or Agent Provocateur.

      So while the "good" guys (quotes quite intentional actually) may want to have this look like a gun...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by An+dochasac · · Score: 5, Informative

      "There's one wavelength that gets everybody," Lieberman said, according to the newsletter. "Vlad calls it the evil color."

      And if the psychophysical effects are limited to a single or range of wavelengths, these effects are easily blocked with Dichroic Filter Sunglasses. Or better yet, Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

      The good news if the DOD is again looking for creative ways of wasting money, this obviously means they are nearly finished with the cleanup from two wars. Couple hundred billion here, couple hundred billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

      /me darkens peril sensitive shades.
    3. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      When I first heard about this years ago, it was because someone noticed that when cops sat under the flashing blue lights for too long, they got queasy. Separating whether it was the lights, or (seriously) too many donuts and coffee at 3:00 a.m. was part of the challenge.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    4. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One Light to rule them all
      One Light to find them
      One Light to bring them all
      and into darkness, blind them.

    5. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with dichroic filters, in this application, is that their sharp cutoff freq is only accurate when the incident illumination is normal to the coating surface - you go off-axis with the illuminant and the filter 'changes color'. Try it: you look off-axis through a dichroic and the wavelength gets shorter.

    6. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    7. Re:Vlad calls it the evil color by matt20 · · Score: 1

      I wonder when I can put one of these on my ebike?

      Red traffic light?

      No problem... "evil color" switch on.

  2. I'm sure... by robo_mojo · · Score: 5, Funny

    that this will never get into the wrong hands. Oh, wait.

    1. Re:I'm sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Pepper sprays, tazers etc have never been misused by police. Oh wait...

    2. Re:I'm sure... by robo_mojo · · Score: 2, Informative

      *whoosh*

    3. Re:I'm sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      *whoosh*


      Well, if you missed my point, I can make it more clear: I agree.

    4. Re:I'm sure... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the introduction of a non-lethal, safer-than-shooting-a-gun method of subduing a suspected criminal considered such a bad thing? If I were as paranoid of the government as you obviously are, I'd rather have them weilding a temporarily blinding light than to just save batteries and cram a load of C4 up my rear. Seriously, what's up with you people?

    5. Re:I'm sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you read the 2nd amendment? "The requirement to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    6. Re:I'm sure... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Well personally I'm not very keen on the idea of someone using a light to temporarily/maybe not so temporarily blind my eyes. They already have a whole bunch of non-lethal weapons, so why is this needed?

    7. Re:I'm sure... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that the introduction of a non-lethal, safer-than-shooting-a-gun method of subduing a suspected criminal considered such a bad thing? If I were as paranoid of the government as you obviously are, I'd rather have them weilding a temporarily blinding light than to just save batteries and cram a load of C4 up my rear. Seriously, what's up with you people? The problem with less-than-lethals is that they were designed with the idea of "at least now there's an option other than shooting someone." That's fair. But the way they're used is "I don't feel like wrestling you to the ground and cuffing you, have some taser." The assumption is because it's called non-lethal (although it should be called less-than-lethal, most of the time) is that the cops don't think there's any risk associated with it. You're not as likely to kill someone with a taser than a gun, but you're still running more of a risk than if you subdued them the old-fashioned way.

      I think the operating rule with these less-than-lethals should be "If you didn't have one of these and you would otherwise be shooting them with a gun, that's when you use these. If you would never have resorted to the gun, stick with the nightstick."
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:I'm sure... by aicrules · · Score: 1

      So something that uses considerably less force and causes less potential damage should only be used in exactly the same situation as you would use a gun? No freakin way. If I'm in a situation where use of a gun is appropriate level of force, I'm not going to hope that my blinding light will be an acceptible substitute. The RoE that lead up to shoot-to-kill are meant to be progressively higher force. Yes, I agree that now with this new technology they should evaluate situations that currently require use of firearm to see if they could potentially be replaced with this new device. But I wouldn't presume that the only time it should be used is when I've reached "shoot them" as the next level of force. I would say it is closer to using a nightstick than using a gun.

      Oh, and I'd rather be temporarily blinded than beaten with a nightstick...

    9. Re:I'm sure... by aicrules · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you make the assumption that it the effect isn't temporary, then no, this isn't a very effective addition to the police arsenal. However, it is the opposite assertion made by this article. I am all for the investigation and innovation of new less-than-lethal methods of subduing suspects. What we have now can be used effectively, but if there's something that can MORE effectively subdue suspects then I'm all for it. For example, if they could create a long range gun that was guaranteed to completely stun someone for five minutes without causing any long term damage, I think that would be a great alternative to shooting them in the head. I'm certain that there are many better ways to peacefully end a situation where a new technology would be the key enabler. And I'm sure you would appreciate it when you're the suspect (guilty or not) and you do something stupid (like wave what looks like a gun around) and the police have three options instead of one before dropping you with their 9mm.

    10. Re:I'm sure... by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      The problem with less-than-lethals is that they were designed with the idea of "at least now there's an option other than shooting someone." That's fair. But the way they're used is "I don't feel like wrestling you to the ground and cuffing you, have some taser." The assumption is because it's called non-lethal (although it should be called less-than-lethal, most of the time) is that the cops don't think there's any risk associated with it. You're not as likely to kill someone with a taser than a gun, but you're still running more of a risk than if you subdued them the old-fashioned way.

      I was going to compliment you on the nice strawman you built, but then its a dangerous argument that you make. The police officer is not saying, "I don't feel like wrestling you to the ground and cuffing you", he is thinking, "Wrestling someone to the ground is a quick way to lose control. Weapons, lethal or not, can be grabbed off the belt."

      You see, its about positive control of the situation. Cops are trained that the closer they get to the suspect, the more danger they place themselves into, and the suspect. The only time you put yourself in that position, is when you have the most amount of positive control that can be applied to the situation.

      When a cop approaches a suspect, there is much he doesn't know; Is the suspect armed, is the suspect in control of their faculties, are they on any drugs, what is their ability to ward off a physical confrontation (some wirey little dudes have suprising wrestling skills and some huge Grande Samoans are very quick).

      Yes, there have been cases of non-lethal weapons killing. There have been cases of non-lethal weapons causing damage beyond the temporary (temporary like TASER barbs sticking in the skin or pepper spray causing a rash). There have been cases of non-lethal weapons being misused, like the case with Rodney King. However, compared to the times all these things did not happen, and the non-lethal weapon was used effectively and the police officer was able to avoid serious risk, the numbers pale.

      Or, perhaps you'd rather the police just shoot? Sometimes bullets are non-lethal.

      Or, perhaps you believe the police officer is getting paid enough to take unwarrented risks? Hey, they put on the badge, they accept the risks.

      Or, you'd like it if the police weren't armed?

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    11. Re:I'm sure... by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      That's why there is a hierarchy to the application of force.

      It's been a few years, but while in the military I believe it was:

      • Physical Presence - "Hey you! Stop!"
      • Physical Confrontation - Grabbing, tackling, etc.
      • Handcuffs - Gets into the realm of weapons. (Were declared lethal weapons in California at one point. A suspect had one hand cuffed when he spun around and the open bracelet snagged the lip of the officer and tore his cheek open.)
      • Baton
      • Pepper Spray
      • Firearms

      Pepper spray was above using your baton since you could stop hitting them if they gave up. Pepper spray is the gift that keeps on giving and is pretty dangerous to use. Anyone with asthma, or other breathing problems, has a pretty good risk of dying. That's why the rules for pepper spray include providing immediate treatment to the victim. (Or at least they used to...) Tasers have the same risks for people with heart conditions. Other less than lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets, can easily kill someone. There are strict rules for the range you can use them, and how to use them, such as bouncing the bullets off the ground and no head shots. Accuracy of the rounds were also pretty bad, with some shots drifitng by a few feet at 10 yards. During our qualification with the weapons we were knocking holes in 1/2 inch plywood at 10 yards. Now imagine something like that to the face/head/neck.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    12. Re:I'm sure... by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      are they on any drugs


      I used to hang out with a couple University Police officers on my campus (one was my roommate, actually). They dealt with a case where they were called in to handle a guy on PCP. He wasn't exactly aware of what was going on or what he was doing, but five cops could not subdue him. He was throwing them around like ragdolls. Finally he tore enough of his own muscles (yes, I'm serious) to not have the strength to be resist being subdued. I'm pretty sure that he did much more permanent damage to himself than tasering him until he fell over would have done. As well as putting two officers in the hospital for the evening with bruises, sprains, and a couple cracked ribs on one of them.

      Another consideration besides "are they on drugs" is "do they have any infectious diseases?". A few shady characters that were banned from campus were known carriers of HIV or Hepatitis that would try to bite/scratch arresting officers.

      Of course "non-lethal" weapons can kill. You can kill someone with your fists, if they're used (im)properly. I'd rather take my chances with a heart-attack brought on by a taser than massive blood loss and shock brought on by a gunshot wound. :P
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    13. Re:I'm sure... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Here in Long Beach the police are trained to stay "one level ahead". If the person is unarmed, the police will use the baton. If the person has a knife, the police are going to pull their guns. If the person has a gun, the police are going to setup a perimeter and call in the SWAT team. Police officers aren't expected to "fight fairly". They are there to temporarily remove you from society until the powers that be can sort out whatever the situation was that caused them to be called out in the first place.

    14. Re:I'm sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It shouldn't be called "less than lethal" most of the time. It should be called "less lethal" most of the time.

    15. Re:I'm sure... by westlake · · Score: 1
      If you would never have resorted to the gun, stick with the nightstick."

      You know you have entered the Twilight Zone when a billy club is described as a kinder and gentler weapon than a blinding flash of light.

      "Subdued" with a nightstick means "beaten into submission" if that is what it takes.

    16. Re:I'm sure... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      You know you have entered the Twilight Zone when a billy club is described as a kinder and gentler weapon than a blinding flash of light.

      "Subdued" with a nightstick means "beaten into submission" if that is what it takes. I'm drawing a comparison to existing "less than lethals" as they are currently employed. Who knows what the repercussions of the supposedly safe flashlight are. The way things go, we'll find out they cause macular degeneration and blindness. Current less-than-lethals, i.e. tasers, carry a greater risk of heart attack than a billy club.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  3. Sunglasses anyone by andyh3930 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I'll have to remember to bring my sunglasses too now if I want to cross into the USA illegally, as well as the tinfoil suit to ward off their microwave guns http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187250 95.600

    1. Re:Sunglasses anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tinfoil suit to protect yourself from microwaves? Well, I'm a nice guy, so I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award.

  4. How 'bout... by akkarin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Would sunglasses block this? Don't laugh, I'm being serious!

    --
    This sig left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:How 'bout... by Askmum · · Score: 1

      I'm not laughing. Sure they will.

      Three letters: M.I.B.

    2. Re:How 'bout... by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      From the FA:

      THREAT LEVEL can only wonder how long will it be until war protesters and Rio Grande swimmers start wearing reflective clothing?

      Though it would be nice to find a real news source on this (note: Wired is not a real news source, not even close) which might cover if such countermeasures would work. I would think the fact that it is flashing might make it still effective against a person wearing sunglasses; even if they have some protection, their eyes will still need to be able to adjust to constantly changing amounts of light. And since it is apparently range dependent, I doubt reflective clothing would be very effective.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    3. Re:How 'bout... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Would sunglasses block this? Don't laugh, I'm being serious!


      That's beside the point. If you don't want people to have these weapons, or a chance to use them on you, you should fight it. Otherwise, you'll soon find yourself fighting a criminal charge for wearing sunglasses on all but the sunniest days, or without being on a designated sunbathing spot.
    4. Re:How 'bout... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      I agree, even if you do get a pair of glasses which protect the eyes from bright light (welders goggles for example), they are only useful in the bright light because once the lights go out, the opposite happens, everything is dark due to the power of the goggles.

    5. Re:How 'bout... by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Use heavily tinted polarized glasses, and you'll be fine.

      On that note, I already have a special tool that can blind and disorient - it's called a Fenix L2D-CE... at 135 torch lumens, when shone into the eyes of a dark-adapted person, it will leave them blind for about 20 seconds, and will leave rings in their eyes for 10-20 minutes... if used at 2-3 meters away.

    6. Re:How 'bout... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most good welding helmets now use auto-darkening glass. The tint is light enough to see the piece being worked on until the arc is struck, then it darkens enough to protect the eyes.

      I have a relatively cheap one, but it has adjustable darkening, adjustable delay, and goes from light to full dark in 1/10,000th of a second. Some of the better ones have can tell if the light is from an arc or a grinding wheel and adjust their tint accordingly. Pretty cool stuff.

      I;m a good test case for incapacitating light as I am kind of a fan of high powered flashlights, and my eyes are on the photosensitive side. If I'm dark adjusted and I accidentally shine a Surefire M6 at my face I almost immediately become sick to my stomach. My cheap welding helmet can cut that beam down to pretty much nothing though.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    7. Re:How 'bout... by db32 · · Score: 1

      SHUT UP! I have not finished purchasing my stock options in the various sunglasses makers! On top of this, I should turn your ass in to the FBI and Treasury dept so they can freeze your assets for causing harm to the glorious project of Iraqi restoration by teaching insurgents counter techniques. Thanks to the new laws coming in you have NO legal recourse against me for turning your ass in to be hauled off to any of the secret foreign prisons we use so that we don't have to be bothered by those Godless liberals and their laws about torture!

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    8. Re:How 'bout... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I have my RayBans since MIB. Just in case...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Just in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Mexico, welding helmet demands have gone through the roof.

    1. Re:Just in: by somersault · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pfft.. in Soviet Russia, welding helmet demands YOU!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Just in: by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      (Helmets!) I can now imagine the Mexican football team jumping over the wall.

  6. Easily countered by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Self-dimming welder's goggles should be enough to render this weapon useles.

    --
    All rites reversed 2010
    1. Re:Easily countered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Right! They'll never suspect a thing if i walk into the airport with welder goggles on. Never i say!

    2. Re:Easily countered by Philosomatographer · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our self-dimming-goggle-wearing, border-crossing immigrants! (I should imagine a person wearing self-dimming-goggles in, say, a U.S. airport, would get arrested as a matter of principle)

    3. Re:Easily countered by juhaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ordinary sunglasses will probably be enough to render this thing useless, and they're rather less, um, conspicuous than welder's goggles.

    4. Re:Easily countered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-dimming welder's goggles should be enough to render you useless.

      Sure, they aren't always dark, but you still just have a little tiny window to look out of, you are severely restricted. And unless you happen to be welding while you cross the border or plant a bomb, you will be pretty obvious...

    5. Re:Easily countered by the_13th_saint · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Have you ever tried moving around in an area lit by a bright rapid strobe light? This can be blinding and it will disorient you and make keeping your balance while running away very difficult.

      It however would make for fun high speed photography images :P
      So while sunglasses or other visual shields may help, you still have to overcome the effects of the strobe. http://www.eugeneciurana.com/musings/from_omni/sho pping.html 'A technology under development by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, uses pulsed light, like strobe lights in a disco, to blind and disorient without the explosive component of dazzlers and flash bangs. The researchers are also working on sophisticated goggles that use liquid crystal display (LCD) technology to darken and lighten the eyepieces as the light pulses on and off, shielding whoever is using the technology from its effects. Reportedly, they've hit a stumbling block in trying to get the LCDs to react quickly enough.'

    6. Re:Easily countered by ceroklis · · Score: 2, Funny

      this is even more discreet. They cannot see your face, man !

    7. Re:Easily countered by CrackedButter · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Duh, port the technology into contact lenses.

    8. Re:Easily countered by MalHavoc · · Score: 1

      Goggles like those that Riddick wears, anyone? Sunglasses are legal everywhere - what's to stop these from becoming a similar fashion statement?

    9. Re:Easily countered by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Area primarily lit by a strobe is rather different from a place with abundant ambient light with a strobe thrown in. It would have to contribute a significant part of the overall lightning for the strobe effect to be very significant, and considering we're talking about a glorified flashlight here, I doubt it can be that bright.

      Indoors, or at night, perhaps. Outside during full daylight? Snowballs have a better chance in hell.

    10. Re:Easily countered by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Not really. I built one (Cost me $39.00 in parts including the 4D cell Mag light) and even with dark tint sunglasses it forces you to put your hand in front of your eyes.

      I have a 5 watt Green LED built into the lensing to make it into around a 1 foot diameter beam at 30 feet, easy to keep on your face.

      on a bright sunny day it's painful to look at, inside I can give you temporary blindlness quite quick with it, if I leave the beam on your face you are not going to see me or what I am doing.

      The sad part is the government is goingto spend 8-9 billion dollars so some dimwit company can get rich overnight and design essentially the same thing.

      I CAN nearly double the light output if I overdrive the LED module HARD but in pulses.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Easily countered by jargoone · · Score: 1

      Got any info/links on building one of these?

    12. Re:Easily countered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this? Bonus: also protects the user from tear gas. =)

    13. Re:Easily countered by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      www.ebay.com

      buy the parts and start soldering. it's really basic electronics. I got the 5W green Luxeon LED from a china gray market seller on ebay, got the flashlight from target.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Easily countered by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      I think that's how the cold war started.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    15. Re:Easily countered by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 1

      That just made my day. Thanks!

      --
      Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
    16. Re:Easily countered by dodobh · · Score: 1

      So all I need to do is make an explosive device trigger which needs to be exposed to a strobe to work?

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    17. Re:Easily countered by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Self-dimming welder's goggles should be enough to render this weapon useles.

      Won't work. Self-dimming welder's goggles work by detecting the EMP from the welding arc.
  7. Does it work if... by robo_mojo · · Score: 1

    the victim is already blind?

    1. Re:Does it work if... by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, it would work, but it wouldn't have much effect on the victim.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    2. Re:Does it work if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an incredibly insightful reply, if you think about it.

  8. Nice by okinawa_hdr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "subduing crowds"...I don't like the sound of that.

    1. Re:Nice by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Yes, not even unruly crowds, just groups of people. I didn't know gatherings had to be subdued.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    2. Re:Nice by farkus888 · · Score: 0, Troll

      you must not be a good law abiding republican citizen. if you were you'd have nothing to fear.

      --
      thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
    3. Re:Nice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe Homeland Security has reason to worry that there will soon be large angry crowds that need subduing.

      Although it has been a while since there have been any riots in the US. Maybe they know something we don't.

      And here I thought Homeland Security was supposed to be worrying about terrorism.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Nice by tttonyyy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "subduing crowds"...I don't like the sound of that. But given the choice, would you rather be subdued by:

      a) rubber bullets
      b) tear gas
      c) water cannon
      d) wall of shields and batons
      e) bright lights

      I know what I'd chose! :)

      Of course we're missing the uber-overlord crowd-suppressor; the rubber bullet firing tear gas cannon super-bright torch baton.
      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    5. Re:Nice by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like the fact that it can be used for subduing crowds without having to talk to them, everythings much simpler when you don't have to engage in any dialouge with enemy.

    6. Re:Nice by hviezda14 · · Score: 2, Funny

      c) is correct - most fun of all choices.

    7. Re:Nice by somersault · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I'd prefer a couple of bruises to being permanently blinded.. though I've never been hit by a water cannon or rubber bullets, maybe it's not as fun as it sounds? :P

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Nice by MrMr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice idea for a poll

      I'd say
      d) If you're on a brick road, but dodging c) back trough their own ranks is also fun.

    9. Re:Nice by badfish99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't like to be subdued by any of them, thank you very much.

      But, if you're going to give the police a weapon, there's an argument that a gun is better than any of these. Everyone knows that a gun is lethal, so a policeman is going to think carefully before using it on anyone who is not immediately threatening his life.
      But if the policeman has got a simple non-lethal weapon like this, he's got a strong motivation for "subduing" anyone who happens to disagree with him or who doesn't instantly obey his orders. What better instrument of oppression than a police force that is always instantly obeyed for fear of something like this?

    10. Re:Nice by oliverthered · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      that's why they invented suicide bombers.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    11. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the "dialogue"... everything IS simpler with a dialogue... but when you talk without listening, then it is not dialogue...

      Everything is not simpler when you impose your force or morale.

      BTW, do you think that those toys will stay in the hands of Homeland Security?

      I think not. And we will have another social problem to deal with.

      Good thinking... very good thinking...

    12. Re:Nice by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are FOUR LIGHTS!

      (ST:TNG - Chain of Command, Part II)

    13. Re:Nice by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it leave your skill all smooth and silky too!

      --
      You mad
    14. Re:Nice by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      BTW, do you think that those toys will stay in the hands of Homeland Security?

      Nah, they'll be sold to our Middle Eastern "allies", Israel, various African states, etc, to further the cause of repression. Once industry gets a hold of this, it _will_ be sold to the highest bidder. And just because it's "non-lethal" doesn't mean that the people arrested with use of this won't be beaten or shot behind closed doors after being arrested. Blood in the streets makes for bad PR for any government, dictatorships included. Blood behind closed doors is out of sight, out of mind, sadly.

      -b.

    15. Re:Nice by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Although it has been a while since there have been any riots in the US.

      Because almost all of us, myself included, are gutless sheep, and care more about our own sense of comfort and security than about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in. :(

    16. Re:Nice by Howserx · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a good thing my tinfoil hat is highly reflective. Back at ya, oppressor man!

      --
      I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
    17. Re:Nice by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> rather be subdued by:

      f) Cowboy Neal

    18. Re:Nice by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      But given the choice, would you rather be subdued by:

      a) rubber bullets
      b) tear gas
      c) water cannon
      d) wall of shields and batons
      e) bright lights
      f) Cowboy Neil
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    19. Re:Nice by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why do I suddenly have the feeling that the relationships between the USA and China are gonna get better...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Nice by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Why do I suddenly have the feeling that the relationships between the USA and China are gonna get better...

      Yeah, China too. Wouldn't it have been nice for them if the shooting of Tianeman Square could have been confined to the basement of police headquarters at close range rather than out in the streets for every Western reporter to point at?

      -b.

    21. Re:Nice by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't like to be subdued by any of them, thank you very much.

      What are you, a ... TERRORIST?!?!?

      This is the USA. The police are always right. They never have bad intentions. So if they are subduing you, they have a good reason to. Be glad they're only blinding you, and not beating you or sodomizing you with a broomstick. If you immediately curl up in a ball and obey their orders, they might just let you live (in jail for the next 5 years, that is). It's really for your own good, what with all the terrorists all over the place, hiding in every shadow, waiting to pounce.

      Be a good little citizen and obey your government. Remember, authority figures are always right.

    22. Re:Nice by Venik · · Score: 1

      Let's see, rubber bullets have been know to kill or leave serious internal injuries that can permanently affect your quality of life. People have been beaten to death with batons and some have died from tear gas. Bright lights can permanently damage your eyes and even leave you blind. I will go with a water cannon. Besides, seeing a homeland security agent armed with a supersoaker in itself will be worth the cost of the airline ticket.

    23. Re:Nice by OfficialReverendStev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But then what happens when the officer does need to subdue someone? If all he has is a gun, lethal force is his only option. Let's say he's being attacked by somebody with a baseball bat and they're swinging really hard. He could blind and subdue them or shoot.

      I'm not a cop nor do I know any personally, but killing someone, no matter the cause, is something that would haunt anybody for the rest of their life. I would think that any cop would rather have, maybe in addition to their sidearm, a non-lethal means to protect themself.

      --
      A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
    24. Re:Nice by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The thing is, a superficially "safer" subdual method always means lowering the bar on the use of coercion. In fact, the summary itself, quoting the article, shows that's part of the thinking with this. While its phrased in sugary language as "they don't have to understand English to comply", the clear message is "Someone doesn't have to be a threat in any way which would traditionally justify anything beyond verbal directions for us to use this, if our officers directions aren't immediately understood and complied with, we'll just zap first and talk later."

    25. Re:Nice by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      But if the policeman has got a simple non-lethal weapon like this, he's got a strong motivation for "subduing" anyone who happens to disagree with him or who doesn't instantly obey his orders.


      As the company rep says, "With this, they don't have to understand English to comply." So, the manufacturer's overt selling point is that the device frees law enforcement from needing to be understood, since they can just "flash" people with it and deal with them however they choose.

    26. Re:Nice by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      You cannot have a dialogue witha crowd.

      Insinuating that you can is disengenuous.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    27. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us don't have children and just don't give a fuck.

    28. Re:Nice by Overd0g · · Score: 1

      You forgot option f) .50 cal machine gun

    29. Re:Nice by _Mustang · · Score: 1

      No need to say "if" - there is evidence out now to support your statements.

      Presumably everyone has heard of the "taser" device, a nice little shock and your perp is subdued. Sounds like a great idea - since no one has to be shot to put them down the whole "blood and lawsuits" problem goes away. Only problem is that as more and more taser incidents have occurred we've seen some very negative scenarios. The stories I've read about include shock induced heart-attacks and internal injuries/burns. If I recall correctly it happened to perps with and without pacemakers as well as a couple of guys who were so high that they needed multiple zaps.

      Who knows what if any neural damage might result from this new "neuralizer", effects not intended but still..
      So I think that the status quo is preferable,

    30. Re:Nice by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yes you can, and no it isn't.

      If people are actually rioting then no you can't but if they're simply protesting then engaging in a dialouge or just leaving them too it is better than attempting to control them like cattle.

    31. Re:Nice by fnj · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't like to be subdued by any of them, thank you very much...if you're going to give the police a weapon, there's an argument that a gun is better than any of these. Everyone knows that a gun is lethal, so a policeman is going to think carefully before using it on anyone who is not immediately threatening his life. But if the policeman has got a simple non-lethal weapon like this, he's got a strong motivation for "subduing" anyone who happens to disagree with him or who doesn't instantly obey his orders.

      Your argument has merit, but on the other hand I am afraid that the policeman will always have ostensible "non-lethal" weapons that cannot be taken away: his fists, his shod foot, and his billy club. Hapless citizens have been killed by all three even though the policeman (ostensibly at least) has no intention of killing them.

      Give the policeman this bright light thingie, and (1) if you are optimistic, he has a better first choice if he really doesn't want to cause bodily harm or kill you, and (2) even if you are pessimistic, he is less likely to use more dangerous implements, because it would be harder to explain away in court.
    32. Re:Nice by fnj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But given the choice, would you rather be subdued by...

      Subdue: verb: 1 : to conquer and bring into subjection.

      I don't think I want to be subdued at all, thank you.
    33. Re:Nice by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I think the anecdotal evidence is clear that the police are already tasering anyone who doesn't comply quickly.
      If you haven't seen the videos just google or youtube for them.

      So now civil disobedience has been taken away as a viable peaceful method of protest.
      Try having a "sit-in" now. Everyone will get tased, be writhing on the floor in agony, and dragged away before any news media has a chance to arrive.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    34. Re:Nice by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      I think if someones coming at you with a baseball bat you have the right to shoot them. Ive seen and read of far too many "Step out of the car sir" tasering incidents where the suspect is posing absolutely no threat except maybe disagreeing with the officer.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    35. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, I've seen more than one 'peaceful' protest that involved throwing bottles at the police.

      I've got no problem with peaceful protests and if the cops do suddenly open up for no reason they should be disciplined. Show me an UNEDITED video of this happening and I'll support you 100%.

      If a protest turns riot though, I want the cops to be able to shut that shit down as fast as possible. If they can do that without killing any protesters, all the better.

    36. Re:Nice by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      So having the right to do something translates to you feeling good about doing it? Re-read the post you just replied to!

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    37. Re:Nice by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      I think we can all agree that whoever came up with the idea of designing a weapon to attack large crowds of protesters should be the test subject for their demonstration.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    38. Re:Nice by dave562 · · Score: 1

      If they're protesting, they've pretty much already made up their mind about what they think you are going to tell them. Dialogue happens after the fact, or before the fact but not during.

    39. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, how many times have you seen someone shot with a taser?

    40. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But given the choice, would you rather be subdued by.....

      Honestly, I'd go for either C or D. Rubber bullets, tear gas, and bright lights can easily lead to collateral damage, say for instance if I'm an innocent bystander, than if I see a water cannon or a wall fo shields and batons coming at me to which I can run the other way without being blinded and running myself under a bus, or completely decapacitated by a rubber bullet. Tear gas or bright lights, both will blind you but not incapacitate you, and running around blind in a panicked crowd is a sure fire way to be seriously injured or killed. One on one, with no "crowd" to subdue, I think any of the options are okay - but some are a real overkill to subdue just one or two persons.

      I wonder... If someone is hopped up on PCP and a bullet (rubber or otherwise) doesn't stop them, would blinding them stop them?

      True story: I attended Chico State, CA in '87 when there were riots. Seems a couple of frat houses were having a huge party that included burning couches in the street. The first response was to bring out the fire trucks, which couldn't get to the fire because the streets were filled with a drunk crowd of college students. So the hoses were turned on the crowd, kinda like the water cannon idea for dispersing the crowd.

      Didn't work. Students thought it was fun to play in the water, and kept charging into it after getting knocked back. It wasn't until cops and batons from four other cities came rushing in that led to bloodshed. I can also vouch for the "fun" and less-lethal aspect, since I volunteered with the forest service and we used to have "hose wars" when bored - just to see who could hang on longer or be blasted back when caught square in the chest.

      So, I guess I'd really like door number C, Monty. That one, at least, is less likely to seriously injur or even kill me.

    41. Re:Nice by shma · · Score: 1

      I've seen this argument a few times already, but it rests on a false premise, that police don't abuse their right to carry lethal weapons. That is certainly not the case. The question that should be asked is what can cause the most damage, an abuse of power by a man with a gun, or an abuse of power by a man with a LED blinder?

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    42. Re:Nice by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      "he rubber bullet firing tear gas cannon super-bright torch baton."

      I like this- may I subscribe to your newsletter and buy one?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    43. Re:Nice by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Dialogue requires coherent communication between two entities. A crowd will usually not have a coherent voice. A crowd that is in need of some external control even less so.

      By your statements though it seems that you are implying that any crowd of lawful, peaceful protestors will be obligatorily blasted by this device when police arrive.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    44. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it has been a while since there have been any riots in the US. Maybe they know something we don't.

      I have a right-wing family member that still can't shut up about the Seattle riots of 1999. He never complained about people bombing abortion clinics. Go figure.

    45. Re:Nice by Kinetix303 · · Score: 1

      All fine and dandy until they decide to mix a chemical irritant in with the water. I was hit with water cannons laced with an irritant at a protest march in Ottawa, Canada on November 17th, 2001. It had no immediate effect on protesters other than to make them wet and miserable, but as the day went on, people started to blister and burn underneath their soaked clothing. Where I blistered, I lost patches of hair on my arms and thighs. My skin was discoloured for days as if I had been sunburnt.

      It had no dispersive effect whatsoever. It served no purpose other than to physically punish protesters in a fashion that would not be tolerated against actual convicted criminals.

      If for one moment you think that the government has your best interests in mind, or that they are developing this sort of technology for the protection of the officers using it, then ask yourself why time-delay weapons designed to cause physical injury like this exist and are deployed for use against domestic citizenry.

      I wouldn't believe if I hadn't been a part of it.

    46. Re:Nice by socz · · Score: 1

      But given the choice, would you rather be subdued by:

      a) rubber bullets
      b) tear gas
      c) water cannon
      d) wall of shields and batons
      e) bright lights


      I know what I'd chose! :)
      Eh, did you guys watch the May 1st march in los angeles? Did you see what happened with the LAPD "tried to control the crowd?" This of course, including the reporters they beat.

      I REALLY don't know how any of you who have never been "controlled" would feel under any of those options, and neither do i. But being on the safe side, i think i'd rather get

      c) washed, b) gassed, a) shot, d) beat and then e) blinded.

      My reasoning for this is that before i get hosed down, they have to get close. At least my sense is to get away quick before i take a bath. When i see gas cans starting to rain guess what? I'm running away quickly! When they raise the rubber guns i won't be first in line for the firing squad -- i'll be running away. Now if i'm still around to get beat, well i'm just stupid hahaha -- for the most part anyways.

      But what if i'm "temporarily blinded?" What if i can't get up and run away because i don't know which way is away? What if my instincts take over and my body starts running but runs into them? Now the law enforcement officers might think i'm trying to attack them, and now i get shot in the face!

      That actually is the least of my concerns. My real concern with not being able to see is what other people around me will do. Surely people will panic, try to run and do it over anyone who has fallen. Haven't any of you seen video of people getting trampled? If on may 1st they had use these lights, imagine how many more people would have gotten shot and beaten simply because they couldn't get up and run away.

      Just like anything else, this technology can be good or bad, it depends on the virtue of the user. I can see how some applications could be potentially great, and others horrible. And the whole idea of "use this on terrorists" or whatever is ridiculous! If the US Air Force doesn't like getting shot down with it's old stinger surface to air rockets, what makes you think the army and marines are going to like their own lights getting them shot and killed.
      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    47. Re:Nice by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If I had to be subdued, I'd prefer it was physically, by a group of scantily clad hot chicks. Honestly, that would probably be the most effective technique ever. "We've got a runner. Release the babes!"

  9. Close your eyes. by xerent_sweden · · Score: 1

    Close your eyes, problem solved!

    1. Re:Close your eyes. by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Take a moment what a crowd of Mexicans running frantically North with their eyes closed and their arms in front feeling their way.

      I don't know about you, but the way I'm imagining it would look is freakin' hilarious.

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:Close your eyes. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Great idea. Take a moment what a crowd of Mexicans running frantically North with their eyes closed and their arms in front feeling their way.

      I don't know about you, but the way I'm imagining it would look is freakin' hilarious.
      When you think about it for more than a moment, it's really not all that funny.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Close your eyes. by sethstorm · · Score: 1, Troll


      Great idea. Take a moment what a crowd of Mexicans running frantically North with their eyes closed and their arms in front feeling their way.


      It illustrates the problem having to outright declare war on that nation to stop them. Nothing like 150000+ people outfitted with the finest in US military hardware defending the border that Corporate America doesnt want defended.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    4. Re:Close your eyes. by tgd · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, its still funny.

      Give me a truck full of rakes and a video camera and I'm going to win $10,000 on AFV, too!

    5. Re:Close your eyes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... No, it's still hilarious.

    6. Re:Close your eyes. by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      wear an eye patch over one eye. that way you can see and move around, and if you are blinded you have a spare :-)

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    7. Re:Close your eyes. by rrkap · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Take a moment what a crowd of Mexicans running frantically North with their eyes closed and their arms in front feeling their way.

      I don't know about you, but the way I'm imagining it would look is freakin' hilarious.

      When you think about it for more than a moment, it's really not all that funny.

      True. You need a barbed wire fence for the full comedic effect...

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    8. Re:Close your eyes. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      No, its still funny.
      If you find blinded mexicans funny, you must think lynchings are hilarious.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Close your eyes. by tgd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, seriously. Do you not understand what the original poster was saying?

      They're not blinded by some eye-burning laser or something, the whole joke was that they were running across the border with their eyes closed so they couldn't be zapped by this thing.

      This isn't a joke about blinding people, its not a joke about injuring people or burning their eyes out. Its a joke about a bunch of people running around committing a felony with their eyes closed.

      And if you've never seen a bugs bunny cartoon with rake gags, then perhaps the entire thing from the beginning to the end went over your head.

    10. Re:Close your eyes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to agree. The rake idea is a nice touch. I have to go clean up the soda spit from laughing.

      This post should be modded funny, instead.

    11. Re:Close your eyes. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh shit. You're right. That's funny as hell.

      As penance, I'll share this joke:

      Q: What does a farmer get when he steps on a rake?

      A: A couple of acres.

      (acres="ache-ers", get it?)

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Sunglasses by astrotek · · Score: 1

    Some cheap $5 fake sunglasses made in mexico probably defeat these things.

    1. Re:Sunglasses by Inverted+Intellect · · Score: 1

      fake sunglasses? So they don't actually block light-rays, but let them through like a normal plate of glass? How novel!

      Very clever, those Mexicans.

  11. Since I'm not a USAian by codeButcher · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... nor have plans to "become" one, let me be the first to say:

    You should welcome your light-bearing overlords.

    (Hmmmm, isn't that something like "luciferian" in Latin??)

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  12. phew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phew, this almost reminded me of the search lights as used by repressive regimes like USSR, DDR, North Korea and by the bad guys in comics and Hollywood movies, however this is totally unrelated cool LED technology.

  13. This is against Geneva or Hague convention by coder111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As far as I remember, intrenational laws of war forbid using weapons that blind beople.

    And this WILL blind people. If used from too far away, it won't be efficient so they'll make it more powerful, then used from close range it will make permanent injuries to the eyes. Similar like tasers aren't supposed to kill people, but they do.

    As far as I remember, there was a project in the military to make a similar weapon, using UV laser, but it was scrapped because it was against the international law.

    Of course there are precautions that can be used against this weapon, propper googles should do it, but not everyone will have them.

    --Coder

    1. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as I remember, intrenational laws of war forbid using weapons that blind beople.

      Is that permanent and intentional blinding only? Is a specific method of blinding prohibited? Is the prohibition only for using such weapons on soldiers of recognized nations who are signatories themselves? Those questions of course assume that the US still cares enough about the forms of obeying international law to bother looking at such technicalities.

      I'm sure that this thing will permanently blind people, but most pacification weapons can wind up killing or maiming people under a lot of circumstances, so this isn't really any different.

    2. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Of course there are precautions that can be used against this weapon, propper googles should do it, but not everyone will have them."

      You certainly can find all manner of amazingly useful things on google these days :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by MrMr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I remember, intrenational laws of war forbid using weapons that blind beople.

      No problem there: The US has not (yet) officially declared war on itself, so using this on US citizens is perfectly fine for the time being.

    4. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by It'sYerMam · · Score: 0

      Never mind RTFM, why didn't you RTFSummary? It specifically mentions border control and folk who don't speak English!

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    5. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      "And this WILL blind people. If used from too far away, it won't be efficient so they'll make it more powerful, then used from close range it will make permanent injuries to the eyes."

      From TFA:

      The LED Incapacitator uses a range-finder to measure the distance to a target's eyes and then unleashes

      My guess is part of that distance info would be used to determine the strength required.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    6. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Is blinding people really worse than shooting bullets at people and killing them. Seems to me like I'd rather be blind than dead. Not to say that being blind would be all that great, but given the option....

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I think your only not allow to use them in war, there's nothing to stop you using them against civilians as part of the police state.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    8. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Ajehals · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is the prohibition only for using such weapons on soldiers of recognized nations who are signatories themselves? As I understand it, things like the Geneva convention are binding on the signatory regardless of who they are fighting against. Wasn't the whole idea to minimise the horrors of war to some degree and to guarantee that the "war crimes" perpetrated in the past would not be perpetrated in the future? On top of that I would have thought that applying a standard to war fighting would ensure that your actions are morally justifiable, if a given action is not justifiable (and you have agreed that is it not by signing a treaty or convention) then the actions of your enemy have no bearing on your own actions, you hold the moral high ground (for what its worth).

    9. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      And this WILL blind people.


      I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this one. While I realize that it's oh so fashionable amongst the intelligentsia so make all sorts of wild accusations against the United States as the very incarnation of Cthulu, it just rings hollow here.

      First of all, what causes people to go blind while looking at Lasers? well, let's check Wikipedia shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasers#Laser_safety

      the money quote is here:

      At wavelengths which the cornea and the lens can focus well, the coherence and low divergence of laser light means that it can be focused by the eye into an extremely small spot on the retina, resulting in localized burning and permanent damage in seconds or even less time.


      (emphasis mine)

      The reason lasers can blind is due to the nature of the laser itself, being a highly coherent and concentrated beam of light, which the cornea can further concentrate to dangerous levels. LED's, while very bright, are of a highly INcoherent and diffuse nature. Now, there may be some TEMPORARY blindness caused by the overall light intensity, also known as Flash Blindness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_blindness ) but nothing permanently damaging. Also, as someone else mentioned above, there is a range-finder on the thing designed to adjust the intensity based on the range of the target.

      So what we have here is a non-lethal weapon designed to harmlessly incapacitate an individual, allowing law enforcement to take them into custody without exchanging gunfire or risking serious injury or loss of life. Frankly, that sounds like three things to me:

      a) A good overall idea
      b) Something the UN would really go for (why kill when you can humanely capture?)
      c) NOT something that an Eeeevil entity would do, unlike the way the US is commonly characterized on /. and other places. (Maybe the US isn't so evil after all?)

      Remember, calm logical thinking is your friend, knee-jerk reactions are not.
      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    10. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by MrMr · · Score: 1

      ...thinks its possible to have the weapon deployed to cops, National Guard troops and border agents by 2010

      and

      The tool could be scaled up to make a light bazooka that could subdue a crowd

      I assumed that the weapon will be used against US citizens from reading those lines in TFA, and not just the from first noun of the summary.
      This has apparently confused you a little bit.

    11. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by NVP_Radical_Dreamer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me be the first to say

      The GOGGLES THEY DO NOTHING!!!!

      --
      The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

      - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, things like the Geneva convention are binding on the signatory regardless of who they are fighting against. At least one convention has specific wording that states that that is not the case: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."

      - http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600007?Open Document
    13. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      The Geneva Convention? How quaint! Don't you know we are in a permanent state of war?

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    14. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      But how would that work for a weapon used on a crowd or maybe the guy slightly to the left of the rangefinder beam?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by jb.cancer · · Score: 1

      Is that permanent and intentional blinding only? Oh! i *accidentally* dropped a nuclear warhead in your backyard.. but hey, it wasn't on purpose.
    16. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      I wonder the effects of using it on people in a dark room? Imagine turning on the lights unexpectantly times 1000.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    17. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by dintech · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I'm sure they are most likely just to blind themselves with it:

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

    18. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by yani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what we have here is a non-lethal weapon designed to harmlessly incapacitate an individual, allowing law enforcement to take them into custody without exchanging gunfire or risking serious injury or loss of life. You are completely missing the point. Your last comment completely describes what the Taser is meant to be, but the whole point is that once someone in authority has a means to "subdue" a person with what they think is a method that cannot result in any permanent physical damage, they lose control, and inevitably cause more damage than would have been done with a lethal weapon which has clear and serious consequences. We've seen this with Tasers already.

      Picture it, one crowd is protesting with a police force armed with lethal weapons, and non-lethal weapons that leave bruises, the other is protesting with a police force armed with LEDs. The first is not going to fire on a crowd except in self-defense, to do otherwise would be crazy, it would also be a bit difficult to go around and give everyone a bashing. The second is getting impatient and gets out an LED bazooka, and decides to put the brightness up a bit because it's a bright day, oh and they aren't sure if everyone had their eyes open the first time, so they fire it a few times just to be sure.

      Or more likely, a middle-eastern looking youth is spotted in a library on a university campus, when asked for his student ID he says he doesn't have it, and won't leave. Someone calls security, security approaches him and tells him to leave. The youth says he won't leave, the security personnel get pissed off and pull out their handy LED weapon, and hold it a centimeter or so from his eye. They repeatedly flash him as he shouts out at them.

      As for your claim that a very bright light source with a relatively high divergence from a large distance can not cause permanent damage, I think you need to look directly at the Sun a bit more.
    19. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would the US Government care about international law? They refuse to be bound by it.

      Various geneva conventions already ban landmines and imprisoning people without trial (Guantanamo Bay) but they are still done in the name of homeland security.

      Go on, mod this down but you know it's still true.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    20. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      The goggles, they do nothing!

    21. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just for your reference: I've spent once about 2 months blindfolded after I got by a powerful search floodlight (we were sailing in canoe down the river and accidentally came too close to a military base).

      Doctors said that it's a fairly common reaction on very bright light. I was lucky to recover almost completely. Not all are.

    22. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Ajehals · · Score: 1

      As I understand it that statement, (or one close to it) is followed by a number of other conditions and qualifiers. I also believe that there is a section that further qualifies what actions are unacceptable at any time and against any person.

      The applicability of any of this to a torch that blinds people and is used outside of the context of war is however presumably dubious. Although I am not sure what the justification for affording your enemies in time of war better treatment that afforded to people crossing a border is.

    23. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by mikael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was a tactic developed by James Maskelyne towards the end of World War II, that allowed the Suez Canal to be defended against German fighter pilots. He basically took a searchlight and placed a set of tin reflectors on top of the search light, which were then made to rotate rapidly. This had the effect of creating rotating cartwheels of dark and bright patches of light in the area around the searchlight. Any pilot who flew above this area would become disorientated due to the mismatch between the perceived motion from the brains centres of balance and the visual cues seen through the aircraft windscreen (optic flow).

      I would guess that this portable system creates enough glare in the eye to make moving bands of light appear on the retina. With a wide enough beam, this will disorientate an entire crowd.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    24. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Rigrig · · Score: 1

      I think he meant something like this.

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    25. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pev · · Score: 0, Troll

      As far as I remember, intrenational laws of war forbid using weapons that blind beople.

      Since when has that been an consideration of the Bush administration?

      ~Pev
    26. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference is acceptance.

      Say the homeland security is equipping itself with C4 and nerve gas to quench riots, and you get public pressure down on you, from the ACLU to the media. And if you use it in anything but the most severe cases or in any case against US citizens, step down from your office.

      Say it's getting equipped with "harmless", non-lethal strobe lights that temporarily blinds and generally just subdues the rioter, you'll have a lot more acceptance. Should he find out that the temporary blindness turns into permanent and tries to sue, dump the media slanderers on him, with the "if he was a honest citizen and didn't riot, this would not have happened to him, he deserved it" spin.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously the first part is (probably) not about American citizens, but given the number of locals around here who think "Always, I could care less about alls that stuff, for all intensive purposes" is English, I'm pretty sure many Americans would fit into the second category.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    28. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pev · · Score: 1

      So what we have here is a non-lethal weapon designed to harmlessly incapacitate an individual, allowing law enforcement to take them into custody without exchanging gunfire or risking serious injury or loss of life.

      It's only harmless in certain situations like if the border patrol person isnt driving their big 4x4 towards them at speed. Expect a few cases of people 'accidentally' stumbling into the paths of moving vehicles because they can't see and government employees not taking the blame.

      On a similar note ISTR the military have been playing with 'non-lethal' weaponry in lethal scenarios for years. What do you think happens when pilots get blinded for 'only' a few minutes when they're flying?

      ~Pev
    29. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      It is.

      Because you have to make an effort to turn a civilian into a soldier who can shot a bullet at another civilian. Non-lethal weapons require much less effort on moral justification. While you know it's wrong to fire at a crowd because you know the full effects of a bullet, it is less clear how wrong it is to fire your stun weapons on them.

      It's one of those situations when you really want to make as hard as possible (and as grave a crime as possible) to use weapons to control civilians.

    30. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the US government suddenly give a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys about international law?

    31. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should he find out that the temporary blindness turns into permanent and tries to sue, dump the media slanderers on him, with the 'if he was a honest citizen and didn't riot, this would not have happened to him, he deserved it' spin. Come on most media would love fodder like this, so they could have some more "bad news" about our government to run!
    32. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amongst the intelligentsia
      Pot, thine color is black. Or were you looking for the NASCAR web site and stumbled in here by mistake?
    33. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone actually have a good specific explanation of how this would work? The whole idea makes me think of Fearless Leader's (from Rocky and Bullwinkle) death ray: "You idiot! It doesn't even fase them!"

      Sure, I guess you can temporarily blind someone if you have a bright enough light, and they stare into it...but there's nothing new about that. All the comments about different colors, "evil colors", is that based on some real physiological response, or just made up by someone hoping for funding? (If shining rapidly changing colors at people disorients them, I'd expect someone to crack down on nightclubs and discos)

    34. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by darksith69 · · Score: 0
      Now, there may be some TEMPORARY blindness caused [...] but nothing permanently damaging

      The very same quote you wrote ends with (emphasis mine):

      resulting in localized burning and permanent damage in seconds or even less time.

      Hopefully you were only temporarily blinded and can now read that sentence in full length.

    35. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      I think it's a huge, huge assumption to say that this will be anywhere near bright enough to blind anyone.

      It looks like a big LED array, like a stop light, that rapidly changes color and pulsates to disorient. It's essentially a mutlicolor strobe. I doubt if it will ever cause eye injury to anyone, ever.

    36. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would happen if the drug cartel got ahold of the technology and used it on Border Patrolmen while driving? This could be a fine way to cause cops to crash their vehicles.

    37. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by the+not-troll · · Score: 1

      Oh, but protesting crowds are obviously "enemy combattants", so international law doesn't apply to them. Thus they should thank Homeland Security on their knees for going so soft on them.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
      In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
    38. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      Except the sun has a very low divergence, for light hitting earth anyways.
      Yes the sun radiates light in all directions, but only a small amount makes it to earth. The light that does is all traveling the same direction.
      The sun is just one big freakin laser really freakin far away

    39. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      ummmm.... context?!

      The quote about permanent blinding is about LASERS.

      Then what he wrote about this is that NOT BEING A LASER means it DOES SOMETHING DIFFERENT, as in NOT PERMANENT DAMAGE.

      It was not the same quote. It wasn't all even a quote. One part was a quote, then the other part he wrote himself.

      Hopefully you were only temporarily skimming and can now show some signs of reading comprehension.

    40. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I haven't a clue about what you're trying to say.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    41. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I realize that it's oh so fashionable amongst the intelligentsia so make all sorts of wild accusations against the United States as the very incarnation of Cthulu, it just rings hollow here.

      Indeed. If the technique were to sing lullabies to the crowd to calm them, the irate posts would continue. Irrational hatred isn't just for backwoods rednecks anymore.

    42. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Reverend528 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you meant to say

      The GOOGLES THEY DO NOTHING!!!!

    43. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 1

      I have an experiment: Go look at the sun for a while and report back to me if that incoherent light didn't manage to cause you some ocular damage. It's considerably easier to cook someone's retina with a laser as opposed to a more diffuse light source, but it's far from impossible with the latter.

    44. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      I love the cognitive dissonance in your argument...

      The first is not going to fire on a crowd except in self-defense, to do otherwise would be crazy, it would also be a bit difficult to go around and give everyone a bashing.


      On one hand, The police all around the world everywhere are going to be so humane that they would NEVER EVER fire into a crowd or relentlessly beat members of that crowd, because firing into it would be 'crazy' and it would be just too much trouble to beat up EVERYBODY in the crowd...

      The second is getting impatient and gets out an LED bazooka, and decides to put the brightness up a bit because it's a bright day, oh and they aren't sure if everyone had their eyes open the first time, so they fire it a few times just to be sure.


      On the other hand, All police forces everywhere are so amateurish, so untrained and ignorant that they will automatically behave in the most irresponsible and dangerous manner possible when given a non-lethal alternative weapon.

      Come on. You can't be so off-kilter as to actually believe such nonsense? You're just trolling, right? Right?...

      Ok, just for you I will spell it out:

      Some Police forces in the world are highly-trained and responsible members of free and democratic societies. For example, those in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Etc. These are the most likely recipients of this technology, and also the LEAST likely to abuse it or use it improperly due to citizen oversight via the democratic process.

      Yes, it's not perfect, and yes there will be accidents. But there is no more percentage chance of accidents with a non-lethal weapon vs a lethal weapon. There is, however, MUCH less chance of DEATH if there are accidents with a NON-lethal weapon, vs a lethal weapon such as a gun. This is good for both citizens AND the Police, as a Non-lethal turned on it's owner is much less dangerous, and it is nigh-on impossible to intentionally kill someone with a non-lethal if it is used properly (which the aforementioned Police will undoubtedly spend many many many hours training to do.)

      Now, SOME Police forces are NOT highly trained, and are NOT members of a Free and Democratic society. Some of them are jackbooted thugs who work for ruthless dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmedinejiad (sp), Fidel Castro, Etc. These guys will do pretty much anything and everything they want to a crowd, regardless of the outcome, because there IS NO citizen oversight. Not only are these guys not likely to get Non-lethal weaponry, they don't want it. They'd much rather just shoot into the crowd and kill as many as they can. It's much easier to control the populace when they fear you. Of course, if they don't have guns, they will still gladly take the time to beat the living daylights out of you, as they think it's FUN. So they really can't be trusted at all, regardless of the weapons they wield.

      See how it works now? Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. Painting ALL Police as lazy, ignorant, thuggish monsters who are just the arm of THE MAN trying to "keep you down" just smacks of fever-swamp loonyness and a generally crackpot outlook on life.

      Oh, and let's not get into the differences between THE SUN, a gigantic nuclear blast-furnace bright enough to light up the entire damn SOLARSYSTEM and be seen from BILLIONS of miles away, and an LED light about the size of a pea that runs off a AA battery. Just like the "pointing a laser at your eye" argument the OP made, it's an apples and oranges comparison that is neither germane nor logical.

      There really should be a down-mod for "stupid, illogical thinking" I think it would apply well to your post.
      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    45. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This line is always, always, always misquoted. The correct quote is:

      "Mein eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

      Come on, folks, give Rainier Wolfcastle a little credit...

    46. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and imprisoning people without trial (Guantanamo Bay)

      And what about a P.O.W? Is the Jihad over?

    47. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      My first thought was:

      HEADLINE: Mirror shades make a comeback!!

      What's next? Mexico issuing mirror sunglasses to all its citizens planning a 'visit' to the north?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    48. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by jtcm · · Score: 1

      once someone in authority has a means to "subdue" a person with what they think is a method that cannot result in any permanent physical damage, they lose control, and inevitably cause more damage than would have been done with a lethal weapon which has clear and serious consequences.

      You're completely right. An incident that sticks with me is when a 21 year-old college student, an innocent bystander, was killed by police using a rubber bullet while Boston celebrated the Red Sox's 2004 World Series victory.

      When authorities think a device or method of subduing someone is harmless, they will be more likely to use and abuse it. This "light saber" may not be lethal, but I still think I'd rather be tackled and beaten by police, than (possibly) permanently blinded by them.

      --
      @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    49. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      but the whole point is that once someone in authority has a means to "subdue" a person with what they think is a method that cannot result in any permanent physical damage, they lose control, and inevitably cause more damage than would have been done with a lethal weapon which has clear and serious consequences.

      Actually, incidents of taser abuse are extremely few and far between. You make it seem like every cop is going around tasering people for shits and giggles.

      As for your claim that a very bright light source with a relatively high divergence from a large distance can not cause permanent damage, I think you need to look directly at the Sun a bit more.

      Wikipedia says that time-averaged insolation at ground level is about 250W per square meter, taking nighttime and weather conditions into account, going up to about 1kW per square meter at midday. Do you seriously think this device is outputting that kind of power?

    50. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by russotto · · Score: 1

      There is no Geneva convention forbidding landmines, and none forbidding imprisoning people without trial (in fact, the Geneva Conventions forbid trials of POWs in most circumstances). There is a treaty forbidding landmines, however, the US is not a signatory to it. The US is certainly in no way obligated to follow a treaty it is not a party to.

    51. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      If you read the article you would see that the emitter measures the distance to the target and adjusts the light pulse accordingly.

    52. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But what if it isn't actually a war and just a "military action" ;)?

      --
    53. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I've spent once about 2 months blindfolded after I got by a powerful search floodlight (we were sailing in canoe down the river and accidentally came too close to a military base). They locked you up and tortured you with light deprivation just for canoing too close to a military base? Damn!
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    54. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Deskpoet · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. Painting ALL Police as lazy, ignorant, thuggish monsters who are just the arm of THE MAN trying to "keep you down" just smacks of fever-swamp loonyness and a generally crackpot outlook on life.

      Uhh. Let me guess: you're white, live in a gated community, and Fox is your primary news source? For you to insult others by calling their thinking "stupid, illogical" is more than the kettle calling the kettle black; it's farce.

      Police ONLY exist to protect the profits of the owners of society. Your racist separation of North/South police forces into good and bad only exists in your fever dreams--they are ALL pigs. (How about YOU thinking for a minute: why do people become police officers? What possesses one person to the degree that they feel compelled to police others? Money? Fear of their own demons getting out? Because they're crusaders who want to believe in some artificial rules created by long-dead rich people? THAT sounds like pathology to me; at the very least, the police are NOT psychologically sound by *definition*, regardless of where they live.)

      A "generally crackpot outlook on life" is certainly preferable to the "racist, fascist, statist slave outlook" possessed by you, sir.

      --
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
    55. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to know that guns, nades, mortars, etc are safe and can't blind people. Good to know.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
    56. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by yani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See how it works now? Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. I wish I lived in your world. In the real one there is no such distinction and psychology tells us that in a position of authority often the worst comes out in even the best people, the Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_expe riment) is one of the more famous examples of this.

      Oh, and let's not get into the differences between THE SUN, a gigantic nuclear blast-furnace bright enough to light up the entire damn SOLARSYSTEM and be seen from BILLIONS of miles away, and an LED light about the size of a pea that runs off a AA battery. Just like the "pointing a laser at your eye" argument the OP made, it's an apples and oranges comparison that is neither germane nor logical. It's an extreme example, but your post implies that only a laser can permanently blind, while this is obviously not true.

      There really should be a down-mod for "stupid, illogical thinking" I think it would apply well to your post.
      What a logical and clever thought. Thanks.
    57. Re:Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Click+and+drag · · Score: 1

      Unless I've gone absolutly insane, the article said this was for anti-terrorism and customs inforcement. Also, I bet that the power level will be adjustable.

    58. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by lag00natic · · Score: 1

      Very well put. Using LEDs in this manner for law enforcement is an excellent non-lethal solution. This is a great article about technology and I don't understand why many slashdotters continue to spoil the discussions by spinning their biased political views.

    59. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Calinous · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Geneva convention refers also to the rights of the "prisoners of war". A prisoner of war is an uniformed soldier, captured while fighting for its country.
            The freedom fighters from Iraq, or the ones from Afghanistan, or others, are not technically protected by those regulations - they are not uniformed, and they are not fighting for their country (the government recognized at the international level).

            So, the Geneva convention is not perfect

    60. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Overd0g · · Score: 1

      Of course just shooting them isn't against the convention, so perhaps that method should be employed.

    61. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah; BUT,if you just happen to be close to the guy the cop is aiming-for, and it collaterally blinds you too... then you're still okay with that?

      good for you!

    62. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, All police forces everywhere are so amateurish, so untrained and ignorant that they will automatically behave in the most irresponsible and dangerous manner possible when given a non-lethal alternative weapon.

      Well gee, that pretty much describes the modern history of the Taser (and before that, pepper spray), doesn't it? "It doesn't kill, so we can aim directly for the balls and fire away over and over". Completely passive student giving you lip? Zap the motherfucker. Some damned hippies refusing to clear the way for the bulldozers? Hold 'em down and apply pepper spray directly to their eyes with a q-tip. Some punk won't pull over? Blind him from the helicopter ("oops, how could we have known he'd hit that bridge truss doing a buck-ten?")

      Keep in mind that the folks who decide to work as cops (not necessarily talking about detectives here) don't usually do so due to their extensive education. They look physically intimidating (most places have minimum height requirements) and generally got off on beating random people up in their youth (ie, bullies). Give these guys a weapon that doesn't automatically result in an inquiry when used, and they'll use it as often and at the highest intensity (including "improvised" higher-than-normal settings) possible.

    63. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe people are actually arguing about this....nothing is perfect, anything we come up with is going to have the potential to be misused. What I like is you guys are quick to say this is wrong, all police are pigs, etc...but what do you propose as a viable alternative then? No Police? No non-lethal weapons? Wait a minute....didn't we already go through that phase? I believe it was the Dark Ages?

    64. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Like the current Bush government cares whats legal or not.

      Besides, you can achieve the same effect with a good removable camera flash. Yet the government felt it necessary to spend millions on what is essentially a repackaging in the name of fighting terror. What a waste.

      I can't wait for these assholes to get impeached.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    65. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There really should be a down-mod for "stupid, illogical thinking" I think it would apply well to your post. And your attempt to argue away historical fact with rationalization should earn you a down-mod for "stupid, wishful thinking." Why don't you actually do a little research on the abuses of so-called non-lethal weaponry before making blanket statements about who will and who won't abuse them.

      Here's just a start: http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_report s/docs/BNLWRP_Ettlingen_May05.pdf
    66. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by geekwithsoul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, it's not, but even back in the days of the Vietnam War, the US military extended the protections of the Geneva Convention to Viet Cong guerrillas, despite the fact that the were not explicitly covered.

      Who would have thought we had more moral clarity in the 60s and 70s than we do now?

    67. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    68. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      Why not?

    69. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by furball · · Score: 1

      As far as I remember, intrenational laws of war forbid using weapons that blind beople.


      Does international law forbid using weapons that kill people?
    70. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The freedom fighters from Iraq, or the ones from Afghanistan, or others, are not technically protected by those regulations - they are not uniformed, and they are not fighting for their country (the government recognized at the international level).
      USe the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law much?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    71. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Say it's getting equipped with "harmless", non-lethal strobe lights that temporarily blinds and generally just subdues the rioter"

      Hey...this sounds like that weapon they used in that old 80's movie Looker . I always wanted one of those guns...

      Susan Dey was pretty hot back in the day in that movie too!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    72. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a friend who talks quite a bit like you who a few years ago had the displeausre of being repeatedly tasered "for no reason".

      Long story short, after about the fifth time asking for the rest of the story, "no reason" became "I had just gotten out of rehab, trashed my parents bathroom with a shower rod, kicked in their windsheild, attacked the first officer on the scene, continued to fight with other who arrived until restrained, and then began spitting at them until incapcitated".

      I'm not going to say their are no dishonest people in positions of power, but at least from my personal experience (which doesn't end there, it's just the most interesting story) most officers I've had the pleasure of meeting both on and off duty are pleasent people just doing their jobs.

      It's important not let your obvious bias make you forget that there are in fact people in the world worse than the police, and that's why they exist.

    73. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by modecx · · Score: 1

      The Geneva Convention applies only to regular, uniformed soldiers, in a regular, organized military, following the "laws and customs of war" as defined in the conventions, and the conventions apply only to states which have become bound to them. What are the chances that this 'weapon' will be used on someone in that classification? Zippo, nada, one in a hundred million. This will be used against the same kind of people that we have locked up in gitmo--and hasn't the military already proven that they can do whatever the fuck they want to 'em? They're outside the protections of the conventions, and they're outside the laws of any country, including our own.

      Furthermore, our own special forces routinely deviate from the rest of the military for covert operations, and whatnot. They dawn civilian cloths (or enemy uniforms), wear beards, carry non-US Govt. issued arms, and all sorts of stuff that regular troops are not allowed to do. Were we in a conflict with a state bound by the Geneva Convention, these special forces soldiers would not be protected by the convention if they were to be spotted in such a condition.

      Same thing applies to the militants.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    74. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "It's only harmless in certain situations like if the border patrol person isnt driving their big 4x4 towards them at speed. Expect a few cases of people 'accidentally' stumbling into the paths of moving vehicles because they can't see and government employees not taking the blame."

      You know...if they weren't breaking the law trying to cross the border illegally, they wouldn't run that risk in the first place, eh?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    75. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Taevin · · Score: 1

      If you think that only a laser can blind someone, might I suggest you stare at the sun for a while? Obviously it's not a laser and therefore cannot harm you and I've heard you see the most gorgeous light-show of spots.

      Seriously, wake up. No one is saying that this device is going to be designed to blind people or purposefully abused as a matter of policy from the start. It is simply inevitable that it will though. We're talking about something that will emit light intense enough to blind someone temporarily. It is only a matter of time before the device is set on a too powerful setting (accidentally or intentionally), malfunctions, or simply is used on someone who cannot tolerate the same amount of light as an average person. We have a right to discuss these things and present them as serious problems. More importantly, it's incredibly foolish to simply swallow whatever those in power regurgitate. This device is being marketed as being able to disable an entire crowd of people. We should ask ourselves though, do we really need such a device? The police already have methods of dealing with crowds and rioters so why should we give them an additional weapon that has the potential to cripple people for life?

      As far as the abuse of this power goes, you are incredibly naive if you think the government never abuses it's power. Just recently we had a story come out about FBI agents that had been abusing the USAPATRIOT act. I seem to recall that when the act was first came into being there were many people, myself included, that warned it would be abused, that it was not just a hypothetical situation but only a matter of time. We had similar dismissals then.

      And what about Tasers? There's another non-lethal weapon being pushed quite heavily by police forces around the country. When those first went into circulation people said "Oh no, they won't be abused and look: when they are used, they're non-lethal so it's ok!" Of course now it seems we can't go a week without another story about someone being killed or brutalized by a taser, that simple device that the police will maintain the same self-restriction on use as their firearms. Whether it's shocking an already hand-cuffed teenager in the back of a patrol car, brutalizing a student for refusing to show his ID, or tasering and killing a man in what can only be likened to an execution, the police have not shown that they can effectively use restraint or treat civilians with respect. If you think that this new device will be used even less than tasers when it can disable one or many suspects from a long range, consequences be damned, then you're a fool.

    76. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pev · · Score: 1

      You know...if they weren't breaking the law trying to cross the border illegally, they wouldn't run that risk in the first place, eh?

      I guess you must be a native american then?

      Have some empathy for others trying to find a better life in exactly the same way your ancestors did!

      ~Pev
    77. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Of course there are precautions that can be used against this weapon, propper googles should do it, but not everyone will have them.
      When you say "google" do you mean both the white and black Google?
    78. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pev · · Score: 1

      Modded as a troll taking the piss out of Bush's lack of regard for international law? Looks like the republicans are taking over Slashdot...

      ~Pev

    79. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      But they ALREADY have an LCD that blinds and confuses.

      It's called "Cable Television".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    80. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Anti-personnel Landmines have nothing to do with homeland security, but are essential to slowing an attack from North Korea across the DMZ.

      US landmines are not a world problem, but the anti-mine community wants a US ban as an example. Let's hear them squall as loudly against the countries that build and export the most AP mines.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    81. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Mr.+Vage · · Score: 1

      I think what that law means is that you can't blind an enemy and then kill him, because it gives the enemy no chance to defend himself. I think this is supposed to be a replacement for mace (which is not illegal even though it blinds). It would actually be better than mace because it wouldn't cause severe burning that feels like "having your face drenched in gasoline and lit on fire" [Wikipedia]. It could also be used to replace Tazers and Electrified Water Cannons.

      I also think that you should RTFA. It measures the distance between the target and the light so it can adjust the intensity.

    82. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Deskpoet · · Score: 1

      It's important not let your obvious bias make you forget that there are in fact people in the world worse than the police, and that's why they exist.

      But that was the point--that is NOT why they exist.

      The point in the previous post may have been obscured in that post's bombast--it was an emotional response to an obvious kook, but the point still stands: the police are the enforcers of the state, they are the protectors of property (not people); they are NOT forces for justice. While it is true that I sometimes am a beneficiary of their often uneven enforcement of arbitrary laws, I--and you--should not lose sight of their ultimate function: to protect those that have from those who do not. Further, "people just doing their jobs" has been a justification for millions of horrors throughout time; just because something is legal doesn't make it just.

      On the whole, it might be easier for us if we get someone other than ourselves to "take out the trash", but that doesn't absolve us from the shared responsibility of that trash's creation. In my opinion, THAT is the greatest, yet most subtle, victimization the state creates in us: the separation of powers separates us from our responsibility to ourselves, our world and each other. Police are just the most obvious example of this dislocation of individual power, but they are hardly the only one.

      Now, I'm not enough of an idealist (any more) to believe that people like your friend are simply misunderstood victims of the state, but the reality is most of us--and the Environment--ARE, whether we realize it or not (or can voice opposition to it or not.) I don't think it's "biased" to default to a suspicious stance regarding those who *voluntarily* seek to control the behavior of others, whether they are the foot soldiers standing on the Thin Blue Line or the Master Puppet sitting on the throne in the White House.

      --
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
    83. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why didn't you just take the blindfold off?

    84. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One direction is not the same as phase coherence.

    85. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your post implies that only a laser can permanently blind, while this is obviously not true
      Please provide an example of somebody being permanently blinded by a light source other than a laser or the sun. It should be easy for you since it's so obvious.
    86. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1kW/m^2 equals a handful of milliwatts going into your pupil. "That kind of power" is trivial to create by holding a laser pointer or a maglite up to your face. What the article is talking about is supposed to be powerful enough to call a weapon, so you can fucking bet it's more powerful than a flashlight!

      (captcha is "bright"... how appropriate)

    87. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by qdaku · · Score: 1

      Is this so different from the flash portion of a flash grenade / flashbang? Technically they have a "blinding" component.

    88. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Proteus · · Score: 1

      I guess you must be a native american then?

      Have some empathy for others trying to find a better life in exactly the same way your ancestors did!

      I have a great deal of empathy for immigrants; as a 2nd-generation American, I'm proud that my grandparents immigrated legally, worked diligently for citizenship, and were never under the care (financial or otherwise) of the State.

      It's one thing to criticize someone who is anti-immigrant -- after all, we are almost all from immigrant stock -- but quite another to attack someone who's against illegal immigration. There are very good reasons to control the rate of immigration, including the ability to ensure adequate infrastructure (power, clean water, sewage treatment, police and fire services, etc.) to support the population growth.

      People who immigrate illegally may be doing so as an act of desperation, but they are breaking a decent and fair law. If you disagree that the law is decent and fair, then participate in movements to get the law changed -- don't just attack people who believe in enforcing it.

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    89. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Nosferatu+Alucard · · Score: 1

      This is basically a flashbang on a stick. It's probably meant to temporarily blind with a flash of light. Force dilation on the person, along with the reflex of bright light in the first place, it'll mess with your head. That's long enough for someone to come up and detain you in some form. If not that, it's good enough to make you an easy target!

    90. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by d3ac0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Neoprofin, Don't even bother.

      As you can see by Deskpoet's response to me, he's obviously another candidate for Fever-swamp radical of the year. If you read through his next response to you, you can see he's another far-leftist loony who honestly thinks that the police are there to "keep him down".

      Put more succinctly, he's a nut. A Loon. A moron. A crackpot. Someone not in full control of his faculties. Just ignore his insane ravings and he'll go away.

      To Deskpoet:

      Just for the record, I am half white, half Cherokee (raised by my adoptive family of mixed Italian and German descent). I live an un-gated, mixed-race neighborhood of Whites, Blacks and Asians. My wife is of Irish and Ukranian descent and we have two special-needs (Autism) children. And you and your BS racebaiting can suck my dick. Now fuck off and go back to the fever-swamp you crawled out of.

      Now that we have THAT out of the way, does anyone ELSE wanna play the bullshit racecard on me?

      Yeah, I didn't think so.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    91. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by BakaHoushi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think the problem with your viewpoint isn't that you're against illegal immigration, but your intensity of it.

      Having a lack of sympathy for someone whose crime was illegally crossing a border getting maimed by a truck? That's cold. A punishment far worse than the crime.

    92. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      I wish I lived in your world.


      Well you are welcome any time. Just release your twisted fantasies about all police being corrupt and/or evil and/or stupid and join the rest of us in reality where most police in democratic societies are good people just trying to do their jobs. It's not hard, let go of your hate.

      your post implies that only a laser can permanently blind


      Actually, the only reason I brought up lasers was because the OP of this thread talked about a UV laser weapon blinding people, and compared it both qualitatively and quantitatively with the LED lights. My entire first post was a response to the OP. Please re-read for comprehension.
      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    93. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Because a goodly chunk of /. readers also spend large amounts of time over in the nut houses of the Daily Kos and the DU. They spend so much time drinking the Kool-Aid over there, that they can't help but spew insanity and vitriol when they get here. Particularly when it's a technology designed to help Law Enforcement.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    94. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by yani · · Score: 1

      Well you are welcome any time. Just release your twisted fantasies about all police being corrupt and/or evil and/or stupid and join the rest of us in reality where most police in democratic societies are good people just trying to do their jobs. It's not hard, let go of your hate. You misunderstand, I don't harbour any such opinion, in fact I agree that most police are probably good people trying to do their jobs, and I've never had a problem with any of them personally.

      However as I pointed out (and has been pointed out by many psychological experiments) power often does something bad to good people, and all it takes is one cop to get pissed off at you, and despite all their training there have been incidents where Tasers and other non-lethal weapons have been the instrument they've decided to use to act on that anger.

      To think that cops in the US are good while cops in other countries are bad is very naive.
    95. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Well of course,

      "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would never argue that. However, your post implied that somehow, having non-lethals available is automatically going to make an otherwise good cop abuse them. That's just a ridiculous statement on the face of it. Having non-lethals gives the police an opportunity to subdue someone without having to resort to shooting them. One doesn't toss out a perfectly good technology just because a few bad apples will find a way to abuse it.

      This kind of technology doesn't give the police any more power than they already have. All it does is allow them to arrest an otherwise violent person with minimal force and minimal chance of innocent bystanders being hurt. This works much better than shooting at a crook who is shooting at them, and having a stray bullet kill a kid. (which does happen, and all too often.)

      Oh, and I never said that cops in the US are good while cops in other countries are bad. That's a WHOLESALE lie about what I said and anyone actually read what I wrote would see that. Shame on you for poor reading comprehension.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    96. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by jeffeb3 · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but the sun is outputting rays in different wavelengths. You won't get a sunburn from office lamps, tanning beds are specifically designed to burn you. The frequency emitted by LED is even more customizable, and narrow band. I also think that the responsibility for the taser deaths should be, in some part, distributed to the engineers and doctors assigned with creating the device.

    97. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      As far as I remember, intrenational laws of war forbid using weapons that blind beople.
      --
      You missed the 'the gloves are off'.

    98. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A non-lethal weapon like this could easily be used for evil. This would give criminals a way to commit crimes without the concern of accidently adding murder to the list...

    99. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind that there are legal ways to get into this country now. Some impatient jerks see that they might be able to get away with not following the rules. So, we should probably reward those jerks by letting them know that it's ok to not follow the rules. Oh, and you people who have been waiting in line legally for the alst year or two? Well, screw you - we can't take care of your paperwork because we're busy signing in these people who cut in front of you in line. It's ok - they mowed our grass and picked some vegetables for ten cents an hour.

    100. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by jafac · · Score: 1

      Your hypothetical situation resembles an actual situation - and it strikes me that this LED device would also have another very desirable (for abusive law enforcement) side-effect: rendering bystanders' cameras less effective. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    101. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "It's one thing to criticize someone who is anti-immigrant -- after all, we are almost all from immigrant stock -- but quite another to attack someone who's against illegal immigration."

      Thank you...my point exactly. I have NO problem with anyone that wants to come to this country LEGALLY. That usually signfies that that person may want to work to become a US citizen, and melt into our culture. Someone what when they protest isn't going to be waiving the flag of another country...someone who wants to become part of the American culture, learn English...become one of the whole, not a separate part within the larger US.

      I kinda go with what Dennis Miller once said...something to the effect of "I don't care if you come in the country, just have the courtesy to sign the f*cking guest book on the way in..."

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    102. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by umbra_dweller · · Score: 1

      You're right - all else being equal it is better to use light guns or any other type on non-lethal in place of real guns. But have you looked at the applications they are talking about? Sure, it's better for making arrests of dangerous criminals - but using non-lethals on border jumpers and unruly crowd represents a new kind of use. Politicians can't deploy heavy firepower in these situations because people would find it morally reprehensible - but if a few illegals or counterculturists end up blinded, there won't be the same kind of moral outcry since there are no body bags to rally around.

    103. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by servognome · · Score: 1

      Like the current Bush government cares whats legal or not.
      Like most people know what's actually legal or not.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    104. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by servognome · · Score: 2, Informative

      And what about a P.O.W? Is the Jihad over?
      US hasn't adopted Protocol I, therefore "terrorist" prisoners do not gain POW status
      Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:
      (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
      (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
      (c) That of carrying arms openly;
      (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)


      Not saying it's right, just that it's legal
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    105. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by ralewi1 · · Score: 1

      I think the original poster was attempting to distinguish between weapons that are designed to cause damage to the eye in such a way as to permanently blind the victim, versus the use of light to temporarily "blind" or dazzle the victim. For example, during the cold war, the Soviets were fond of using lasers to attempt to cause permanent retinal damage to western surveillance aircraft crews - this was countered by the use of special-purpose goggles, as surmised by an earlier poster. On the other hand, when you wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and turn on a bright light, the "blinding" effect you experience is more in the league of what I'd imagine this LED flashlight does (though I am intrigued by the "evil color" reference in the story.)

    106. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by spitek · · Score: 1

      --- Remember, calm logical thinking is your friend, knee-jerk reactions are not.

      One truth for shore.

    107. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      And that's a sad state of affairs.

      Even if people don't know what's legal, they should care that the Bush administration is trampling their rights by ignoring the constitution and the continued abuse of power regretfully given to this idiot by the people.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    108. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by ultranova · · Score: 1

      While I realize that it's oh so fashionable amongst the intelligentsia so make all sorts of wild accusations against the United States as the very incarnation of Cthulu, it just rings hollow here.

      I agree. Cthulhu is just a tentacled man-eating monster from beyond; there's no reason to slander it so.

      BTW. Now that the Antarctic ice is melting, all kinds of thing imprisoned beneath it are going to be exposed again. However, at the same time, the seass are rising so R'lyeh is going to be buried deeper beneath the waves. Which phenomenom do you think will have a greater influence on the world in the near term ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    109. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by cecille · · Score: 1

      while the GP's post seems quite extreme, there are definitely times when police tactics go overboard. I think what makes the whole thing scary is that when people get bullied by police there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Who are you going to tell? The police? Likely not going to be too helpful.

      Anyway, small anecdote here.... (Please don't think I'm trying to generalize and say that all cops are bad, but clearly some are). Anyway, a friend of mine lives in Ottawa (Canada), right by the parliament buildings. During the G8 summit, there were massive protests that extended to right by the entrance to his street. He was coming home from work one day and ended up walking through the protest area. While he was walking, the cops decided there was something they didn't like - he said he didn't see much. Anyway, he's walking along and all the sudden he gets totally taken out by this cop. Wrong place at the wrong time I suppose, but surely it can't be too hard to tell the difference between a protester causing trouble (likely shouting, maybe with a sign or something) and some dude on his way home from work (work clothes and stuff). Anyway, I saw him about a week later and he showed me his back and there was this nasty bruise on there with a big red mark in the shape of a boot heel. That's right - they restrained him by holding his arms and stepping on his back. wow. just wow. And what could he even do about it? Complain to the police? As if that's going to do any good...

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    110. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The point in the previous post may have been obscured in that post's bombast--it was an emotional response to an obvious kook, but the point still stands: the police are the enforcers of the state, they are the protectors of property (not people); they are NOT forces for justice.

      The police are the arm of the state and the enforcers of the law. If that law places protection of property higher than protection of people, don't blame the police for it.

      Another thing to remember is that there are far more thieves than murderers, so of course the police will spend more time protecting property than people - there are more people trying to destroy property than other people. Don't forget, either, that destroying someone's property - say, burning his car - will directly affect him - he can't get to work in the morning and loses his job - so protecting property also protects people, just indirectly.

      On the whole, it might be easier for us if we get someone other than ourselves to "take out the trash", but that doesn't absolve us from the shared responsibility of that trash's creation. In my opinion, THAT is the greatest, yet most subtle, victimization the state creates in us: the separation of powers separates us from our responsibility to ourselves, our world and each other. Police are just the most obvious example of this dislocation of individual power, but they are hardly the only one.

      I happen to think that it's a good thing that you aren't allowed to carry out vigilante justice with whatever lynch mob you can gather against whoever you accuse of crimes real, imagined, or performed by someone else, but maybe it's just me.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    111. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The freedom fighters from Iraq, or the ones from Afghanistan, or others, are not technically protected by those regulations"

      What exactly is a "freedom fighter"? Would that include someone like al-Zarqawi who was from Jordan fighting on behalf of al-Qaeda. Exactly whose freedom was he fighting for?

      Liberalism is a mental disorder...

    112. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      If you think that only a laser can blind someone


      I never said that.

      We're talking about something that will emit light intense enough to blind someone temporarily.


      I never argued against that point.

      As far as the abuse of this power goes, you are incredibly naive if you think the government never abuses it's power.


      I never said the government didn't abuse its power. Notice the "its".

      And what about Tasers?


      Yeah, those can be a bitch when they're misused, too. But this article, the summary, and the thread aren't about tasers.

      If you think that this new device will be used even less than tasers when it can disable one or many suspects from a long range, consequences be damned, then you're a fool.


      I never said it might not be abused.

      Look, read my GP post. Then read my Parent post. Then read my post. Remember that conversations happen in context. What I said was that my parent post misrepresented my GP post. That's all I said.

      So get off your high horse, quit calling em an idiot for disagreeing with things you believe that I don't necessarily disagree with and never said I disagree with, and READ THE FUCKING POSTS BEFORE GOING OFF ON SOME DAMNED RANT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POST TO WHICH YOU ARE REPLYING!

      See? the shift key can be abused, too, but that doesn't mean it always will be.

      Hopefully not every thread on this damned topic will become "Oh, my Flying SPaghetutti MaWnsTER! THeysa mekkin' NiVes ovder dere... NiVeS cann kilt joo! Oh, noes! They be lettun does foos o'er their drive Kars! But Karrs can be dangeroooS! No! Not powwor tewls! The gubmint can cut offa your toes wid a powwar tewl!"
    113. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      That's still an internal, law-enforcement matter. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

      The Geneva Convention also prohibits the use of chemical agents, even non-lethal ones like CN and CS (tear gas), but they get used domestically all the time.

      The rules outlined in the Geneva Convention apply to conflicts between the organized armies of signatory states; they don't govern what those states can do internally, and they have a more limited effect on what those states can do against irregular troops, or the soldiers of non-signatory countries.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    114. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know what? you sound like a friend of the police state. don't try to calm us with your rational thinking and generally clear concise arguments. do you think that we here on /. will actually fall for this? I am gonna get me some dark sunglasses ;)

    115. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appear to not know US constitution or the international treaties USA has signed. Firstly, US constitution applies to everyone held under US power. That covers people held in Gitmo that are not handled under Geneva. Second, USA is a signator to the international treaty on human rights. That alone forbids torturing people. Waterboarding is a torture invented in the middle ages and has been considered such ever since.

      Claiming to uphold the letter of the law while excusing the violation of the spirit of the law doesn't go down well in most courts. Americans can't have it both ways. While you spit on the international laws and treaties that you helped create, others will too, and we will be back to anarchy and chaos and treaties that are considered irrelevant because nobody abides by them. Civilization has taken plenty of steps back during this dark century of Pax Americana. We are much further back than I would ever have believed possible.

      A large part of the credit goes to people excusing torture and omitting groups of people from those whom we should afford basic human rights.

    116. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      If you're close enough to hold a maglite in someone's face and keep them from looking away, you're also close enough to just beat them with the maglite.

    117. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sunlight is incoherent. Looking at the sun will cause retina damage.

    118. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If that law places protection of property higher than protection of people, don't blame the police for it. Yeah, police are well known for enforcing all laws equally.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    119. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      English is not my native language, so there might be a misunderstaning.

      I was blinded for two months by a powerful floodlight. I could only something like a colored plane at dark and even a small light made my eyes water.

    120. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by SoulSkorpion · · Score: 1

      They're not designing this weapon to be used in warfare. I seem to recall that the geneva conventions do not apply to what a government does with it own population, which this seems to be designed for.

    121. Re:This is against Geneva or Hague convention by Calinous · · Score: 1

      Self-titled freedom fighters, then. Or people who consider themselves so (or at least declares themselves)

  14. me me me by sudo · · Score: 1

    I want a bazooka one

  15. Sounds good by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    As long as it's based on LED technology, so that it doesn't waste power when not in use (as in, blinding people).

    --
    You see? Black really is better!
  16. Mandatory MST3K quote, plus scepticism by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Funny
    From "The Mole People":

    "ARGGGHHH! Light just slightly brighter than what we're accustomed to!"

    No, seriously, this sounds really lame. SWAT teams already do this, successfully, with "flash-bang" grenades. Or you could use a big-ol' magnesium flashbulb. No need for new yet wimpy LED's.

    1. Re:Mandatory MST3K quote, plus scepticism by Palpitations · · Score: 2, Funny

      SWAT teams already do this, successfully, with "flash-bang" grenades. Absolutely - and flash-bang grenades do a hell of a job disorienting you, at least for a short period of time. Certainly long enough for a SWAT entry team to get to you and have a tactical shotgun in your face by the time you're aware of what is going on.

      Ahhh, the benefits of having a corrupt cop, who happened to be the Sargent in charge of the local SWAT team as a father... Being able to look at catalogues from companies that sold to "official police and peacekeeping organizations only", tell my dad what I wanted, and having him skim off the local police budget to pick stuff up for me (for "training" purposes, of course)? How could you not like that?

      I had the best toys of any kid on the block. "Oh, you got a new action figure? Good for you. I just got a CS grenade."

      Good times. Although the tinnitus from one to many flash-bangs kind of sucks.
    2. Re:Mandatory MST3K quote, plus scepticism by 45mm · · Score: 1

      Except they want to use this on an airplane, subway, or otherwise enclosed space. Flashbangs affect everyone in the enclosed space they're used ... which would include the person who tossed it ... and hence not useful in this situation. More info on flashbangs

    3. Re:Mandatory MST3K quote, plus scepticism by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, well the numbers still don't work out too well.

      To get the 6 million candellas of a $7 flash-bang grenade, assuming your typical super-bright LEDS of 10 candelas, and a beamwidth of 36 degrees you'd need 6,000 LEDS. That's a lot of bux.

  17. Not New by vic-traill · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not a new concept. I recall hearing about this class of device twenty years ago when I worked the door at a couple of bars - always wished I had one (it's a hard way to make cash to fund your education, letting people beat on your head so you can learn to make a living with self-same head). Never saw one though.

    Here's a reference from 2005 to such a device, with a different name. I don't know if it is the same company, or a different development: http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sabershot .htm

    --
    [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
    1. Re:Not New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying you stood in a doorway and let people beat off on your head for money ?

    2. Re:Not New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a new concept. I recall hearing about this class of device twenty years ago
      Ditto, from the list of non-firearm self-defense gadgets. It looked like an ordinary torch and was supposed to give you a chance and a head start to fly from muggers or other attackers. As I recall, it induced temporal blindness even through the closed eyelids. I don't recall the tech, but it probably was based on Xenon flash lamp.
    3. Re:Not New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, I'd say the directed acoustic weapons on the parent page are more interesting actually. Impressive stuff, and somewhat scary given its abuse potential.

      Hummvee does 7 points Sonic damage
      *Protestor attempts save (DC: 11) ... failure
      *Protestor is stunned

    4. Re:Not New by Interl0per · · Score: 1

      Interesting, the first I heard of the idea was Arthur C. Clarke's Imperial Earth, but they used lasers to blind possible threats instead of LEDs.

    5. Re:Not New by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Dune movie here...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Not New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al, is that you?

  18. blinding purposes by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

    I'll stick to my surefire tactical light. Its nice small, and is actually effective as a bludgeon if need be.

    --
    You mad
    1. Re:blinding purposes by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Huh, I always used my little surefire as a fist packer. It's just about the right size, has a good heft and is pretty dense. Still doesn't change the fact that when you hit someone it hurts your fist, but it hurts their face a hell of a lot more.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Yes, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can you run Linux on it?

    1. Re:Yes, but ... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      can you run Linux on it?

      yes, but it would have to be a light distribution.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  21. Sure! by no-body · · Score: 1
    No damage - same as teasers!

    I wonder if those would do any good?

  22. Epilepsy warning? by ParaShoot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The LED Incapacitator uses a range-finder to measure the distance to a target's eyes and then unleashes continually changing, multi-color light pulses that both blind and disorient the person. How long until this triggers an epileptic seizure in some poor unfortunate - and worse still, would whoever's wielding it be able to tell the difference between the potentially life-threatening seizure and the normal reaction?
    1. Re:Epilepsy warning? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      How long until this triggers an epileptic seizure in some poor unfortunate - and worse still, would whoever's wielding it be able to tell the difference between the potentially life-threatening seizure and the normal reaction?



      Oh, that doesn't matter. In case of epileptic seizure, the police officer can reasonably feel threatened and shoot the guy. Problem solved !

    2. Re:Epilepsy warning? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How long until this triggers an epileptic seizure in some poor unfortunate - and worse still, would whoever's wielding it be able to tell the difference between the potentially life-threatening seizure and the normal reaction?

      Many LED bicycle lights also flash at 9-12 Hz. As technology improves and light output increases this is likely to become a problem.

    3. Re:Epilepsy warning? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      How long until this triggers an epileptic seizure in some poor unfortunate - and worse still, would whoever's wielding it be able to tell the difference between the potentially life-threatening seizure and the normal reaction? Epileptic seizures are not generally life-threatening by themselves, except that they shut you down for a minute or so. So unless you're swimming or driving a car, it's not a big problem. And if you are doing one of these things, a disorienting strobe light is almost as dangerous.

      This could actually be a problem, much more than epileptics: what's the range of effect of these things, and will they "blind and disorient" nearby drivers?
      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    4. Re:Epilepsy warning? by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Epileptic seizures are not generally life-threatening by themselves, except that they shut you down for a minute or so. So unless you're swimming or driving a car, it's not a big problem.

      or in the middle of a panicked disoriented crowd...

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    5. Re:Epilepsy warning? by alcourt · · Score: 1

      They'll give that issue the same attention they did when they passed laws mandating that school buses have omni-directional strobe lights on them that are on as long as the engine is running. In other words, don't expect lawmakers to care at all.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
  23. This isn't new by FredThompson · · Score: 1

    These have been in use in prisons for a while. They're even on a Modern Marvels episode about new police equipment.

    1. Re:This isn't new by Emot · · Score: 0
      And as you'll recall, Modern Marvels is the show that deals in topics that are neither modern nor marvelous, so this can't really be all that new or exciting.

      Modern Marvels episode topics include:
      Fire!
      Water!
      The Arch!

      and my all-time favorite Neither Nor Modern Marvel: Dirt!

      The best part of Modern Marvels is in the intro sequence where there's Foley of a ratchet being turned superimposed over an image of a Crescent-style wrench being turned.

      --

      ALL HAIL THE BEAST THAT ASCENDETH FROM THE PIT WITH HIS CUTE WIDDLE NOSE =^o.o^=

  24. The future's so bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I gotta wear shades.

    Hey, what if I wear mirrored shades? If I amd and the owner is too, do we get some sort of laser effect going between us? Cool!

  25. So that's why Molly Millions wore'm by Monte · · Score: 1

    Anyone on a plane wearing mirror shades is going to get some suspicious looks.

  26. High tech counter measures.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The 'light saber' can even be scaled up to bazooka size for subduing crowds." Lets hope nobody in the crowd is carrying a mirror.......
  27. Return of the First Earth Battalion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's the return of the First Earth Battalion!

  28. No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't someone PLEASE think of the poor epileptics! BULLSHIT!!! We're under no obligation to coddle people caught in the act of breaking the law.

    1. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Cameroon · · Score: 1

      "Officer, as I understand it, you had an alternate method of subduing him, did you not?"

      "Uh, well, yes. I could have shot him."

    2. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I think the point everyone is trying to make is that this will be used against people who are NOT breaking the law, as well. Those people -do- need coddling.

      But even law-breakers have rights, and if an epileptic dies from this, that's 'lethal force', whether the cop knew it or not. If someone has brittle bone disease and a cop tackles them, that's excessive force as well. Epileptics don't deserve to die any more than normal people do, breaking the law or not.

      With aobut 300 million Americans, and 2.5 million of them being epileptic ( http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/epilepsyusa/emon th2004/mythsstats.cfm ) that means just under 1% are epileptic. That's a pretty big number, and enough that they need to take that into consideration when firing this weapon.

      I'm not against the weapon, just improper use of it. Guns, nightsticks, tazers, etc can all be misused and police are trained to use them properly and responsibly. No, they don't always do so, but they are trained for it. It doesn't matter what weapon you give them, even just their bare hands, SOME of them will abuse it.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by hachete · · Score: 1

      In the UK, the Police can only use "reasonable" force to subdue suspects. I would expect there to be similar legislation or legal precedence in most countries.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    4. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Threni · · Score: 1

      > In the UK, the Police can only use "reasonable" force to subdue suspects.

      The UK police have regular firearms as well as Tazers and wooden clubs - I don't see a `special torch` having trouble passing the `reasonable` test, do you?

    5. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      most cops there only have regular firearms when they REALLY need it! (they have to go call for a truck with guns to drive there, or for a quasi swat unit to show up)

    6. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but "reasonable force" is a fluid term. In the UK, it apparently means shooting an unarmed guy, then when he's on the floor, step on his arms and shoot him in the head, over and over again.
      A better term would, in my opinion, be "minimal force". At least that doesn't expect police men to be reasoning beings.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

    7. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by pj2007 · · Score: 1

      exactly! I mean it is not like the police should say to the criminal "oh yeah by the way do you have any medical reasons why I should not use this instrument on you"? I think the person doing criminal things forfeited his rights when he did what ever he did. But then I have never been in trouble before.

    8. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      The UK police have regular firearms as well as Tazers and wooden clubs - I don't see a `special torch` having trouble passing the `reasonable` test, do you?

      Very few British police officers are armed. I'd guess that less than 5 percent have received firearms training and, of those that are trained, most will not carry any weaponry on their person.

      Currently, only around 7 percent of officers in London are authorised to use firearms, so nationwide I'd expect the number to be much lower. After all, London has a disproportionately high number of anti-terrorist, diplomatic protection and other such specialist officers.

      Tasers are in the exactly the same category: only trained firearms officers are permitted to use them and they're not regularly carried. Additionally, I can't think of a single time that I've read about a taser actually being used to detain anybody.

      Lastly, police batons aren't wooden these days. Those were phased out some time ago. Telescopic batons are standard issue these days, and while I don't have any proof that I can readily provide, I do believe that these are slightly less dangerous to those on the receiving end than the batons that they replaced.

      Clearly your image of the average British cop is distorted. For more information on what they do and don't carry, and how it's regulated, read the relevant Wikipedia entry.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    9. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing like taking a single isolated incident - which occured just weeks after four suicide bombers killed 52 and injured 700, and days after another four tried but failed to repeat the attack, and in which the officers concerned were told that they were tracking a known terrorist suspected (and later confirmed) as being part of the threat - and blowing it out of proportion.

      Jean Charles de Menezes died because many things wen't wrong that shouldn't have been allowed to go wrong. And while I'm not excusing either the commanding officers that misinformed their subordinates in the field, or the officers that delivered the killing shots themselves, it's unreasonable to suggest that this single isolated incident is a typical police response.

      Nor, not that it needs to be said, has anybody attempted to defend what happened with a "reasonable force" defence.

      If you're going to use an example then at least use one that's typical rather than one that's unique, or at least put the example in context and provide the reader with some facts rather than sensationalism for sensationalism's sake.

      Did de Menezes die as a result of a police overreaction? Yes. Was it in any way a normal reaction to a normal incident? No.

      For those that would prefer some facts: Wikipedia article on Jean Charles de Menezes.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    10. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link?

    11. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends on the law. Can you be certain that the law remains in the spirit of freedom of speech and freedom of tought, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom to go where you please?

      Blind obedience of the law is just as much a horror scenario for me as blind disobedience. Both lead to a world I don't want to live in.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      But then I have never been in trouble before.


      Probably because you don't look black or middle-eastern enough.
    13. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by bitslinger_42 · · Score: 1

      True, the de Menezes incident was not typical, even for the police in the United States. However, whenever deciding about new weapons for the police arsenal, the fact that atypical incidents do occur means that you have to take edge cases into account in the decision process. If, for example, the police officers were not issued guns, shooting de Menezes would not have even been an option.

      Now, before flaming me on this, keep in mind that I'm not saying we should take guns away from the cops. What I'm saying is we must keep in mind that the police will use the weapons they have, and they won't always stop to think about the "reasonableness" of their actions, so we must consider this before giving them more.

    14. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's unreasonable to suggest that this single isolated incident is a typical police response.
      It's just as unreasonable to pretend things like that won't happen or to not hold those officers accountable.
    15. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Won't someone PLEASE think of the poor epileptics! BULLSHIT!!! We're under no obligation to coddle people caught in the act of breaking the law.

      I have occipital lobe epilepsy. If light reflects, then one of these things could trigger a seizure in a bystander, not just the person arrested.

      Some of you have a latent predisposition to these seizures and don't know it. As cops start to find this out for themselves, they'll go back to shooting people.

    16. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There were actually two main incidents.
      1) the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes
      2) the lying and cover up of 1) by the british authorities (which to me is a bigger danger to everyone else in the UK).

      While you can try to claim 1) to be an isolated incident, I don't think you can consider 2) to be one since there is no assurance that such lying and cover ups will not happen again, and so that makes incidents like 1) more likely.

      There was no repentance, there was no real coming clean. The police continued trying to justify/defend what they did.

      It's just like the CxOs of a company getting caught doing the wrong thing, then issuing a statement "Oh, we made a mistake, we're sorry, BUT actually blahblahblah", then later on your find out that blahblahblah was a lie, then they say "oh we're sorry, but actually blahblahblah2". Where blahblahblah2 is also a lie. So on and so forth.

      If you do not know the truth about something, you don't make false statements publicly for nothing.

      That sure does not bring to mind "isolated incident".

      I do have a higher opinion of the UK police than other police forces around the world that I'm aware of, but that's not saying much nowadays. If they continue as is, they'll just be like the cops elsewhere i.e. lesser/necessary _evils_.

      To those who are about to defend the other police forces (there are good cops etc etc). Don't waste time trying to convince me, go find and jail the bad cops. Clean your hands or it'll be hard to use those hands to clean other stuff.

      --
    17. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Clearly your image of the average British cop is distorted.

      I live in London. I travel internationally a lot. Consequently, I see armed police all the time. You're taking my statement out of context, which is, given that the police (as a whole) is armed with things manifestly more deadly than a torch, they would meet no credible opposition if they decided they wanted to be armed with them.

    18. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by soren100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jean Charles de Menezes died because many things wen't wrong that shouldn't have been allowed to go wrong. No, he died because police officers jumped on top of him and fired 7 bulllets into his head. Then they lied about the details to make the actions seem much more reasonable. The only reason that the horrifying truth came out was because outraged individuals risked their jobs and their freedom to make the truth known. The police still claim that the multiple CCTV cameras covering the incident were all malfunctioning at the time.

      If you're going to use an example then at least use one that's typical rather than one that's unique. Unfortunately police brutality and consequent coverups to avoid the consequences of the brutality is unfortunately very typical. Each case is unique, but the overall pattern is far too predictable.

      The gunning down of a 92-year-old grandmother in a botched drug raid was also a unique case, and so were the accompanying lies attempting to justify the actions and make them seem reasonable.

      Here's a map of the details of all the "unique" botched paramilitary raids in America.

      The original claim stands true. "Reasonable force" is a fluid term, and far too many innocent people die from police mis-application of "reasonable force".

    19. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he isn't a fucking scumbag.

    20. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      You may well live in London yet you still thought that British policemen and -women were still armed with wooden truncheons, and you also gave the impression that firearms and tasers were a standard part of their equipment, as well.

      As I said, you seem to have a distorted view of what weaponry the average police officer carries. And with a less than accurate knowledge of what they usually carry (Uzis? RPGs? Cut flowers?) you don't really have a proper frame of reference when comparing a potential new addition to their arsenal to their existing options.

      And, as others have pointed out, aimed at the wrong person the "torch" that you refer to could well be fatal. I doubt few police officers are personally sufficiently-trained and well-equipped to deal with an epileptic fit, especially a life-threatening one. In that regard, your special torch is potentially the most deadly item that you've mentioned.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    21. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      The number of people who die in the UK as a result of police action or activity is a well documented fact and is usually in the order of about 2-3 people a year.

      Granted, that's 2-3 people too much but that hardly sounds like it's a case of gross and wide-spread abuse of the definition of "reasonable force".

      The person to whom I initially replied to on that point painted a picture of such a thing being nearer the norm that barely registers as an event rather than a freak occurence that caused wide-scale public outrage.

      Your other examples are in the US: can you find any similar evidence to suggest that the police in the UK are just as guilty of fatally mis-applying "reasonable force" as their American brethren?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    22. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your other examples are in the US: can you find any similar evidence to suggest that the police in the UK are just as guilty of fatally mis-applying "reasonable force" as their American brethren? The poster that you replied to was rather flip in his remarks, but the idea that mis-application of "reasonable force" is always related to fatalities is erroneous. 92-year-old grandmothers are not necessarily shot and killed by police in America every day, either.

      The idea here is that there is a "continuum of force" ranging from the milder to the more extreme, with the more extreme uses of force acting like the tip of the iceberg, seemingly small and isolated but symbolic of and connected to a much larger problem that is much less easily seen and far more dangerous.

      I am not so familiar with the UK police, but I know that tasers in America are used increasingly like high-tech cattle prods on a defenseless public, and that is the fear with the new LED devices as well. If police are willing to murder people in broad daylight and lie about it, how much more willing would they be to use a device that leaves no physical marks and ends up being your word against theirs?

      The main thrust of the argument is that a requirement for police to use "reasonable force" is a worthless one, and no protection at all against any policeman who would be willing to abuse his powers. A policeman could tase and blind you multiple times and claim that you were threatening him, and since the tools are not thought of as fatal you would be open to being tortured by the police without recourse. Since police brutality is not generally regarded as a rare thing, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that such behavior could happen in Britain as well as America.
    23. Re:No guarantee of safety when breaking the law by hachete · · Score: 1

      Reasonable force applies to everybody, police included. It's a test for the jury: in the circumstances, do you think that the defendant's reaction was in proportion to the accused's attack? If the test "minimal force" was used, I think you'd see an equal amount of problematic decisions. "Minimal force" requires the defendant to work out what minimal force is, and we would all have differing opinions in the circumstances.

      It's not so much the test that is at fault, it's the reasoning that goes on behind it, the cultural conditions that determine whether or not the police get treated in a special way. I give you the Rodney King case in the USA as an example: clearly, the video showed a man being cruelly and unfairly beaten. What wasn't shown was his resistance to arrest prior to the beating; even given this, the bias towards the police's POV was clearly shown in the transcripts of the case. What goes on, too, is the number of medical retirements of officers who have been accused of crimes. Then there's the speicial pleading from the police that goes on.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  29. What possible defense against a light saber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there we are, all standing very still in the airport concorse. The terrorist is standing alone, wearing a home made jacket full of what looks like explosives. In his hand is a trigger device and a wire that disappears into his backpack. There is a noise from the back of the crowd, "Stand back, make way, Homeland Security!" The official pushes through the crowd carrying what looks like a fat flash light. "You!", he calls, "You with the bomb! Turn round and look at me!"

    Rather than turning to look at the official, the terrorist releases the trigger.

    1. Re:What possible defense against a light saber? by sherms · · Score: 1

      This and many others are valid scenarios. But to be a little more realistic, that would be like yelling movie in firehouse.

  30. A tale from Europe for the Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scenario:

    There exists a borough that has traditionally been inhabited by poor white people. Over the last few decades a larger number of young arab/african immigrants has also moved to the area, and race relations are poor. The original populace regularly complains about harassment from gangs.

    One day a white man in the 50s comes into an argument with a large gang of Moroccan teens. Although the details are disputed, with some saying he pulled a knife on them, and others saying they waved a knife at him and he grabbed hold of it, the result was that a passing policeman shot him dead on sight. The source of the knife is the only disputed thing - what's not disputed is that he was not making threatening moves with it, and did not get a warning.

    What follows is the white populace rioting in the entire borough. Cars are torched, rocks thrown at police, and a police station razed and burnt down to the ground. Most/all attacks are directed towards the police.

    The police, on government orders, board up every entrance and street leading into the entire borough. Not yellow tape police barriers, but literally impassable walls and fences. Tightly spaced on every fence there are tall poles with video cameras pointing inwards. People trying to get in are fined on the spot, or arrested. The police lead raids in to arrest people who break curfew, until there's none breaking curfew left. A month later a city official speaks in the area and urges tolerance and reconciliation, and that large sums will be spent on urban regeneration.

    1. Can anyone here, without googling it, tell me when and where this was?

    2. If there is a good reason, can you see similar use of video monitored ring fencing of rioting boroughs in the US?

    3. Can you guess how many national European newspapers this was reported in?

    1. Re:A tale from Europe for the Slashdotters by Xiroth · · Score: 1

      Interesting.

      Just in case anyone is interested (and doesn't want to explore the reply tree), the incident described occured in Ondiep, Utrecht, Netherlands, on the 11th of March, 2007. While a quick search reveals that it was broadly reported in blogs, there does appear to be a somewhat disturbing lack of reporting amongst the professional media.

    2. Re:A tale from Europe for the Slashdotters by Njovich · · Score: 1

      One day a white man in the 50s comes into an argument with a large gang of Moroccan teens. Although the details are disputed, with some saying he pulled a knife on them, and others saying they waved a knife at him and he grabbed hold of it, the result was that a passing policeman shot him dead on sight. The source of the knife is the only disputed thing - what's not disputed is that he was not making threatening moves with it, and did not get a warning.
      Actually, it is widely believed that he had a baseball bat and later got a knife. What is disputed is whether or not he made threatening moves. Keep in mind, this was a guy that was known to be aggressive, especially when drunk. (check telegraaf of around that time)

      What follows is the white populace rioting in the entire borough. Cars are torched, rocks thrown at police, and a police station razed and burnt down to the ground. Most/all attacks are directed towards the police.
      All attacks are directed towards the police, but still cars are torched? The fact is that much private property was destroyed in the riots.

      The police, on government orders, board up every entrance and street leading into the entire borough. Not yellow tape police barriers, but literally impassable walls and fences. Tightly spaced on every fence there are tall poles with video cameras pointing inwards. People trying to get in are fined on the spot, or arrested. The police lead raids in to arrest people who break curfew, until there's none breaking curfew left. A month later a city official speaks in the area and urges tolerance and reconciliation, and that large sums will be spent on urban regeneration.
      People who needed to get in could get in (with proper ID). This was an experiment to keep rioters from outside Ondiep to fuel the riots. I don't really know what the problem is with using video cameras. There was no real curfew in place, but people weren't allowed to 'hang together' (samenscholingsverbod).

      1. Can anyone here, without googling it, tell me when and where this was?
      It is a factually incorrect overview of what happened in Utrecht earlier this year.

      2. If there is a good reason, can you see similar use of video monitored ring fencing of rioting boroughs in the US?
      Maybe. Why not? This was an experiment to contain riots.

      3. Can you guess how many national European newspapers this was reported in?
      Probably a dozen or so Dutch (it was rehashed in the newspapers endlessly) and a couple of Belgian. Others didn't pick it up because a single dead and some riots are simply not interesting internationally.

      Hope that helped.
    3. Re:A tale from Europe for the Slashdotters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Paris, 2005?

      And afaik it was reported for 2-3 days, then suddenly there was nothing but silence. Especially how it was resolved remains a mystery.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  31. "Harmless" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time one is used, they should randomly pick one equipped officer and use it on them. every 1-in-10 get bumped to one of:

    senior officer for this officer
    MP who OK'd the bill
    Salesman who sells this stuff

    every time. This will

    a) ensure that all parties using it are sure it is safe
    b) reduce unnecessary use of this item

  32. Mirror. by DavidpFitz · · Score: 1

    Is there anything to stop me getting a reasonable sized mirror to bounce this back and make the police the ones that puke?

    1. Re:Mirror. by Legion303 · · Score: 5, Funny

      We're glad you asked. Mirrors will soon be banned for private use by the "Anti-Terrorism Mirror" amendment to the Patriot Act this fall.

    2. Re:Mirror. by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      and then a too generally worded amendment will cause a ban on all ATM machines. Great! ;P

    3. Re:Mirror. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh don't worry, there will be exceptions for industries, as usual. Just you, citizen, have to abide to the law.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Mirror. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >We're glad you asked. Mirrors will soon be banned for private
      >use by the "Anti-Terrorism Mirror" amendment to the Patriot Act this fall.

      Known as Weapons of Mass Reflection....

  33. It's not only guilty people that get arrested... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Won't someone PLEASE think of the poor epileptics! BULLSHIT!!! We're under no obligation to coddle people caught in the act of breaking the law."

    Brilliant! Because we all know that everybody who's arrested is guilty, don't we? After all, it's only guilty people that get arrested, right? Innocent people never get stopped and detained, do they?

    Idiot.

    Why do you think courts exist? Law enforcement officers, in the heat of the action, aren't judge and jury. They don't determine if someone has broken the law or not. A court does that.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  34. Don't need english to comply? by postermmxvicom · · Score: 1

    To me the "don't need english to comply" is the funniest quote ("Vlad calls it the evil color" is a close second). Seriously, when you know you are breaking the law to enter a foriegn country, do you need to know english to understand what the uniformed man who is holding a gun and yelling wants? I don't know if I can take this story seriously. Is it a joke? Was Helga, the evil-torture-doctor-lady, unavailable for comment?

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
    1. Re:Don't need english to comply? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      No no, understanding english or not is beside the point. What the quote actually means is they don't need to understand ANYTHING in order to be able to comply. That's the ideal citizen, isn't it? All compliance, no complaints.

  35. You forgot by wiredog · · Score: 2, Funny

    MUAHAHAHAHA!

  36. Fashion gets in the way by cheros · · Score: 1

    It's going to have to be one hell of a beam to get past the current fashion of wearing sunglasses. And with mirror effect there could be amusing side effects..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  37. Landmines and machine guns by tjstork · · Score: 1

    That's why we need to let people with homes on the US border put in landmines and machine guns. Sometimes you just have to have old trusty to stop those wiley mexicans!

    --
    This is my sig.
  38. Looker by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1

    There's a rather underrated 80s film called Looker which uses this sort of device as a subplot. The gun in the film freezes people for an hour or two, and obviously can be used for nefarious purposes by the baddies.

    Rich.

    1. Re:Looker by csoto · · Score: 1

      Actually, it only "stuns" them for a few seconds. But, yeah, it's Albert Finney's best work! And Susan Dey was in it before L.A. Law.

      Boy, that's such an "80's flick" if there ever was one...

      --
      There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  39. The next step... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    ...will be the little flashlight that alters memory, like in MiB. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  40. first thing to check: are they zombies ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    If they run around with their hands forwards yelling braaaaaaiiiins all the time; the LED light will be the least of your concerns;
    Unless you are blonde and dumb you'll have no problem at all since the brain is missing.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  41. Move along ... by MarkoNo5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... there's nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Move along ... by achbed · · Score: 1

      Not anymore! You blinded me you ***!

  42. How to deal with Johnny Foreigner by fantomas · · Score: 5, Funny

    "With this, they don't need to know English to comply"

    My word sir, you Yankees are becoming more like the true heirs to the British Empire as every day passes! Well said sir, Johnny Foreigner is a semi-savage, and can't speak a word of the King's English (or President, or whatever you colonists have these days). Don't be fooled by his suit, you'll find it's a cheap imitation and close examination will prove that the buttons on the cuffs are fake and the pockets have been cut at the wrong angle. Shine a torch in their faces, and shout in God's own language NICE and LOUD and SLOWLY. They'll understand then, by George!

    1. Re:How to deal with Johnny Foreigner by gjbivin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Johnny Foreigner is a semi-savage, and can't speak a word of the King's English (or President, or whatever you colonists have these days). I'm not sure what language our President speaks, but it certainly doesn't seem to be English.
    2. Re:How to deal with Johnny Foreigner by Gamefreak99 · · Score: 1

      More like "Jose Foreigner" in this case...

    3. Re:How to deal with Johnny Foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the best scenes in Syriana http://syrianamovie.warnerbros.com/ is:

      when the young kid is standing in a line a some checkpoint and the thugs who are running the checkpoint start hassling the old man and the kid says something to them (and as we have seen repeatedly in the US media, it is not doing something "illegal" that gets you it trouble at checkpoints, but is merely when the guards dislike you, something about you or something you did). They ask him what his name is, he replies "Johnny" and they immediately start beating the crap out of him.

      Did it matter what his name was? No. Does it really matter who you are for 99% of the people trying to go about their lives. No. It depressed me because it seems like that same scene is not far off in the US after the market crash, that started yesterday, runs its course. After being poor and/or homeless for more than a couple days how can you prove who you are/were?

  43. Universal Language by kaleco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'With this, they don't need to know English to comply.'

    Ah yes, the universal language of violence.

    --
    Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
    1. Re:Universal Language by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As every geek learned at school, violence is the language resorted to by the bully when he runs out of words.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Universal Language by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      >>>With this, they don't need to know English to comply.' Ah yes, the universal language of violence.


      Leiberman may as well have said: "With this, they don't need to know Ojibwe to comply"

      His statement gives the perception that this weapon is designed to target non-english speakers. Considering the USA does not have an official language, perhaps the funding would be better spent on some basic language training for the people who would be issued this type of weapon; English, Spanish, French, Arabic, might be a good start. Or it is probably easier to give some thug a stun gun and say shoot anyone who doesn't understand you.

      If it was language schools funded these cronies to keep them in office, then I'm sure we'd live in much more peaceful world that isn't starting to resemble HalfLife2.
  44. mod parent down: racist trolling by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Mod parent down, racist BS trolling. No references. Poster has read about this in some comic and believes it without visiting Europe themselves.

  45. Decapacitating crowds... by St1086lichnaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because crowds need to be subdued, obviously... If they ain't happy, it's the govt's obligation to find out what it's doing wrong!

    1. Re:Decapacitating crowds... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I thought it was "incapacitating" not "decapacitating".

      Using the second word could have unfortunate results if it is slightly misreador misheard.

      "But sir, we didn't bring near enough machetes."

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    2. Re:Decapacitating crowds... by MagicBox · · Score: 1

      Hey crowd control - sounds like something out of V - For Vendetta type of Regime...

      --

      The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
  46. Mod fantomas down, FUD troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Some of the tags to this story are 'Police state' and 'Oppression'. The impression is that the US is being portrayed as a police state.

    For Americans, and people accustomed to reading about oppression in the US while seeing Europe as 'enlightened' and 'humanistic', it might interest them to hear about incidents that collide with that view. If hearing about incidents that collide with your view is a good in itself.

    There is nothing racist or prejudiced in what I wrote, as anyone can read. I wrote about police reactions. I am happy to provide sources. I am happy to provide links to YouTube videos of the barriers, burning police station and rioters (in 4-5 hours, YouTube is blocked from work).

    I speculate that Fantomas knows about the incident very well - because otherwise he would not know that it can be portrayed, and has been, in a racist way. This does not change that it was a real incident.

    If this is true then it is FUD on his part, to obscure a real and factual incident.

    1. Re:Mod fantomas down, FUD troll. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      There is nothing racist or prejudiced in what I wrote, as anyone can read. I wrote about police reactions. I am happy to provide sources. I am happy to provide links to YouTube videos of the barriers, burning police station and rioters (in 4-5 hours, YouTube is blocked from work).

      You played up the race relations aspect of the story, despite the fact that the true thrust of it should have been the alleged police and state confinement and eviction of the residents. Your poor excuse that "Youtube is blocked form work" is hardly sufficient to prevent you from at least naming the incident. I've spent quite a bit of time Googling for this alleged incident, also adding a "France" keyword as this seems the most likely location. However, nothing has come up.

      This does not change that it was a real incident.

      You have not even established that the incident in question ever took place. Plus, the story is only remotely related to the submission, and your are posting as an AC. In all likelihood, you fabricated the entire incident, and are trolling the board. In short, Cite, or be modded down.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Mod fantomas down, FUD troll. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      For Americans, and people accustomed to reading about oppression in the US while seeing Europe as 'enlightened' and 'humanistic', it might interest them to hear about incidents that collide with that view. If hearing about incidents that collide with your view is a good in itself.

      Yep, Western European countries can be pretty bad. See also, preemptive arrests of suspected "football hooligans" before matches. No charges, no trials, just hold them until the match is over and they can no longer do damage. Much of eastern Europe is, IMHO, still better, if only because (a) they have memories of repressive dictatorships and DON'T want to go back to that and (b) there's not enough money to maintain strong police forces.

      -b.

  47. I'm thinking.. by gillbates · · Score: 1

    This would put to use by protesters, border jumpers, assorted criminals, etc... for the purpose of blinding cops and/or their victims.

    After all, if you're blind, how could you identify the suspect?

    I find it kind of scary that our government thinks it is somehow morally acceptable to develop weapons which blind people. Sure, it's temporary - now - but how long will it be before someone figures out a way to make the blindness permanent? Or, worse, what if it causes *permanent* damage in only a small portion of the population?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  48. The technology for this has existed for decades... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Just put an airport beacon on a strobe.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  49. Decapacitating crowds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One little flash, then Good night dear, just Open your eyes, honey, Look right here, thank you.

  50. "The Evil Colour" by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    "There's one wavelength that gets everybody," Lieberman said, according to the newsletter. "Vlad calls it the evil color."

    There is also a back audio weapon they're working on, apparently it don't incapacitate the offender it just really takes the fight out of them

    Apparently it emits a tone that gets "everyone", Vlad calls this one "The Brown note" :-P

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  51. No use against Ruter Hauer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  52. Text sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The reason for the lack of sources was that I challenged Slashdotters to say where and when it was. Providing sources would have defeated the purpose of making people confront their own lack of knowledge about Europe.

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/03/ondi ep_rioter_jailed_for_10_weeks.php

    "Ondiep rioter jailed for 10 weeks
    Thursday 22 March 2007

    A magistrate in Utrecht has sentenced a 40-year-old man to 10 weeks in jail for his role in the riots in the Ondiep neighbourhood last week. The magistrate said there was proof the man had thrown a stone at police during the disturbances.

    Three others, described as 'sensation seekers' by the magistrate, were given community service and one man was fined 250. The magistrate said he had taken a tough approach to sentencing because people who throw a single stone during a riot are contributing to that riot, ANP reported.

    Eight other people still have to appear in court in connection with the disturbances. One of them is charged with driving a car at a group of police officers.

    The Ondiep riots broke out after a local man was shot dead by police. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are still being investigated."

    If the incident did not take place, then, rather than being jailed for 10 weeks for throwing a stone, they are being jailed based on nonexistent events, which would arguably be worse.

    Another reason for the lack of sources about the existence of the riots and the torched police station is that not a single national newspaper in the entire Europe reported on them. Prove me wrong.

  53. Teotihuacan Armies with Pyrite Backshields by lemon_dieter · · Score: 0

    These lite brite devices remind me of the armies from Teotihuacan who came to the city states of Maya at around AD 380 in liberation campaigns. The backshields of the fighters had mirrored surfaces made from pyrite intended to dazzle the enemy while the fighter turned several times in gathering momentum to throw his spear. August 2007 National Geographic at 2:00 am last night. I'm too tired to cite further than that.

    --
    Spending Resources on Defense leaves Less to defend.
  54. Defense procurement address anyone? by Bazman · · Score: 1

    Can someone tell me who arranges purchasing for these sorts of contracts? Because they can have every unnecessary blue LED off all my tech kit from the last few years - that should be enough for the Mexican border...

  55. AK47-M16A1 by rthrush · · Score: 0

    I don't get why we should even be paying for this (ie. our tax money hard at work leaking out of our rep's pockets) an ak47/m16 would work fine to deter illegal immigration, they just won't let us defend our freaking country's border. I think you could even find people willing to repel the borders without getting payed for it. face it they will spend tons on this useless bs compared to 10 cents per round for ak47 ammo American and got here the right way! didn't get wet on the way ;)

    1. Re:AK47-M16A1 by rthrush · · Score: 0

      It's simple my friend. I am more than willing to defend my country's borders, But shooting a wetback even when you are a border agent lands you in freaking prison. Because of bleeding heart people who think illegal aliens have the same rights equal to you as a citizen. I say if you cross the border illegally you should be fair game to a shot between the eyes, but then what can I say, I'll get flamed for this but this is the state of affairs in the USA. George is WRONG WE are WRONG it's all for OIL. what about just freaking doing what is nesc, even if it means you have to kill someone

    2. Re:AK47-M16A1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, defend your country? Shouldn't you be learning to assemble nikes in sweatshops or something, to compete with the Chinese? From the look of things, it's going to be their country in a couple decades. At least the Mexicans already have that "cheap labor" thing down pat.

      I mean, gotta tell you, "friend", you keep up that charming attitude, and you'll be serving me chop suey in downtown Tijuana before you know what happened to your fucking country.

      Fucking clown.

  56. Re:meh by witte · · Score: 1

    This device disorients, but doesn't permanently burn your retinas to useless pulp like lasers would. See the difference ?

  57. Non issue by youthoftoday · · Score: 1

    The US has repeatedly demonstrated that such conventions mean nothing to them. International law is a complete non-issue to American authorities.

    --
    -1 not first post
  58. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the best prizes I've ever seen! Now I've finally got something to get with all those Bazooka Joe wrappers I've saved over the last 25 years!

  59. Thank god!!!!! by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

    We have so many terrorists running around these days, it's wonderful that someone has invented something to blind them all.

    --
    Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  60. Alas no by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Alas no, never heard of it. I'm in the UK. I take it you're in the USA.

    "I speculate that Fantomas knows about the incident very well - because otherwise he would not know that it can be portrayed, and has been, in a racist way. This does not change that it was a real incident.

    If this is true then it is FUD on his part, to obscure a real and factual incident."


    I'm afraid you're wrong. I hadn't heard about it, so I guess that means by your logic, my statement wasn't FUD. Your posting supports my position, as you made the comment that this incident hadn't been reported in national newspapers. If it wasn't in a national newspaper, and by implication, in online national newsfeeds, how would I have known about it? I see there was a riot in Ondiep and somebody died. Thank you for the reference.

    Alas we also have riots in Europe, and police also shoot people dead here as well on occasion. Improvements are definitely required. As a European I know this.

    I'm also aware that all media has a bias - it looks like the only articles written about this incident seem to be by the right wing press, so I am reading it through their viewpoints. It would be nice to read a variety of reports, and particularly the police/authority reports, to get some sense of balance. I am afraid to say that in the UK we have a range of biased journalists and it is wise not to believe everything they say, or at least to understand their perspective. I am guessing this is universally true. Without doing some research, I find it hard to understand the perspective of the people writing about this incident you report. Perhaps you can help by providing background information on the resources. Some of them are explicitly anti-immigration and anti-Islam so I'd expect a certain angle to be taken.

    Trust me, I am in the UK, I understand the idea of people being concerned about the concept of a police state. Thankfully we still have Habeas Corpus here, something, alas, not guaranteed in the US Constitution. My bias is that I think that Habeas Corpus is a good thing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspens ion_in_the_United_States_in_1990s_and_2000s

    1. Re:Alas no by Don853 · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I am in the UK, I understand the idea of people being concerned about the concept of a police state. Thankfully we still have Habeas Corpus here, something, alas, not guaranteed in the US Constitution. My bias is that I think that Habeas Corpus is a good thing.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspens ion_in_the_United_States_in_1990s_and_2000s


      From your link: United States

              Main article: Habeas corpus in the United States

      The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:
      " The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. "

      So, yes, we do have it. We... just use the wartime loophole for things we shouldn't. I think the sheer size of the US makes it hard to govern... there doesn't seem to be anything that everyone agrees on so we end up with BS that no one likes. And it gives us a superiority complex.

  61. Correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because crowds need to be subdued, obviously... If they EXPRESS THAT THEY ain't happy, it's the govt's obligation to find out what it's doing wrong!

    1. Re:Correction... by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      If they EXPRESS THAT THEY ain't happy
      If soapboxing had gotten them what they were after, there wouldn't be a protest.
      --
      (IANAL)
  62. Next up - The Brown Noise Generator! by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

    Why stop at just making 'them' puke!

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
  63. Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I played up the race relations, as it was a key part of the event for everyone involved. I did not however describe anyone in a prejudiced way. It is relavant to the continuing theme of 'US Oppression' and the tags of 'Police state'.

    As I cannot search Youtube, try this one, or 'ondiep'.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpdetGCDODw

    This is in Dutch, although a reputable source:
    http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/60338261/Politi e:_Stille_tocht_Ondiep_gaat_door.html

    It quotes 135 arrests and the killing. Can be translated at http://babelfish.altavista.com/.

    Again, you will not find this in any European national newspaper or non-Dutch European source, which makes source hunting difficult though not impossible.

  64. Big Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must remember my Big Mirror next time I cross the border illegally.....

  65. Wow, Tom Clancy predicts the future again by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First he did it with some of the methods the terrorists used on 9/11 in Debt of Honor, now he's done it with this new weapon. I think his anti-terrorist characters John Clark and Ding Chavez used the same weapon in, oh what was it -- Executive Orders? Anyway, that book came out about 14 years ago.

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
    1. Re:Wow, Tom Clancy predicts the future again by Mud+Husky · · Score: 1

      That was in Debt of Honor too.

    2. Re:Wow, Tom Clancy predicts the future again by Firefly1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for making that general point; you saved me the trouble. As for the specific case of airplanes-as-weapons... it surprises me that, to my knowledge, the fact of real-life precedent existing in World War 2 seems to have eluded attention. Specific reference is made to the kamikaze aircraft and their naval counterpart, Kaiten manned torpedoes.

      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    3. Re:Wow, Tom Clancy predicts the future again by LineGrunt · · Score: 1

      The Clancy book with the flashlight is Debt of Honor actually.

      Uses it to take down people and blind airplane pilots.

      LineGrunt

  66. Re:Insightful?!! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    How would you like to have a dialogue with rioters, looters or angry mobs?

    Can't speak for looters, but rioters and angry mobs often have a good reason to be angry, and repressing them will just cause things to blow up completely eventually. Keep in mind that without "angry mobs" and "rioters" most of Eastern Europe would still be crying under the Russian boot.

    I'm betting that this technology will be sold by us to some of our most repressive so-called friends.

    -b.

  67. This didn't already exist? by Luke+Dawson · · Score: 1
    I thought it was part of White House staff training.

    "Now, if you'll just follow me, we have one more test to administer, an eye exam."

  68. Re:Insightful?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How in the fuck is this insightful?
    As one of the people who modded that comment insightful (and hence the AC posting), allow me to explain my reasoning.

    New technologies can be used both for good and for bad. Obviously. Very frequently, when a new technology is developed, all we hear about are the positive uses of said technology. In this case, suppressing riots is one of those positive uses.

    However, we live in a democracy and this is a technology being developed for the government that we control. We must be well informed to make decisions as to the direction this government will take, what we will allow it to do and what we won't allow. It is therefore important that somebody, anybody, points out the bad uses that this technology has, such as dispersing peaceful protests with a legitimate political goal.

    The Grand Parent does that in one line of text. I find that insightful.

    And I am a Republican.
  69. Re:It's not only guilty people that get arrested.. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    After all, it's only guilty people that get arrested, right? Innocent people never get stopped and detained, do they?

    Furthermore, not everyone who happens to be in the street (or looking out of their flat window at a commotion) is even necessarily involved in what's going on with the police. But, yeah, the presumption of guilt just because someone gets arrested is rather appalling.

    -b.

  70. in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what homeland security means.
    They invent toys of armer against people in their homeland ?
    Who are those people they fight against, are it the people who have a gun (allmost everybody has it in the US)
    Or are it those people who think there is something wrong with country ? (allmost everybody does and complains).

    So ehmm let me think where should that toy be used.
    Probaply just to keep some people in position as changes are bad for them.
    Hmm such people tend to be in politics oh no but they dont have money they are just pinokio type of people.
    As always the people who fund such projects the banking people, they have ultimate power and no elections.

  71. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  72. Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What we've got here is a failure to communicate." --Guns and Roses

    1. Re:Riiiight by Noexit · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      --

      Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo

  73. Re:Insightful?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly right.

    If they were ready for a dialogue then they wouldn't be marching on the streets, duh.

    How are we going to get the terrorists if we're too busy having dialogues with hippies?

  74. Be Conspicuous by fatman22 · · Score: 1

    In a combat situation, bright lights are often referred to as "targets".

  75. English never required by deeLo57 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Lieberman was quoted as saying by a DHS newsletter. "With this, they don't need to know English to comply." United States Border Patrol Agents speak spainish, language aptitude testing is part of the hiring process and spainish is part of the training.

  76. Mod parent up... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    If Americans aren't willing to pick up their guns and police their borders properly then I don't see how you can complain that the government isn't giving the task their full attention.

    Actually, I'd prefer if the US worked on the Swiss system. A citizens' militia in which service is mandatory, designed to defend the country against invasion and attack. Every citizen (or at least a large proportion) should be alert, vigilant and trained. Alternatives to military service like disaster cleanup, teaching, and police work should also be allowed. This military should be strictly defensive -- we should cease our abuse of countries outside our borders (which would go a long way towards preventing terrorism in itself!).

    -b.

    1. Re:Mod parent up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding ? If bush had that many of the american population able to go to war what do you think he'd do ?

    2. Re:Mod parent up... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      If bush had that many of the american population able to go to war what do you think he'd do?

      Make the draft process truly random and hard to get out of. If congresspeople's sons are going to go abroad, they'll be less likely to vote for a war. And make it a constitutional requirement to have a Congressional vote of something like 90% affirmative before being allowed to deploy troops abroad.

      -b.

    3. Re:Mod parent up... by rthrush · · Score: 0

      IDK what do you think? you feel that we should not be doing what we are doing. you feel that Bush is evil etc. This is Jimmie "peanut" Carters mess bush is dealing with. Clinton covered up/ignored the terrorist attacks against airlines etc. whether you like it or not the only way to fight terrorists is to kill them if you don't they certainly will try to kill you...

  77. I've already got one of those on my case by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Those little blue lights are fucking bright! I don't even have a lamp. Pioneers read their books by candlelight, I read mine by ledlight.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  78. L.O.O.K.E.R. by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Sounds like something out of Hollywood. Ever see the movie
    "Looker" ?

  79. Oh My by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

    My main concern is that it could trigger seizures in some people due to the bright pulsing light and either give the assailant a chance to do whatever he wanted while they turned their attention to the victim, or if they ignored the seizure victim they would most surely have caused their death. Not to mention the fact that it *could* cause eye damage in the hands of poorly trained staff.

  80. Rangefinder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is a range-finder on the thing designed to adjust the intensity based on the range of the target.

    But does it go up to 11?

  81. Policing against whom? by pev · · Score: 1

    If Americans aren't willing to pick up their guns and police their borders properly then I don't see how you can complain that the government isn't giving the task their full attention.

    At the end of the day its just an older generation of illegal immigrants policing the border against a newer generation of illegal immigrants. A bit like CTF really...

    ~Pev
  82. LEDs count as Laser's now too by Cassini2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are missing the point that the laser safety regulations are busily being modified to include LED light sources. LED's, while non-coherent, can be focused sufficiently to create similar effects. It is all about how much light energy is hitting a person's retina. The effect can be created with any light source of sufficient intensity. Both a very bright focused LED and a laser can (temporarily) blind people.

  83. Smoke and mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two low tech defenses against this:

    1. Smoke. A passive defense, that also confounds the attacker's targeting capability.
    2. Mirrors. An active defense that tends to disorient and incapacitate the attacker and his buddies.

    Way to go, Homeland Security! Get yerselves a whole bunch of weapons that are useless against the age-old political shields of smoke and mirrors!

    But let us also recognize this: the primary function of Office of Homeland Security is not to develop weapons, nor to secure the homeland. It's primary function is to provide a swift, focused,, and efficient way to channel tax dollars into selected pockets in the private sector.

    --
    It is time to get some new sunglasses. The wrap-around kind, with the mirror finish.

    1. Re:Smoke and mirrors by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking bullet-proof, completely armored helmet, with pinhole cameras feeding visual to the interior via a hi-res OLED, one for each eye for depth perception. Unlike the viewscreen in Star Trek TOS, it won't feed your retinas blinding light. Shoot it, zap it, try to blind it, hit it with a club, the protestor's friend takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. Slated to become illegal within one week of introduction, 'cause it's ILLEGAL to not feel agony on your lords' and masters' demand. Kneel, slave.

  84. L.O.O.K.E.R by dekkerdreyer · · Score: 1

    This sounds all too familiar: Light Ocular-Oriented Kinetic Emotive Responses.

    --
    Dekker Dreyer
  85. Nothing new here, it doeas already exists!!! by ivlianvs · · Score: 1
  86. Arrogance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he does not understand english it is legitimate to hurt him.

  87. Re:dark glasses = terrorist by swissfondue · · Score: 1

    Soon anyone wearing dark glasses in an airplane will be immediately "subdued" by the air marshal because they are suspected terrorists. The reasoning: obviously anyone wearing sun glasses does this to avoid potential blinding by LED tasers. This is suspect and people will be held in Guantanamo for up to 5 years until their alleged terrorist nature can be proven or disproved.

    --
    Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
  88. Personal protection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used a bright beam of light to protect myself. Outside of a bar, I was being heckled because some dude thought I was touching his girlfriend. There were many ways to handle this but I choose not to fight it out and get the hell out of there. Dude was ready to roll and we were pushing each other with more and more force each time speaking the typical pre-fight dialog (hit me, you got a problem, over and over again). I used my stupid little LED key chain light to flash it in his face, lowered my shoulder and plowed into him, he staggered backwards, tripped and fell and I took off. Dirty maybe but I was not the drunk one that started it.

    In a dark area, a bright flash of light is very disruptive, it does not cause permanent blindness but will temporarily blind you.

  89. Go Seizure Ray! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    I remember how batman defeated this one...

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  90. Taser Effect by kibbled_bits · · Score: 1

    These are well intentioned devices however it will probably live the same fate as the taser. Now poorly trained police officers get these devices and use them excessively because they are deemed safe. Every device like this from tasers & beanbags to rubber bullets are intended to lower casualties. Hopefully this will prevent more border agents from being arrested & prosecuted. That is a difficult job I wouldn't want.

  91. The REAL issue by R3d+Jack · · Score: 1

    Whether these things are appropriate for the authorities to use is an interesting discussion. But what happens, and it will, when these "flashlights" leak out to the public? Great for home defense! Also, they will be great for every petty thief. "Victimless" robberies the easy way. I wonder if short term memory loss goes along with the experience, so that the flashee won't even remember what the assailant looked like...

  92. Moonintes aren't impressed by DHS' primitive tech by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Ignignokt: "Nice try, in fact it is very cute. We mooninites have advanced FAR BEYOND the primitive uses of LED technology. We no longer need to use LEDs to impose terror. All we have to do is just show up and we immediately strike fear into the hearts of the most masculine men. What? You don't believe us? Ship, come in. We've had enough of these privitive cavemen." *flips the bird*

    01-31-07: NEVER FORGET!

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  93. Read your sources by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Informative
    You first quote wikipedia stating how coherent light can damage eyes. Agreed, by all accounts it does. You then incorrectly infer that this means incoherent light is safe. You missed the other money quote:

    Some sources such as NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense state that "flash blindness" can be temporary or permanent.[2]

    Even considering using devices that could cause permanent blindness is evil. Sometimes the US is characterised correctly.

    1. Re:Read your sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But remember, you're not evil for considering using weapons that cause permanent death! Crippling limbs is ok, too. Ballistic weapons are awesome.

    2. Re:Read your sources by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
      I happen to think you are probably right, but, did YOU read YOUR sources? Your quote from Wikipedia contains an embedded link. At first I thought you had made a mistake but I looked at the original page.

      The link is to a totally unrelated page http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/f/02 109.html titled fixed station patrol.

      I even looked at the page revision history to see if someone had screwed with it; nope.

      So, basically your source is a one sentence anonymous quote. Pretty ironic I think considering your reason for posting.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    3. Re:Read your sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You first quote wikipedia stating how coherent light can damage eyes. Agreed, by all accounts it does. You then incorrectly infer that this means incoherent light is safe. Wikipedia is wrong or misleading here. In terms of how the beam from a laser interacts with your eye, the fact that it is coherent is irrelevant. What matters is intensity and wavelength. That is what makes lasers dangerous: the beam can be intense and is probably very well collimated. The wavelength determines what parts of the eye may be damaged and whether or not you can see the beam directly.
  94. Field tests already performed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Initial tests in Boston indicate positive results in disorienting entire cities.

  95. All well and fine but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it come with a power saving 'black' version?

  96. Quad Laser Effect by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Tasers are no match for a Mooninite Quad Laser. :-)

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  97. Taser fud... by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    From wikipedia:

    Between June 2001 and June 2007, there were at least 245 cases of deaths of subjects soon after having been shocked using Tasers [6]. Of these cases:

            * In 7 cases, medical examiners said Tasers were a cause or a contributing factor or could not be ruled out as a cause of death.
            * In 16 cases coroners and other officials stated that a taser was a secondary or contributory factor of death.
            * In most of the cases, the victims had been using drugs including cocaine, methamphetamine or PCP.
            * In dozens of cases, coroners cited excited delirium as cause of death. Excited delirium has been questioned as a medical diagnosis [7].
            * Several deaths occurred as a result of injuries sustained in struggles. In a few of these cases head injury due to falling after being shocked contributed to later death. Some police departments, like that of Clearwater, Florida, have tried to eradicate such incidents by prohibiting taser use when the suspect is in danger of falling [8].

    These incidents form a very small percentage of many tens of thousands of operational uses of tasers.[15]

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Taser fud... by dave562 · · Score: 1
      * In most of the cases, the victims had been using drugs including cocaine, methamphetamine or PCP.

      So their central nervous system was already over stimulated and their hearts were already at the breaking point because of all the stimulants they were on. Then they were hit with the taser and tried to fight it and that put further stress on their bodies.

  98. Does It Make Ice Cream? by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, back in the REAL world, where there are REAL threats, other REAL government agencies that are in charge of REAL solutions for REAL problems, have had to cut back.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  99. Ultra-bright flashlights by thethibs · · Score: 1

    These things have been around for ages. See http://www.surefire.com/

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  100. Nintendo effect? Optical Flow? by mattr · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is like the Nintendo effect. Rapidly flashing red and blue colors apparently sicken, and also trigger epileptic attacks (in anime it is way faster than 3 per second which IIRC is epileptic trigger threshold too).

    It doesn't sound so much like optical flow as mentioned by someone else, since it doesn't mention whirling lights. Also not sureif this is optical flow but the nauseating effect felt by viewers when someone clueless ran a highway driving sim in a planetarium here some years ago - making rushing graphics at the corner of your vision - would not work from a handheld device. So it may be the red/blue flashing of the Nintendo effect, also seen in film with very fast cuts.

    This is why they say don't watch it in the dark before some of these. The new movie Babel also flopped in Japan due to people being sickened and leaving the theater because of very fast cuts. One anime company got in a lot of trouble IIRC for the same reason in Japan and broadcasts emphasized you must not watch the TV closeup or in the dark.

    So my expectation is that this creates a quickly (perhaps 20 times/second) flashing of red and blue lights. Might include a full RGB set of 3 leds so that many colors can be created. It probably fans out to cover much of your field of vision. It seems highly likely that this will cause epileptic attacks in people who do not know they have epilepsy (those who do wouldn't be present I presume), nausea in the general public not wearing sunglasses, and possibly distress in people with bad hearts or close to heat prostration/dehydration. IANA doctor but the scary thing to me is that these things are probably so simple that they will probably become quite common, possibly like pepper spray or for use by homeowners. Could even be car mounted, by headlights or where police cars keep red and blue lights on top already. They probably also will not include photographic recording of their use like police guns do I think. Should be quite cost effective though I don't know that a cop would prefer it over a taser.

  101. Typical... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    "It later emerged that hollow point bullets had been employed and a senior police source said that de Menezes' body had been "unrecognisable." The bullets are illegal in warfare, but are widely used in law enforcement where it may often be necessary to quickly stop an armed assailant."

    If the Brits are up to that, I fully expect the Metro PD in Washington to be firing .50 caliber depleted uranium.

  102. Its been done by PPH · · Score: 1

    What do you think all those kewl blue LEDs are for on otherwise worthless products?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  103. Technologist's ethics by Tungbo · · Score: 1

    What about the technologist developing this weapon?
    Should they protest this use of their knowledge?
    Should they quit?

    One of my old professor once developed a ball bearing to spec.
    Later on, he found out to his regret that they were being used
    in component of a bomb as shrapnels. While he did not know
    how his product was being used, the technologists for this LED
    company certainly do.

    How might he feel when the CIA and Gitmo start using his work product?

  104. Wrong by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Dude, try "Cool Hand Luke" (look it up on IMDB).

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  105. A round up of crowd control tactics by ElectusUnum · · Score: 1

    Pepper Spray - Counter with 1:1 ratio of water to Maalox sprayed into the eyes

    Teargas - Counter with rags soaked in vinegar over the mouth

    Lightgun - Sunglasses?

    We can only hope that crowd control technologies continue to be this easy to circumvent

  106. Re: About hollow points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another reason law enforcement officers often use these bullets is because they don't penetrate solids and semi-solids as easily (walls, people, etc) so they are much less likely to go through the intended target or a wall and hit someone on the other side.

    Also, if you were wearing any kind of body armor (like soldiers do in warfare) they would stop hollow points much more easily than non-hollow points, so you probably wouldn't want to use them in warfare anyway.

    -AC

  107. coincidence by hurfy · · Score: 1

    They bought the same fan controller i did with the LED indicator lights eh? I knew there had to be another use for this besides putting in my desktop to blind ME...

  108. Looks like my LED Christmas tree project by JavaManJim · · Score: 1

    For Christmas 2006, I built my very own blinking LED Christmas lights for my little tree. Got a nice Digi-Key power supply and a bunch of powerful blinking LEDS from various suppliers.

    First attempt was WAY OVERPOWERED. Especially the blinking blue. The net effect was like a police light bar - in your own room right in front of you. On an 24" tree. Way too many photons. Instead of gentle blinking there were all these blasts of light. Not all my LEDs were this way but the blasters were the superbright LEDs that were indeed the brightest.

    I used LEDs that are clear yet generate different colors. These are the neat ones over the old fashioned colored plastic ones. Helps to have a LED tester to see what color you have.

    And the light was a bit disorienting. I saw blue spots for quite a while. It does no good really to close your eyes. your thin eyelid cannot hold back all those eager photons.

    Thanks,
    Jim

  109. Blue LEDs became boring years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For case modding I'm definitely replacing all my drive activity lights with these.

    And as a security related side benefit while I sit there at my computer, looking cool in my shades, shoulder surfers will be unable to to steal my passwords or other sensitive data (translation: Boss can't tell I'm surfing /.).

  110. Finally! by fireslack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...a way to disband those pesky peaceful protesters.

    --
    This sig only exists because you are observing it.
  111. I do not think that means what you think it means. by cosmid75 · · Score: 1

    'With this, they don't need to know English to comply.'

    Heh. The wonderful world of Homeland Security where being incapacitated by a bright flashing light is 'compliance'.

  112. I swear, I'm not a terrorist! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    I'm just using these dark glasses to conceal my identity from Tenma-chan!

  113. Yours for only $184.99 by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    The Blackhawk Gladius is designed to do that, and has been available for a few years. Built like a normal medium-sized flashlight, VERY bright, features a strobe tuned and intended to disorient people.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  114. Recant! by msimm · · Score: 1
    Silly moderation system. Anyway, aside from using a non-authoritative source if you looked a little more you'd have come across:

    Some sources such as NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense state that "flash blindness" can be temporary or permanent.
    Of course you were trying to make a point, not research the subject, so who can blame you.

    Personally I wonder why we have a Department of Homeland Security in the first place and I wonder if the Democrats will have the balls to dismantle it if and when they finally retake office. It's not that I'm totally anti-government but between the FBI and the CIA I just see this as a somewhat bizarre power play that will only further fracture these institutions. And what ever happened to the end of big government?
    --
    Quack, quack.
  115. Ultra bright LEDs? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing it's an array of LEDs. I've got a tri-LED penlight and I can make people squint from a good 50 feet away. Can LEDs get much brighter anyways?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  116. Re:meh by black_lbi · · Score: 1

    Do I smell a ra(n)t? Is that you, Maddox?

  117. I claim prior-art on countermeasure! by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

    Lemme see, "evil wavelengths" can be blocked by dichroic or peril-sensitive sunglasses...

    And any disorientation and nausea caused by the flash pattern can be stopped with These Amiga X-Specs You'd just need to synchronize the LCD blanking with the "evil" patten of flashes.

    Or... you could just get the bad guys to wear the X-Specs and then attack them with a nauseating 200 inch LCD projection TV image of frogger '87 or maybe the 3D version of Michael Jackson's super-bowl 27 half-time show

  118. Take a look at Machine Vision LEDs sometime by Radon360 · · Score: 1

    The problem with coherent light (i.e. LASERs) is that you have to aim them directly at your target. With super high intensity LEDs, you just point in the general direction for the effect. All the range you need is probably 25 feet or less. Remember, this isn't supposed to be a tactical long-range weapon, but something to be used just outside the range of engaging in physical contact with the subject. I'll agree with you that something like this will eventually get folded into a recycled Discovery Channel show at some point if it is adopted.

    The idea doesn't surprise me much. Having put together several machine vision systems with high intensity LED lighting, I know the effect that makes this work. The LEDs in the dome lights that I use are quite bright and they are configured only to come on when the camera is capturing an image, thus the LEDs produce a rather fast strobe light (15 - 30 times per second) effect. If you stare at the reflection dome for a moment, it can be quite dizzying.

    The LED lights that I use are just as bright as a Xenon strobe, but being solid state, the on/off is _much_ crisper. A Xenon stobe's output graphed looks like a ramp or sawtooth wave, whereas the LEDs make a nearly perfect pulse/square wave. Something tells me it's that very sharp off-to-on AND on-to-off action that makes the difference.

  119. Threshold for use by zCyl · · Score: 1

    Why is it that the introduction of a non-lethal, safer-than-shooting-a-gun method of subduing a suspected criminal considered such a bad thing?

    It's not intrinsically a bad thing, but it's something that must be approached with great concern for policies regarding use. The problem is, psychologically speaking non-lethal weapons have a much lower threshold for use. This greatly raises the possibility of non-lethal weapons being used on the innocent and those who are NOT engaged in criminal activity.

    We have already seen this with things such as tasers and rubber bullets. For example, see police firing at crowds of peaceful protesters in LA and chasing them down the street. There are apparently insufficient safeguards in place to prevent police from using non-lethal weapons on peaceful protesters, and thus the freedom of assembly, which should be protected by the constitution, has been severely violated.
  120. I have one of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a "laser pointer". It convieniently runs on 2 hearing aid type batteries and costs under $20. The temporary retinal burn can be moderately blinding, and the resulting migraine associated with it could be considered disorientating.

  121. Peaceful and legitimate protestors beware by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    It goes without saying that this will be used, not on illegal immigrants, but on people who are peacefully protesting, as per their democratic right to do so.

    Police departments across the country have probably put in hundreds of orders already, with a view towards subduing ordinary citizens engaging in "subversive" activities which "disturb the peace".

    The right to protest, and by extension to publicly voice disagreement, just became a lot more difficult.

  122. I'm waiting for the next release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that also wipes out your recent memory.

  123. Makes good videos though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Or more likely, a middle-eastern looking youth is spotted in a library on a university campus, when asked for his student ID he says he doesn't have it, and won't leave. Someone calls security, security approaches him and tells him to leave. The youth says he won't leave, the security personnel get pissed off and pull out..."

    Yeah that *was* funny...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1mBBFO7qO0

  124. oblig... by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
    Good people, would you look this way please

    *FLASH*

    You did not see men in black suits bearing shiny weapons. You did not see Cheney mooning at an alien spaceship. You will peacefully disperse to the homes of your loved ones and take them out for a nice picnic. At night you will see what appears to be alien laser blasts, these are actually fourth of July fireworks. We're the government and we are here to help you. And you will faithfully pay your taxes on time and without debate. Thank you.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  125. Maskelyne? by dzurn · · Score: 1

    Not so fast. It probably never was implemented, as explained on the same website.

  126. THIS IS JUST WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK by danZbar · · Score: 1
    Sure, THEY SAY IT JUST BLINDS, but I seem to recall that a similar device was used to COMPLETELY REBUILD MEMORIES!!!! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!

    Yeah, you remember it too. You just need a little memory jogging. The only protection you have against this Memory Rebuilder, if I recall the educational film Men In Black correctly, is a pair of sunglasses.

  127. Re:Insightful?!! by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Let's see...

    the "Rodney King" riots
    Chicago trashing itself after the Bulls won
    Soccer match riots
    Watts riot (along with a bunch of others that year)
    the riots in France in 2005
    any prison riot

    Some of these do have a reasonable starting point, some don't. The problem is that even though the original cause may be righteous, the ensuing damage in lives and property generally vastly outweighs the original reason for the protest. I think the point were I stopped thinking that rioting had any useful purpose was when a truck driver got pulled from his truck during the "Rodney King" riots and was brained with a brick a couple of times. I think I remember people calling it racially motivated, but the real point is that some random guy was hurt (or was he killed?) because a mob was pissed off at someone/thing totally unrelated.

    I think that, for the most part, useful riots are a thing of the past, though I'm not well versed in current global affairs so I admit I could be totally ignorant about this. Though with the way the US is going, I wouldn't be surprised to see another revolution in the next 100-200 years.

    I guess my point is that riots in general cause far more harm than good, kind of like the US in the middle east.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  128. Goggles seem like overkill. by raehl · · Score: 1

    "Of course there are precautions that can be used against this weapon, propper googles should do it, but not everyone will have them."

    How about, oh, EYELIDS?

    1. Re:Goggles seem like overkill. by somersault · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough you can still see light sources through your eyelids.. you also need ESP to be able to close your eyes before the light hits your retina if you want to even have the protection that your lids afford..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  129. Cameras and Video Cameras by Snowtide · · Score: 1
    I would be curious about how this technology interacts with cameras and video cameras. I trained as a photographer and videographer before I left journalism to make a decent wage.

    1. Can technology like this be modified to screw up cameras and video cameras? American and British police seem to be getting more and more bashful about having their actions in public places recorded. Current methods of seizing or disabling recording equipment are a lot more obvious than an "accidental" flashing of a camera sensor. It seems unlikely from how the article describes this weapon but it may be possible.

    2. What happens if you are looking through a viewfinder at the crowd when one of these is fired? The rangefinder idea sounds good for a single target, but seems impractical for the "bazooka" crowd control version. A crowd control version might be a good way to knock out any potential press coverage of the people doing the crowd control.

  130. Waste of Money! by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    All they need to do is buy a Dell XPS box...

    (Mumbling in my grumpy old man voice while shuffling through my house with tissue boxes on my feet)

      "f**king kids and their fancy blue LEDs...."

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  131. Is the LED red? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupefy!

  132. FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I swear I first read the title as "Homeland Security Funds FUD Light That Blinds, Disorients"

  133. Intensive purposes? by The+Cornishman · · Score: 1

    Whassat? The figure of speech (verging on cliche) is "to all intents and purposes". Perhaps your speech recognition device needs tuning.

    1. Re:Intensive purposes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were saying "for all intents and purposes", they would be speaking English. The point of the comment is that they're not.

      Or do you think "Alls", and "could care less" are valid?

  134. Homeland Security Financing New Weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is it HS's business to finance the development and research of new weapons technologies?

    I think these should be DARPA's job. Mission creep, anyone?

  135. LED by unicode · · Score: 0

    The packaging for my LED torch specifically states --- do not aim at animals! looking at the light will result in permeant eye damage ---
    I have first hand experienced looking at a light 5x stronger than my own in a shop. The LED was behind a "protective" polymer. However, my vision was certainly affected and I became dizzy, disoriented and nauseous after looking at light for somewhere between 3-8 seconds.

    I think as a weapon such as this.... we have our eyelids. However, I would be concerned about the potential long term damage of this kind of weapon if it becomes widely used.

    ----------------
    go towards the light
    ----------------

  136. Slashdotter's Delema by E++99 · · Score: 1

    This has got to be the Ultimate Slashdotter's Dilemma. Should you love it or hate it? On the one hand, Homeland Security developed it. On the other hand it uses LEDs. Left-wing nerd brains are exploding across the globe.

  137. Why not Colorspray!? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    Why not force the military industrial complex to all take 1 level of pure caster and learn colorspray?!

    They can subdue 1d4+1 HD of illegals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (mobs)

  138. text source gives different story by fantomas · · Score: 1

    That gives quite a different story from the one you originally reported - a lot of what you claim in your original post isn't declared here in your reference.

  139. Re:dark glasses = terrorist by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

    Simply prohibit the wearing of any indentity concealing device in a 'security interest' area.

    Remember, not all religions are religions.

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.