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."
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
Would sunglasses block this? Don't laugh, I'm being serious!
This sig left intentionally blank.
Self-dimming welder's goggles should be enough to render this weapon useles.
All rites reversed 2010
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
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/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
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!
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.