Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security Commissions LED-Based Puke-Saber
E++99 writes "Homeland Security has contracted with Intelligent Optical Systems, Inc. to develop an "LED Incapacitator," a nonlethal weapon consisting of a large flashlight with a cluster of LEDs capable of emitting "super-bright pulses of light at rapidly changing wavelengths." Sounds innocuous enough... until they they shine "the evil color" at you and you start puking! A working prototype has been completed, and they will soon be putting it through its paces. Homeland Security hopes to give it to Border Patrol agents and National Guardsmen by 2010."
Wow, wait until the bulimics get hold of this on the black market!
IANAL, but doesn't this device create some legal liability for security?
-Someone gets this device used on them. They have damage from stomach acid in their esophagus. They sue.
-They use this on someone who is sick (from another cause). They puke up blood/get sicker/die.
-(This is BS, but lawyers will sue for anything these days) "Psychological trauma" caused by the device.
Is it a reasonable expectation that the device may be used on you if you go to airport/border?
And if anyone still believes this stuff is all about stopping terrorism, you are an idiot. This is all about controlling the domestic herd.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
While non-lethal technology has the potential to be fantastic, there's a downside to be considered too.
With a gun, there's a certain level of commitment before it's used. An officer of the law must make a determination that he or she is really certain about before shooting, because hitting an innocent person is absolutely unacceptable. As a result, the tendency is to, unless there's no option, NOT shoot someone if you can hold them at bay with the THREAT of shooting. A side effect of this is that an officer given a bad order to shoot is much more likely to abstain, because once he pulls the trigger, it's all over.
As a result, innocent folks are often held at gunpoint until their identity/non-criminalness is confirmed. While traumatic and stressful, this is better than an alternative that's growing increasingly common:
Enter, the taser. Potentially a wonderful tool for stopping an attacker without permanently injuring them, doctrine has instead developed in many police and security departments to 'Zap first, ask questions later'. The 'non-injurious' aspect of the tool means that the bar is that much lower on whether or not to shoot, because "after all, if they're innocent, then it's just a bit of discomfort".
The growing number of non-lethal tools is on the surface a good, even GREAT thing. The real danger though, is a long term one. With the bar set so low, more and more people will be subject to excruciating pain, and eventually, this technology may evolve into a tool of even greater oppression of liberty than anything we have now.
Imagine if a protest can be casually broken up by making everyone vomit or crap themselves uncontrollably. If the government has the ability to casually stop groups of people from coming together or otherwise detaining them while being able to argue "it's not fatal, it's just uncomfortable", then the bar on violating our rights as citizens drops too.
So I'm interested and optimistic about the technologies, but I desperately hope that better effort is invested in making them a net positive for all of humanity and not the boot that might otherwise grind our faces into the dirt.
There has to be a real question here of morality and the rules of engagement for such a device. There seems to be a growing tide of opinion that as long as a weapon is "non-lethal", i.e. it won't kill you or leave behind long-term effects then it is magically fine to use in a very wide range of situations. Real questions have to be asked at some stage as to the *morality* of allowing widespread use of something that makes you sick/shocks you/blinds you purely on the basis that "it has no long term effects and allows us to subdue people" - so does a kick in the face, but I don't see officers doing that (unless they are caught on camera in which case the get suspended then eventually let off).
And we don't need to be using weapons on each other more often, but less.
expandfairuse.org
Wouldn't it be easier to just have border officials who spoke Spanish?
Couldn't I just pull up into Home Depot's color center and have them make paint in the "evil" color and use it for whatever (pranks, revenge, robbery)?
Please, learn to meme properly. Although it is a well-known fact that Rainier Luftwaffe Wolfcastle actually cries "The goggles do nothing" when starring his role as Radioactive Man, the precise Slashdot meme is commonly stated as "The goggles, they do nothing!". Please, report to the men at the door, where you will be asked to hand in your UID, geek card and, should that be the case, mirror goggles.
I'd rather see my tax money wasted on something like this instead of wasted on new ways to slaughter more people even faster.
I don't respond to AC's.
Why would the bad guys need mirrors? They just invented a puke ray.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
You lost me there. Somehow blowing up poor families seems a bit extreme.
Welcome to America. Sorry about your mother and the rest of your family. Uh...our bad.
Quack, quack.
and presumably tear gas would only be used outdoors, where the air is clean, and protesters wouldn't be wearing air filtration devices/gas masks.
This sounds like yet another nonsense variation of the brown note myth. absolute rubbish. makes me wish i knew some senators i could sell some snake oil to and get me a slice of defence budget pie.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Sadly many times using a less-than-lethal weapon is used even though physical contact with the suspect would cause less damage to them. This isn't because police officers are just lazy or because they like to see people tazered but because it it much more defensible in court if the suspect doesn't have any kind of marks on him where as if the officer would wrestle him to the ground and cuff him he would likely have cuts and bruises(almost always superficial damage). Blame the courts and people's perception before you blame the police officers.
Creative Demolition
Who's against foreigners?
We're against ILLEGAL immigrants, which is not the same thing.
Why would the bad guys need mirrors? They just invented a puke ray.
I realize that being anti government, especially anti Bush is pretty hip-cool right now, but...
I don't think you could call these guys "bad" when they just spent an ass-load of time and money to invent a weapon that makes you puke when they could have just said "screw 'em", saved an ass-load of money and simply shot whoever the puke-ray was intended for with a REAL gun. We already invented the 9mm. Why waste the time?
I think these "Bad Guys", as you like to call them, just did something incredibly humane and you should find a way to give credit where it is due rather than bashing every single chance you get.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
But you've got to love the lingo. Another big PR victory for homeland security, they now have hand held mind devices that emit "evil" colors to manipulate the mind to puke. Now, lets ask ourselves: If this was in a movie, would it be:
a) something the good guys have?
b) something the bad guys have?
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Aw, that's sweet.
But if the cops shot everybody, most especially the white children of Middle America, there'd be hell to pay. Better to scare the little shits off with tasers and rubber bullets and puke rays when they try to protest over tossing the quaint Geneva Conventions, that musty old Constitution, or the Magna Fuckin' Carta in the dustbin.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
I don't think this is "something incredibly humane", but rather an option which is preferred to shooting at protesters in your own country.
I really don't think that this is something that has been developed for usage overseas.
Yeah. I completely agree.
I've seen interview where police were talking about tazors and they said they were only dangerous in rare cases if the victim was on drugs. The official tazor policy is that it is always the drugs that kill them not the tazors. I believe that like I believe the cigarette advertising from the 50s. If you think about it, police are _most_ likely to use tazors in drugs situations.
I read an article about a cop who killed a person accidentally with a tazor and he clearly seemed to feel bad about killing the dude. But he should have thought ahead of time. If someone is naked: A) He's not hiding a gun. B) He is probably on drugs.