FCC Lets Radar Company See Through Walls

DesertNomad writes "Attorney Mitchell Lazarus over at CommLawBlog gives a good overview of a new radar technology and the challenges of getting regulatory approval, which seemingly can be just as difficult as developing the technology itself."

Comments

do not want

[Anonymous Coward]

Here comes my tax dollars, with a new technology to help arrest me.

Re:do not want

[MrFurious5150]

Oh, I'm sure it'll never be abused...like wiretapping, or tasers. *cough*

Stop scaremongering

[BadAnalogyGuy]

There are already many civilian radar devices that are used frequently by law enforcement and fire fighters. This is a better version of it, and the article itself is nothing less than enthusiastic about the range of uses for it.

What I see happening more and more is that people are fearing technology because of what "bad people" will do with it instead of embracing new technology and the possibilities it brings.

A technology site filled with Luddites. Irony at its finest.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[brxndxn]

I think a lot of people are just afraid that the 'law' is becoming too proactive. Our society (at least in the US) likes the idea of treating a house as a 'black box' where only the external features are noticed. If there is a problem inside the box, people come out and interact. Now, law enforcement can peer into that private box whenever they want..

Even though the technology has a lot of non-scary uses (rescue), it is easy to imagine it being used by every cop to peer right into the very center of our private lives while we are in our homes. So ya.. it is scary.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[mcgrew]

the article itself is nothing less than enthusiastic about the range of uses for it.

Sad, isn't it? At least I think so. Like someone's sig said, Orwell was an optimist.

What I see happening more and more is that people are fearing technology because of what "bad people" will do with it

Unfortunately the very worst people run the world's governments. Tech that the powerful can have but I can't have IS bad tech. You don't think your government will let you build one of these to look through your governor's walls, do you? Hell, many governments won't even let the population have firearms. The fault isn't technology, it's technology that you posess and I can't.

I'd only embrace this technology if legal safeguards are in place, and considering that my government is a whooly-owned subsidiary of the corporations, I doubt that will happen. If you say "tech is tech" you're wrong. No irony, just your own misunderstanding of the bigger picture.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[mbone]

I have a simple answer to that : I live out in the exurbs where there is basically no real crime. And, yet, the police helicopters (at a cost of so many hundred dollars per hour) buzz by all of the time. I don't think they are looking for donuts. And you think it is luddism to worry about exactly how they are wasting the taxpayer money, and whether it is a threat to the ordinary citizen ? Exactly what century do you think you are living in ?

Re:Stop scaremongering

[Bakkster]

Let's not mention FLIR (forward looking infra-red) allows law enforcement to see through walls anyway with remarkable resolution.

They still need a warrant to use it

Here's the trick, isn't it? As far as I can tell, our justice system for criminal offenses is still relatively transparent. People still get cases dismissed because the cops did something wrong, such as not obtaining a warrant. If they're busting into your house with a warrant already, I see no sense in complaining about what technology they may or may not use to prepare. Especially with the potential benefits against being surprised by the visitor to your house, or the ability to detect weapons before they're encountered (preventing unintended injuries). Or even just the ability to make sure you're home before busting in your door thinking you're avoiding them.

Basically, complain about the search and seizure, complain about not obtaining warrants, but don't complain about the specific technology used unless there are concerns about safety (taser) or efficacy (too many false-positives).

Of course, the big reason why fire departments want this is because FLIR doesn't work on a burning building, this will let them identify breathing victims to minimize their risk and let them rescue as many as possible. The benefit for police is more marginal, though still significant. But if you're worried about cops having the capability to lok into your house, they already do (and SCOTUS have said it requires a warrant).

Re:Stop scaremongering

[thisnamestoolong]

What will stop the cops from cruising down the street looking into peoples' houses, spotting illegal activity, telling a judge that they received an anonymous tip, obtaining a warrant, and then legally raiding your home. Answer: nothing. To further expound, we can absolutely expect this to happen if this sort of technology becomes common-place. The government is not in the business of protecting the citizens anymore -- it is in the business of keeping us scared of as many things as possible to preserve its own power.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[Bakkster]

What will stop the cops from cruising down the street looking into peoples' houses, spotting illegal activity, telling a judge that they received an anonymous tip, obtaining a warrant, and then legally raiding your home.

While that may be an issue for some technologies (FLIR), it really isn't one here. It seems this technology can only detect movement, even as minute as breathing. So, unless you can think of an illegal activity that can be detected purely by number of bodies in a house, you're late to the party and going after the wrong technology.

Again, the issue is with illegal searches, which this technology doesn't even do much to facilitate, especially compared with stuff in use already.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[Anonymous Coward]

What stops the cops from doing that today? In some neighborhoods they could probably randomly select a house and have a pretty good chance SOMETHING illegal is going on in there, so why don't they just phone in a tip? The answer is - you have to explain to a judge not only what basis you have for selecting a warrant (probable cause), but also exactly what you are looking for. An 'anonymous tip' that says only 'there is movement in that house' (which is pretty much all you can get from this system) isn't going to establish much probable cause.

Gonna be expensive

[vegiVamp]

All that tinfoil for the walls...

Re:Gonna be expensive

[mpe]

All that tinfoil for the walls...

Assuming it's not already built in :)

Re:Gonna be expensive

[mcgrew]

Tinfoil may work, but radar-disrupting radio waves would work better. Dollars to donuts it'll be illegal.

Must be deployed only with court orders.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The system described is an active device, not passive. An active device emits radiation and listens to echo. A passive device just listens to naturally occurring radiation emanating from a source. Police and private parties might use a passive device at their own discretion. But an active device, that actually illuminates the target would violate expectations of privacy and should not be deployed without court supervision. It should be treated like wiretapping, no need to inform the targets but the police should not be able to use the technology willy-nilly at their own discretion.

Also we could create devices that look for patterns of radiation and emit jamming or stealth or confusing radiation in response to thwart being seen through the walls. Something like the radar detectors. These devices should be legal. And since the idea has been posted publicly, (i.e. here in slashdot by yours truly) any patent to such devices should specific to that device, not a broad based patent like one-click. Unless patent application for such a device has already been filed.

Re:Must be deployed only with court orders.

[L4t3r4lu5]

This is exactly what Liberty will say.
The response will be "You would say that. You probably have explosives / children / real butter in your house.If you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear."

I think I might start buying up old microwave ovens and putting the mesh from the windows under my wallpaper.

Re:Article is misleading on primary use

[professorguy]

Nobody is going to pratically use this device for random checking of homes.

Well, as long as YOU say they won't, I guess we have nothing to worry about. Whew, thanks for providing that iron-clad guarantee that this will not be abused (unlike every other spy device ever constructed by anyone, anywhere).