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

What are the chances

[jnmontario]

Any guesses that clients of this company include the NSA, FBI....

how many watts of power

[FudRucker]

does this thing use lots of power? is it going to give me cancer or fry me like a chicken pot pie in the microwave?

Re:how many watts of power

[JohnQPublic]

And that's why a request for a waiver isn't just a formality, dispensed with in a few minutes. The FCC needs to determine that there isn't a risk to the public or to other established users of the frequencies in the specific case requested by the requestor. Lots of waiver requests are for experimental uses (the Amateur Radio community does so from time to time), but those typically designate small groups of stations and locations. As this is a portable commercial product, I suspect it was a lot harder to decide on.

Fuzzbuster

[snspdaarf]

How long before someone markets a radar detector for the home or office?

Re:Stop scaremongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Any time they list the Department of Homeland Security as a client...

Re:Stop scaremongering

[plasmacutter]

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, but let's just say there's a possibility that what goes on in your bathroom won't just be between you and god.

Re:Must be deployed only with court orders.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

What the fuck? Even the use of a passive device violates expectations of privacy. We don't live in glass houses, nobody expects to be visible through solid walls.

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.

Uh, no. Radar jamming is as old as radar. Ain't no way it should be patentable - and any patent for jamming specific kinds of radar systems is just as bogus because the overall idea isn't patentable, so narrowing it down a specific frequency or a specific pattern of transmission doesn't make the idea any more unique. A subset of the obvious isn't any less obvious.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[erroneus]

Some might read that as "probable cause." Though this is not quite the same thing, there was one "sting" operation that was run by some people (and I believe it was mentioned here on slashdot before) who decided to rent a house and grow some evergreen trees inside it. Within a day or so, "anonymous tips" informed the police that there was marijuana being cultivated at that location. The reality was that the police was using some sort of heat sensing device and was patrolling neighborhoods with it to look for "grow houses." In short, they were on a fishing expedition.

Re:Stop scaremongering

[cigawoot]

Any evidence collected using this device without a warrant would probably get thrown out due to a 4th amendment violation.