Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Lets Radar Company See Through Walls

Posted by samzenpus on from the x-ray-specs dept.

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."

37 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. "Go 'way, 'batin!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    *knock knock*
    "Go 'way, 'batin!"
    "Sir, we are well aware of your current status, we can see through your walls. However, that's not why we're here--we would like to discuss the illegal transmitter you are running on your roof right now."

  2. What are the chances by jnmontario · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  3. do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:do not want by MrFurious5150 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:do not want by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Mostly harmless"

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:do not want by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, tazers were originally billed as an alternative to shooting, IE, the cop would only Taze someone in a situation where they would otherwise use deadly force. It was ONLY going to be used for such purposes, and since it has been approved by every police agency in the country, suddenly, its being billed as a great way to Subdue suspects, get them to comply with orders, etc.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  4. Stop scaremongering by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Stop scaremongering by brxndxn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    2. Re:Stop scaremongering by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:Stop scaremongering by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:Stop scaremongering by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Stop scaremongering by troll8901 · · Score: 4, Funny

      law enforcement can peer into that private box whenever they want ... 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 ...

      When they peer into the basement, chances are, they'll see a hand moving rapidly ...

      What? I'm referring to basement spring-cleaning, in time for the festive season! After all, we geeks really enjoy doing housework, don't we?

    6. Re:Stop scaremongering by mbone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 ?

    7. Re:Stop scaremongering by Bakkster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    8. Re:Stop scaremongering by cigawoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    9. Re:Stop scaremongering by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Video of said bust: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc9_1228632109

      Small article and clip of local news coverage on it (might want to turn the sound down, some dope cranked it way up for the video). http://reason.com/blog/2008/12/06/gotcha

    10. Re:Stop scaremongering by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    11. Re:Stop scaremongering by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  5. how many watts of power by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:how many watts of power by JohnQPublic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:how many watts of power by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, radar bounces accusingly off of you, otherwise this system wouldn't work.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:how many watts of power by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Radar isn't the kind of radiation that causes damage. It passes harmlessly through you.

      I'm sure that's what a few Darwin-Award-winning Amana RadaRange owners thought, too, when they decided to defeat the door interlock to "watch the food cook". The poor blind SOB's. Radar energy can cause your cornea to heat and become cataract-like.

      No, as a former civilian avionics tech that worked on radar, it can cause blindness/serious injury/death (depending on TX power and exposure time) if you're close to the business end of the antenna/dish of a radar transmitter.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  6. Fuzzbuster by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  7. Soon.. by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    The server manager will upload a new hack that prevents wallhacking. In the mean time, keep voting the cheaters off the CS server.

    Oh, wait, this is real life?

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  8. Gonna be expensive by vegiVamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All that tinfoil for the walls...

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
    1. Re:Gonna be expensive by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All that tinfoil for the walls...

      Assuming it's not already built in :)

    2. Re:Gonna be expensive by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  9. Resolution by worip · · Score: 3, Informative
    3.5GHz translates to a ~8cm wavelength (maybe a bit less with the speed of light being slower in air). Resolving features that vary in amplitude of say less than 2cm (breathing and swaying) requires VERY accurate phase detection and time measurement equipment. Which translates to some very fast hardware doing phase correlation etc. From the article:

    Instead, the L-3 CyTerra device sends pulses on 200 different frequencies, one at a time, ranging in sequence from 3101 to 3499 MHz at 2 MHz intervals.

    and

    The system is sensitive enough to detect the chest motions of a person who is unconscious but breathing, or the slight swaying of a person trying to stand perfectly still

    --
    A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
    1. Re:Resolution by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      3.5GHz translates to a ~8cm wavelength (maybe a bit less with the speed of light being slower in air). Resolving features that vary in amplitude of say less than 2cm (breathing and swaying) requires VERY accurate phase detection and time measurement equipment. Which translates to some very fast hardware doing phase correlation etc.

      That doesn't require particularly fast hardware for phase correlation at all. It's all relatively easily done in a small FPGA. Not cheap (if you consider a few thousand dollars per chip expensive--- L-3 does not, I guarantee that) but it doesn't require a lot of work to design. L-3 has very good FPGA design teams and has been doing phase correlation and time measurement for decades for use in radar systems. The only thing new about this is the frequency hopping that they're using to do it, and that's not too far out of normal for them either...

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  10. Must be deployed only with court orders. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Must be deployed only with court orders. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Must be deployed only with court orders. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Must be deployed only with court orders. by srollyson · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Supreme Court ruled that thermal devices require a warrant in Kyllo v. United States. I'm sure this radar system will follow precedent.

  11. Re:Can it detect plants (or herbs) ? by jank1887 · · Score: 2, Informative

    TFA mentions that the device sorts the radar returns from moving (even slightly moving) objects and dumps the rest. It's a motion detector. that is all. smoke on, good sir.

  12. Re:Can it detect plants (or herbs) ? by JohnQPublic · · Score: 2, Informative

    TFA says "the circuitry combines the echoes at different frequencies", but I suspect "circuitry" is a layman's term and that this is truly done in software. Various DSP chips would be excellent platforms with which to do so. If so, then the starting point is a "RADAR camera", which gets turned into a motion detector through image processing. In which case those plants will be quite visible, along with anything else that has edges. The stolen Van Gogh on the wall, however, will be indistinguishable from Dogs Playing Poker.

  13. Article is misleading on primary use by amstrad · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article is misleading with regard to the primary use of this device. The device was developed for military use in urban combat situations.

    EMMDAR: ElectroMagnetic Motion-Detection And Ranging

    It was developed because infantry were holding up standard handheld mine detectors (AN/PSS-14) that use ground penetrating radar against walls trying to determine threat levels in neighbouring buildings or rooms. Troops would then interpret the audio tones to determine rooms contents.

    This device simply makes that technology smaller and more accessible and includes DSP algorithms to display potential threats (i.e. movement) on a graphical display.

    Other common uses for this device is search and rescue, both military and civilian. Of course the FBI and SWAT is going to want this technology. Any time law enforcement is going to assualt a building, this device is going to prove invaluable in saving lives.

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

    1. Re:Article is misleading on primary use by professorguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).