Slashdot Mirror


UK Police Test 'Temporarily Blinding' LASER

esocid writes "Called the SMU 100 it costs £25,000 and sends out a three-meter 'wall of light' that leaves anyone caught in it briefly unable to see. Designed by a former Royal Marine Commando, it was originally developed for use against pirates in Somalia. While tasers and CS gas work well over short distances the laser is said to be effective at up to 500 meters (1,640ft). Being targeted by the beam has been compared to staring into the sun before being forced to turn away. Paul Kerr, managing director of Clyde-based Photonic Security Systems, which came up with the design, said 'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.'"

282 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. What is with the UK and all this surveillance and by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 5, Funny

    hi-tech human abuse?

    Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy. Why does all these news always come from UK?

  2. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mostly because the other places that test this first don't let the reports out.

  3. Reflection? by ark1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source.

    1. Re:Reflection? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source."

      I guess this means mirrored sunglasses are going to make a comeback. Or did they already? I don't pay attention to fashion.

    2. Re:Reflection? by alphatel · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source.

      Source the to back (mirror?) reflect to way a out figure will someone sure I'm.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    3. Re:Reflection? by wervr · · Score: 2

      or focus it back into the source.

    4. Re:Reflection? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      > I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source.

      Yep. and make it a parabolic reflector at that. Increase the intensity many-fold.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    5. Re:Reflection? by ackthpt · · Score: 1, Funny

      "I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source."

      I guess this means mirrored sunglasses are going to make a comeback. Or did they already? I don't pay attention to fashion.

      Why, they'll be banned like the hoody!

      'ere, e's wearin' mirrors an' a hoody. Bloody terrorist is what 'e is!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Reflection? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more along the lines of sunglasses that work specifically at the frequencies put out by this device.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    7. Re:Reflection? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The gas mask you should wear to protests should now also have laser protection glass in the goggles.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:Reflection? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      you know what they say: blindness in, blindness out

      also, how much you wanna bet that if you DID turn a mirror on a cop using this, that you would be found guilty of a felony.

      the state has rights now; citizens simply have to stay out of the state's way.

      sort of a 'bulldozer concept'. get out of the way or get harmed.

      this is what we have created and this is what our kids will inherit.

      I weep for humanity, a lot, these days. I see all this ending very badly for us as a species.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:Reflection? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      That is pretty easy. A 3-meter "wall" of light will reflect from a nice Corner Reflector straight back at them. Hell, crinkled tin-foil might even work well enough. I imagine the police using it will have eye-filters to prevent being blinded themselves, however, since some reflections will happen in any case. Assuming they aren't completely incompetent, of course.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    10. Re:Reflection? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure someone will figure out a way to reflect (mirror?) back to the source."

      I guess this means mirrored sunglasses are going to make a comeback. Or did they already? I don't pay attention to fashion.

      Why, they'll be banned like the hoody!

      'ere, e's wearin' mirrors an' a hoody. Bloody terrorist is what 'e is!

      eh, it's a fair cop...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    11. Re:Reflection? by izomiac · · Score: 2

      The people firing the device will be prepared with sunglasses because it would be absolutely stupid not to. It's the same reason people who use gas grenades wear gas masks. "Light reflects off shiny things" is such a well known effect that I'm sure the weapon designers thought of it.

    12. Re:Reflection? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Those must be aimed. Retro-reflective surfaces would work better. Paint everything in them, and when they use it, flash, they'll be as blind as you, unable to look at you.

    13. Re:Reflection? by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't try anything that's meant to turn something against the police. That'd be like trying to blow CS gas back at the police. You'll end up in worse trouble than temporary blindness. "But, but... you tried to do it to me first!" isn't likely to go over well in court, should you live long enough for a hearing.

      Just wear eye protection. It's a bit like wearing a gas mask (assuming even that is legal nowadays, which I admit, is a longshot).

    14. Re:Reflection? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I doubt any court would consider you putting on a gas mask or walking upwind of the police before they gassed you to be assaulting the officers, and pre-painting things retro-reflective white is an assault like them hitting you with their nightstick and the stick bouncing back and hitting them is assault.

    15. Re:Reflection? by failedlogic · · Score: 2

      I was beginning to think the same thing.

      The same weapons that are available to the police (and militairies) are generally available to the public.

      There's only a certain amount of abuse you can hand to the general public at any protest or mass gathering. There's usually more protesters present than there are police. It wouldn't surprise me, if at some point the crowd turns on the police. Its only going to lead to serious injury and/or death. I'm surprised and glad that there has been restraint by the public.

      We need a better system in place. Lethal and less than lethal choices are hardly within society's long-term interests and only lead down a dark path.

    16. Re:Reflection? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I see... this entire invention is designed to make tinfoil hats illegal....

    17. Re:Reflection? by c0lo · · Score: 1
      I present you the dichroic filter glasses - still be able to see everything except the color of the laser

      Dichroic filters usually reflect the unwanted portion of the light and transmit the remainder.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    18. Re:Reflection? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      You know, there was a case where a cop body slammed a 15-year old girl into the concrete wall of a jail cell, threw her to the ground, and proceeded to punch her in the head a few times (with assistance from another cop, of course) and kick her in the stomach, before dragging her out of the cell by her hair. In the process of beating the shit out of a girl half his size, he accidentally whacked his shin against the metal toilet. He brought her up on charges of assault for his injured leg.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    19. Re:Reflection? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How did that turn out?

    20. Re:Reflection? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      My parents' generation had a booming economy, lots of jobs cheap fuel (well, except for that 70s thing) and a good standard of living. Mine is poor and treated like terrorists. What a fun life is ahead of me.

    21. Re:Reflection? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      He got prosecuted for assault. But only because one of his fellow officers actually reported him.

  4. I see a market for... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

    Light seeking missiles.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    1. Re:I see a market for... by xSquaredAdmin · · Score: 1

      Or just an increase in the sale of mirrors.

      --
      Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
    2. Re:I see a market for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or auto-dimming welder's masks. Maybe paint a Guy Fawkes face on it.

    3. Re:I see a market for... by zlives · · Score: 1

      Automatic light compensation lenses AKA CP 2020...

    4. Re:I see a market for... by zlives · · Score: 1

      meant, Ala cp2020..

    5. Re:I see a market for... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How about a Barrett M-107 or other semi-auto high-velocity, large-caliber weapon attached to a gimbal-mount actuated by servos connected to an optical comparator, sort of like the solar-power panels that have an automatic sun-tracking unit.

      Design it to track & align on a laser source of the wavelength of these lasers, and then start firing when the servos align the weapon to the coherent beam, halting when the coherent light source ceases or changes position until it's re-acquired & aligned.

      Scratch one operator and one very expensive piece of mangled "modern art" that *was* the former laser-blinding unit before the .50BMG round. After a couple incidents like that, the authorities won't be able to get anyone to operate their expensive new toys, even at gunpoint.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:I see a market for... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      This idea is dumb on so many levels, BESIDES the fact that you applied your creative problem solving to one side, WITHOUT applying to the other side.

    7. Re:I see a market for... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      After a couple incidents like that, you'll never leave prison.

      Meanwhile, back in the real world..

  5. Well now by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

    If you can't please people: blind them.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Well now by mark_elf · · Score: 1

      It would be fun to enjoy this while being treated to the sound cannon. Watch out, occupy, next up is the "smell launcher" and the "taste catapult".

    2. Re:Well now by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      If you can't please people: blind them.

      Well, yeah, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to citizens, only enemy troops.

      Seriously, though - the US is smashing protests with riot police and trying to do away with habeus corpus, the UK is turning blinding weapons on its citizens, the rest of Europe has a lit fuse in its fiscal powder keg - maybe "business as usual" has run its course.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Well now by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      If you can't please people: blind them.

      Then there's collateral damage, the innocents caught in the line of fire sort of thing, as people cannot resist looking at an incident...

      Nothing to see here, move on .. oh, right...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Well now by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision

      Temporary != permanent. Which is why the US (and Britain) are already using these weapons in the field in combat.

      Doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, just not a clear violation of basic human rights.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Well now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Temporary != permanent.

      LASER blinding != temporary

    6. Re:Well now by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, just not a clear violation of basic human rights.

      I thought it was clear, but they showed me the light.

    7. Re:Well now by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2

      I see an easy way to combine this 'smell launcher' and 'taste catapult' into one device, using renewable resources. Can fire trucks plug into manholes for their source?

    8. Re:Well now by sjames · · Score: 1

      Intended to be temporary is not necessarily == actually temporary.

    9. Re:Well now by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Sure it's temporary. You're only blind until your retinas grow back.

      Or until you're dead. Or until the Sun balloons into a red giant and fries Earth's biosphere. Or the heat-death of the universe.

      On some level, everything's temporary. So it's perfectly true and completely accurate.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    10. Re:Well now by Baloroth · · Score: 1
      True. But from TFA:

      Although the blinding effect is only temporary part of the trial will see scientists carry out further research on any potential side-effects.

      So, we'll see. Also, flashbangs have been in use for a while now, and they are pretty well established to be more or less completely temporary (visually, anyways). They can induce heart attacks, but that is just the fact that non-lethal is somewhat of a sliding scale rather than an either/or. People with weak eyes could probably be damage permanently, but that is what trials are for, so again we'll see.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    11. Re:Well now by Zebai · · Score: 1

      It also measures blindness as uncorrectable. So if that damage can be fixed by glasses then its legal per this convention.

    12. Re:Well now by sjames · · Score: 2

      but that is what trials are for, so again we'll see.

      Some of us will, some of us won't.

  6. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Jeng · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy

    Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  7. seems like a really bad idea by eudas · · Score: 1

    Isn't the use of lasers for blinding enemy personnel against the Geneva Convention? What makes it sound like a good idea for use on your own Citizens if you can't use it against enemy infantry? Not to mention the lawsuits resulting from failures that wind up permanently blinding people.

    What a bad idea.

    --
    Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
    1. Re:seems like a really bad idea by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Permanent blinding is against the Geneva convention. Temporary blinding ('dazzling' seems to be the polite term) is just ducky. As is accidental blinding that occurs as a side effect of lasers used for some other purpose.

      In any case, though, riot cops aren't bound by the convention, so it ends up being largely a matter of what they can get away with vs. what lawsuits make too expensive...

    2. Re:seems like a really bad idea by eudas · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
    3. Re:seems like a really bad idea by Kenja · · Score: 3, Informative

      Geneva Convention only applies to people you're at war with, not your own citizens.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:seems like a really bad idea by geckipede · · Score: 5, Informative

      Blinding laser weapons are specifically mentioned in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons annex of the Geneva Conventions.

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

      And yes, it does make a specific distinction between temporary and permanant blindness, so this thing is almost certainly legal as far as this particular protocol goes.

      I should point out though, that the UK police have never even resorted to using water cannons outside of Northern Ireland, and use of riot equipment is a very serious political issue here. Breaking out the doom rays on a crowd of protestors is not going to happen lightly, and if it did happen, it would not be brushed off or ignored afterwards.

    5. Re:seems like a really bad idea by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 1

      What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?

    6. Re:seems like a really bad idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Eddie Izzard said it best:

      And he [Hitler] was a mass-murdering fuckhead, as many important historians have said. But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there. Seems to be Hitler killed people next door... “Oh stupid man!” After a couple of years, we won't stand for that, will we?

      Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death -afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:seems like a really bad idea by geckipede · · Score: 2

      the UK police have never even resorted to using water cannons outside of Northern Ireland

      False.

      This was a quite prominent issue during the London riots earlier this year. Even with arson and city-wide looting, and with the vehicles available, water cannons weren't used. The political effect of breaking a precedent and using water cannons in mainland england for the first time was considered too great, even when the alternative was to let parts of Croydon burn.

    8. Re:seems like a really bad idea by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      citation required....??

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    9. Re:seems like a really bad idea by demonbug · · Score: 2

      What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?

      The Geneva Conventions only concern uniformed armies of sovereign nations in conflict. Basically, donning a uniform (and therefore identifying yourself as an active participant in the conflict) grants you certain protections above and beyond what a non-uniformed (often referred to as "unlawful", although the term does not actually appear in the conventions) combatant might expect. The Geneva Conventions don't really come into play in any domestic altercations, they only govern conflicts between sovereign nations that are signatories to the conventions. The closest the Conventions get is basically stating that anyone not covered as a non-combatant or lawful combatant is subject to the domestic laws of the sovereign nation that captured them.

    10. Re:seems like a really bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Blinding laser weapons are specifically mentioned in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons annex of the Geneva Conventions. "

      Just like semi-jacketed hollow points, but the Police can use them no problemo.

    11. Re:seems like a really bad idea by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      any law that a modern government creates has loopholes that they, themselves, designed in.

      not one is trustworthy or honest.

      and so, the states make laws that look like something real but are really one-sided and have no teeth when used against populations.

      there isn't a single valid reason to do this to another person. if they are that violent, use conventional bullets. if they are peaceful, WHAT THE FUCK RIGHT DO YOU HAVE DOING THIS TO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS?

      go ahead, states. blind your own people. you want to see homegrown terrorism rise. DO THIS. you'll see terrorism rise like its no one's business. you want that?

      no, you don't. none of us do.

      so, stop this madness before we all get irreversably hurt. this won't just be taken by the population. you want to anger your people: do this to them and watch what happens.

      and you know, any government that does do this to its people - deserves any action taken back against them.

      I hope there are some sane people still 'in charge' that can understand the concept of escalation and de-escalation. guaranteed, you start blinding protesters and you'll have problems on your hand way worse than the 'problem' you currently think you have.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:seems like a really bad idea by slew · · Score: 2

      What if the protests are considering it to be a civil war? Then does the Geneva Convention kick in?

      Just because protesters consider a conflict to be a civil war doesn't count. For the Geneva conventions to kick in, the protesters must be organized against the current government, be have a military structure (e.g., chain of command that can give attack orders and surrender), be in actual control of some amount of territory (not just "occupy", provide at least minimal normal govermental functions) and exercise some sort of control over the population (have some reason that many of the folks in neigborhood you are occupying would recognize you as the government if you "won"). Otherwize, they are just civilian protesters and are outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.

    13. Re:seems like a really bad idea by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Yeah but are these things safe for the eyes if exposed? Or are they as "safe" as they led the public to believe the body scanners at US airports?

    14. Re:seems like a really bad idea by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Are the protestors signatories to the Geneva Convention? That'd be some pretty tremendous foresight...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  8. I don't have a problem with this by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unless, of course, you're also going to be revved up like a deuce (or wrapped up like a douche).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I don't have a problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the police have to explain why the calliope crashed to the ground!

    2. Re:I don't have a problem with this by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      as long as there's a bathroom on the right I'm OK with this!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:I don't have a problem with this by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      I always sang it as "like a boner in the night".

  9. Did you see the image? by eexaa · · Score: 2

    Why does it look like a (laser) sniper rifle?

    1. Re:Did you see the image? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      So that you don't hit people you don't mean to.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  10. One thing not do do by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    Just don't let it be used by the traffic police!

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  11. What a waste! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    Why not just project goatse images to make everyone close their eyes?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. DD by residieu · · Score: 1

    Tell that to DareDevil

  13. New vital pirate gear... by mattdm · · Score: 1

    Large mirror. Optionally, parabolic.

  14. If you can't look at something you can't attack it by EkriirkE · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think suicide bombers would disagree.

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  15. Laugh 25k by koan · · Score: 1

    Slips on my $9.99 mirrored shades.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  16. Famous last words by NNUfergs · · Score: 1

    'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.' ...Famous last words.

    1. Re:Famous last words by geekmux · · Score: 1

      'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.' ...Famous last words.

      Exactly.

      Last time I checked, a heat seeking missile deployment vehicle doesn't come with it's own ophthalmologist. There are obviously other ways to "see" your target.

  17. Glasses? by Banichi · · Score: 2

    Is there any sort of eye protection for laser weapons like this that can be made inexpensively, for use by protesters and the like?

    Something less unwieldy than welding glass, perhaps tuned to the laser's spectrum?

    1. Re:Glasses? by Imagix · · Score: 2

      Or polarized lenses tuned to the frequency. If you're handling even slightly higher powered lasers, they're a must-have.

    2. Re:Glasses? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Is there any sort of eye protection for laser weapons like this that can be made inexpensively, for use by protesters and the like?

      Something less unwieldy than welding glass, perhaps tuned to the laser's spectrum?

      Sure, I'm certain something can be made, but the instant this "weapon" turns into a Government contract, expect the price tag on that solution to increase by about 10,000%, so "inexpensively" kind of goes out the door...

    3. Re:Glasses? by vlm · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Autodarkening welding helmet. Off the shelf, cheap, and unfortunately freaking huge. And hot, in the summer. I assume we'll still be rioting in 6 months, right?

      I spec'd the autodarkening helm so you can see whats going on between blasts.

      I'm assuming, having not read the article, that its very much like a "woodpecker jammer" in the RF world and a similar circuit, like the one in the helm, would defeat it.

      For non RF guys, the control theory is your eyes iris responds to peak flux with say a 2 second RC constant, so you basically flash the crowd every second and their iris contracts to pinpoints even if the average illumination is nighttime.

      Or maybe those heartless SOBs are just running right below permanent damage, and will just blame the victims if they end up blind. Yeah I'm guessing thats how it'll turn out instead. In that case a plain ole welding helm instead of the expensive auto-darkening helm will work.

      The actual best defense is probably copper jacketed lead, but the cowards in the UK gave up their human right of self defense, so I guess they deserve what happens to them, no matter how bad it is, they asked for it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Glasses? by jdaragon · · Score: 1

      These guys never heard of LCD welding helmets?

    5. Re:Glasses? by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      This weapon will be ineffective against Dark Helmet.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    6. Re:Glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because having firearms helped the US population out so much. Idiot.

  18. Newest trend on Amazon by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Just like baseball bats became a huge trend on Amazon during the UK riots, something tells me mirrored sunglasses may be the next big purchasing trend in the UK.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  19. We'll see how long this lasts... by TheHawke · · Score: 2

    Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    1. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Or past the first cop who tries this shit on someone with a mirror.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by tgd · · Score: 2

      Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....

      Eyes are a lot more durable than most people think. Even staring at the sun *won't* cause permanent damage, contrary to what your Mom may have told you. What it will do is give you a sunburn on your retina, and being somewhere you can neither get aloe on, or scratch or anything else... well, yeah, that'd suck. But it goes away. The sun isn't bright enough, nor the area of your iris large enough, to create enough heat to cause damage.

    3. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....

      Oh, I think we have an answer to that. Police are typically fully shielded from personal responsibility. A police department has caps on how much you can sue them for (100K, I believe, and hitting that will likely require wrongful death)
      What you describe is a downside for protesters, it won't affect the police.

    4. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or past the first cop who tries this shit on someone with a mirror.

      How many action movies have you seen lately? First of all, you would have to draw and pull up your mirror faster than the police fires the laser at you. Did you assume that you would reflect it precisely into the police officer's eyes, like in a comic book? Since you won't, you might as well just close your eyes instead of pulling up a mirror, that will presumably protect you
      Now, finally, you are standing there with a mirror in front of you or eyes closed and you will probably get clubbed or arrested (or both) in that curious state.

    5. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ahem. Most damage comes from UV exposure, not from thermal load. Solar Retinopathy is a thing. It's typically reversable, but not entirely.

      Do some research.

    6. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....

      Eyes are a lot more durable than most people think. Even staring at the sun *won't* cause permanent damage, contrary to what your Mom may have told you. What it will do is give you a sunburn on your retina, and being somewhere you can neither get aloe on, or scratch or anything else... well, yeah, that'd suck. But it goes away. The sun isn't bright enough, nor the area of your iris large enough, to create enough heat to cause damage.

      That is if the eye is not already damaged... If someone has cataracts or similiar myopia and their eye's cannot respond properly, then damage can and will result even during a time exposure that would not damage a normal eye.

      There is the point of my concern.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    7. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      First of all, you would have to draw and pull up your mirror faster than the police fires the laser at you.

      You could always wear laser-reflecting material / lenses / visors etc... It won't necessarily reflect back towards the police and those reflections could hurt even more innocent bystanders though.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    8. Re:We'll see how long this lasts... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Well, I have seen quite many sci-fi movies, and they use pretty advanced tech, with space travel and all. And in pretty much all of those movies blaster bolts travel much slower than bullets. I'm sure you could even even dodge them if you were fast enough. Not to mention jedi who are able to ricochet blaster bolts back to the attackers with their light sabers.

      Also, when finding treasure in ancient tombs it's common to use big ruby's to focus sun light into laser beams that trigger rocks to move, and it sometimes takes seconds for those light beams to reflect several times across a room, which means that the speed of light really can't be that fast, especially if they're lasers coming from big ruby's. (Unfortunately we can't study any examples, because for some reason those ancient tombs always crumble when they're visited for the first time in centuries or millenia.)

  20. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right. If the police aren't allowed to use this laser then they will have to shoot protesters. There is just no other way.

  21. Future use: by godglike · · Score: 1

    Used to stop speeding driver in 10, 9, 8,...

    1. Re:Future use: by vlm · · Score: 1

      Much more likely future use, anything they own gets stolen eventually, and plenty of airliner approach paths are inherently open to anyone passing by, so you can guess how this plays out. All you need is one stolen/lost device, and one airliner, not exactly a challenge. Then you can use the disaster as an excuse to take away even more civil rights and deploy even more heinous weapons, repeat. Until revolution. Thats just my prediction anyway.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  22. One word by devnullkac · · Score: 1

    Mirrors.

    --
    What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
  23. Soylent Green by avandesande · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be easier just to deploy those bulldozer thingies? Why beat around the bush?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Soylent Green by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      pepper spray is essentially just a vegetable product.

      and this is just a bit of 'free tanning' for you.

      "the future looks so bright, I'm gonna need shades". ...or even when its raining out, if there is a cop around, I might need shades. those people are dangerous. and many are psychotic, there for the head bashings. and now, the eye blindings.

      what kind of society are we that we allow ourselves to do this to our own people?

      I wish some kind, caring and free country would invade the UK and the US and free us from our evil rulers. (and the evil yardsticks, too! I hate those the worst.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Soylent Green by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I wish some kind, caring and free country would invade the UK and the US and free us from our evil rulers. (and the evil yardsticks, too! I hate those the worst.)

      You think metric is any better? The punishment will be decimetered.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:Soylent Green by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Softly softly catchy monkey.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  24. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody nukes a country, but plenty people die everyday in "armed conflicts". The less consequential you make your weapon without losing the effect, the more likely it's going to be used. Crowd control weapons will be used against us, people.

  25. Because..... by CimmerianX · · Score: 2

    This will be very popular because blind people are sooooo much easier to hit with a baton.

  26. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    hi-tech human abuse?

    Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy. Why does all these news always come from UK?

    Dunno why they don't just use flashbulbs.

    "Smile! You're under arrest!"

    Does give a whole new meaning to Legally Blind, Blind Justice and Shedding a little light on the Crime.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  27. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by wanzeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    UK citizens should build their own and point them at all the cameras. Instant privacy.

  28. Easy countermeasures by eth1 · · Score: 1

    aaannd... now that I know about this, I'll just put some cheap flip-up dark filter glass on my piratical AK's scope, and now I have a convenient aim point, even if I couldn't otherwise see you!

  29. Wavelength? by zmooc · · Score: 1

    What is the wavelength of this laser? And were do I buy glasses? Thanks.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  30. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They have guns in the UK?

    I thought they only used those toy sticks and ran after people like in Benny Hill shows.

  31. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right. If the police aren't allowed to use this laser then they will have to shoot protesters. There is just no other way.

    Society under surveillance, blinded by the Met ... how much longer before V becomes reality?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  32. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless they're running for a train in London...

  33. nice by MagicM · · Score: 3, Funny

    So it's like a flashbang but without the bang. That seems kind of... HOLY CRAP IT LOOKS LIKE A SNIPER RIFLE I WANT ONE!

  34. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by zill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only there was list of fatal shootings by the British police out there that could dispel your ignorance...

  35. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ark1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dunno why they don't just use flashbulbs.

    "Smile! You're under arrest!"

    Does give a whole new meaning to Legally Blind, Blind Justice and Shedding a little light on the Crime.

    No one wants to see a British smile.

  36. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Jeng · · Score: 1

    Considering no other non-lethal has this range, and it is to be deployed by the military, yes this is an alternative to a bullet.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  37. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Funny

    hi-tech human abuse?

    I wouldn't call UK police hi-tech humans, though.

  38. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by arkane1234 · · Score: 2

    Let me be the person that says it..
    *WHOOSH!!*

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  39. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    They run around like that, just with tiny pistols.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  40. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    As well as pretty much every COD player.

    Flashbang = fire wildly in all directions.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  41. Question by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Does it work against unmanned Predator drones?

    If so, put me down for half a dozen.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  42. Because ... by the+bluebrain · · Score: 1

    ... protesters don't have sunglasses? Well that's all right then.

    --
    yes, we have no bananas
    1. Re:Because ... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Assuming it's only as bright as the sun this could work. I can look directly at the sun quite comfortably through a pair of $30 sunglasses.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Because ... by greenreaper · · Score: 1

      Finally, wearing sunglasses at night is cool again!

  43. Re:'If you can't look at something you can't attac by koan · · Score: 1

    Zatoichi.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  44. Re:least-worst alternative by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather be lasered in the face than gassed or shot with bean bags or beaten

    The mistake is thinking this is an either-or situation. First they blind you, then they beat the shit out of you. Now you can't ID which ones assaulted you even if you could get a criminal case going against them.

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  45. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy

    Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.

    which means they will use this "harmless" weapon without hesitation in situations where they previously wouldn't use any more force than handcuffs. back when all they had was a gun and a baton they tended not to pull a weapon unless you did first. we've seen this now with pepper spray, tazers, etc. the less lethal they are the more quickly they get pulled out.

    remember that asshole lieutenant cop who gleefully pepper sprayed lots of peaceful protestors at once? he could try to make an excuse for that, at least if he weren't caught on video being such a dick. he would have had no excuse for gunning down these unarmed people in cold blood. that would have resulted in him on trial for murder and selfish pricks like him look after "Number One" better than that. that's why he didn't use his gun. but now he has neat little "relatively harmless" pain-compliance type of weapons at his disposal that don't produce pesky dead bodies that must be explained away.

    they are becoming less and less like peace officers and more and more like militarized thugs every day. this is what you want? more toys for them? if you weren't such a simpleton you would understand why new weapons like this make the situation worse, not better.

  46. Re:Welding goggles. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    have you tried doing anything OTHER than welding while wearing a welding mask?
    It virtually blinds you.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  47. This seems pitifully useless... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems like a terribly ill-thought-out scheme(except in that it might succeed in separating some police departments from rather a lot of the public's money, in exchange for a slightly more rugged version of a standard green laser, in a butch sci-fi plastic rifle case...)

    Unless the laser is a tightly focused dot(in which case it won't be much use against a crowd) its intensity will vary rapidly with distance. In order to not be a complete toy at operationally useful ranges, it will very likely be downright dangerous at closer ones. Luckily, cops are technical experts and models of restraint, so that won't prove to be a problem.

    In a similar vein, since lasers are a reasonably common occupational/hobby hazard these days, laser-protective eyewear, designed for strong attenuation of the common laser type of your choice, with minimal impact on general vision, is cheap and readily available. In order to have any effect on somebody wearing such, you'd likely need alarmingly higher power levels than you would need to have the same effect on an unshielded subject. So, either ~$20 eyewear gains you immunity to this fancy tech toy, or this fancy tech toy is powerful enough to stun protected users and fry retinas on everybody else. Brilliant.

    1. Re:This seems pitifully useless... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Unless the laser is a tightly focused dot

      Of course it is, it's a laser.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:This seems pitifully useless... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Lasers start out as nice and coherent; but they are by no means immune to divergence lenses. Indeed, over sufficiently long distances(looking at you, lunar-ranging laser experiment...) divergence is more or less impossible to avoid. In this case, I'm assuming that divergence is desired; because shining a dot on a single retina in a mob isn't going to have much effect...

    3. Re:This seems pitifully useless... by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2

      Unless the laser is a tightly focused dot(in which case it won't be much use against a crowd) its intensity will vary rapidly with distance. In order to not be a complete toy at operationally useful ranges, it will very likely be downright dangerous at closer ones. Luckily, cops are technical experts and models of restraint, so that won't prove to be a problem.

      The parent is technically wrong. The parent doesn't understand Gaussian beams. If a laser is tightly focused, the far-field divergence is large. The larger the focus, the less the divergence. A visible beam collimated to 5 cm diameter or so will stay collimated for over a kilometer.

  48. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let me guess....

    Normal civilians are prohibited from owning and using these devices ....?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  49. are you suuuuure? by ClioCJS · · Score: 2
    You sure about that?

    Lasers are pretty dangerous. Look at what happens with lasers not even designed to blind people: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2403814/Russian-concert-laser-show-blinds-30.html. Now you're going to trust something stronger in the hands of police and government? I got a bridge to sell you...

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  50. If you can't look at something you can't attack it by s1d3track3D · · Score: 2

    really!?

    That's the logic?

    What about if someone has a gun, they may just start firing towards the general direction of the blinding light, hitting innocent bystanders,...

  51. To every invention there is a counter by KDN · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, air force pilots used to have special googles that could turn opaque very rapidly to protect the pilots' eyes from optical damage from nuclear blasts. I wonder if such technology could be adapted to protect against such light dazzler devices.

    1. Re:To every invention there is a counter by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      You can buy welding goggles which do exactly this, retail.

    2. Re:To every invention there is a counter by KDN · · Score: 1

      The article I read, which was many years ago, long before the internet, said that the mask was normally clear, but turned opaque when it sensed a nuclear flash, and then turned back when it was over. The test subject said it was so fast he didn't even know that it worked at first. Therefore the user would have normal vision, but all the high power flashes would be blocked.

  52. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    That's the real point - if you can't target something accurately, you resort to methods that are considered cowardly, or to area affect weapons - not just suicide vests, but grenades or rockets, or shooting the friend of the guy with the laser gadget, or shooting the guy himself after he has gone to bed for the evening. There's some sort of weird stupidity from the people buying these items for governments, so they believe all the hype about new gadgets, and don't ask what happens when the problem tries to route around it.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  53. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by vlm · · Score: 1

    Yes, point lasers at me and blind me. That's really healthy

    Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.

    Thats the next step, after we get used to this.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  54. Re:food for thought... by Wandering+Voice · · Score: 2

    prism turning their lazer into Rainbows: $ Priceless

  55. Shot Permanently by Das+Auge · · Score: 1

    Past the first person with eye problems (particularly photosensitive people) being blinded permanently....

    It could be worse, they could be permanently shot.

    1. Re:Shot Permanently by formfeed · · Score: 1

      It could be worse, they could be permanently shot.

      You assume of course that this new non-lethal weapon would be used only in situations where a police officer would use a gun otherwise.
      - Not like tazers or pepper spray to lower the bar on violence for all kinds of perceived non-compliance.

  56. Geneva Convention by drolli · · Score: 1

    Isnt the use of weapons to blind enemies forbidden?

    My recommendation: Just sink the pirate vessels. Dont sink the rescue boats however.

    My recommendation for riots: Everybody who want to commit arson inside a city, please shoot him with normal ammunition.

    The rest you have to live with and settle it in front of the courts and - more important - by giving the young people the chance to achieve well. That requires investment in schools, communities and university access for underprivileged citizens.
     

  57. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    the laws of symmetry have been...

    ...declared null and void.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  58. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

    Apart from the part where it's criminal damage, and getting locked up for it loses at lot more than your privacy.

  59. At using sunglasses to counter the counter measure.

    But, I guess its slightly more advanced then yelling "stop" repeatedly.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  60. CS Taught me bad lessons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >"'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.'"

    Did anyone else resort to spray & pray in CS when flashbanged at a vulnerable point? I somehow don't see this going well.

  61. This tech could have saved a lot of Iraqis by quax · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of the most depressing aspects of the Iraq war was the large number of civilian drivers that were fatally shot at check-points.

    1. Re:This tech could have saved a lot of Iraqis by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

      The US claimed the danger was that these people were suspected suicide bombers. A blind bomber in a car is still a bomber in a car. This tech is useless for this. Don't use a laser where a simple GATE will do.

    2. Re:This tech could have saved a lot of Iraqis by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That was because the stopping points were unmarked or poorly marked, and shooting to warn doesn't work well because the noise isn't really directional.

      Signs, gates, and traffic cones would have helped greatly.

      A bright-even-sunlight light would have been an attention-getter and possibly encouraged the innocents to slow down.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:This tech could have saved a lot of Iraqis by quax · · Score: 1

      If a car's driver doesn't stop after being blinded you have far more reason to engage with lethal force.

      A husband driving his pregnant wife to hospital will presumably stop (at least twice pregnant women have been shot up at these check points).

      As to why they did not neatly set them up with gates and traffic cones I can only speculate. At any rate being temporarily blinded by a laser beats being shot up any day.

  62. You knew it was coming... by nege · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't laze me bro!

  63. meh by stackOVFL · · Score: 2

    And you'all laughed at my foil hat last week! Now you see just how prepared I am! Suckers!

  64. Re:Welding goggles. by vlm · · Score: 2

    have you tried doing anything OTHER than welding while wearing a welding mask?
    It virtually blinds you.

    Yeah, yes I have. thats why I bought an autodarkening helm. They used to cost like ten times what a plain helm cost, now they're like 2 maybe 3 times.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  65. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by vlm · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What about if someone has a gun, they may just start firing towards the general direction of the blinding light, hitting innocent bystanders,...

    Guns are hard to aim when blind. Molotov cocktails, not so hard. Just saying.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  66. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

    And carnivorous bats.

    I can see it in the next Batman movie:

    Bad guy: "hahahaha! I am invisible, oh caped one! And if you can see me, neither can you attack me!"

    Batman: "You forgot one thing: I'm a bat." *turns on sonar vision with slick eye effects*

    (Meh. The scene from Forever was probably better.)

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  67. Remind you of "Looker" the movie? by cosmo+the+great · · Score: 2

    SOunds like the device used in Looker.

  68. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1, Troll

    Except that in the US, even if somone is shoting at the police, 9/10 times if they kill somone, they get fired. In the uk when they kill innocent people the cops get off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

  69. Sunglasses by Nikoli_JC · · Score: 1

    Now Kids Remember your polarized sunglasses when rioting in the UK.

  70. This thing is perfect. by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we can immobilize EVERYONE within 500 meters whether they're doing anything wrong or not, such as journalists and other so-called "innocent bystanders". Surely any person within 500 meters of a public disturbance is up to no good. All good citizens always stay at home where they belong. What a jubilant triumph for the brave defenders of our glorious homeland!

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  71. Re:As long as tasers have lasted... by s0litaire · · Score: 1

    Unless they use shield mounted taser system.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bZ_QHSyEo

    --
    Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
  72. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ok, they'll blind you before shooting you now. In the US the easy access to "non lethal" force devices has meant a big increase in their use in situations where talking would be more appropriate. It is the path of lazy police work. "Why take 10 minutes to talk to someone when we can just blast chemicals in their faces?"

  73. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by spike2131 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention

    The relevant international treaty would be the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, but that only covers weapons that cause permanent blindness.

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
  74. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, in the US, they only get in trouble if it's a white cop in a black neighborhood shooting black people. And killing someone earns you 6 months paid vacation (administrative leave) while the incident is investigated, followed by a commendation for bravery in waiting so long to shoot or "making the hard choice to protect others." They don't even get a slap on the wrist, they get a massive paid vacation at full pay and a commendation.

  75. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Jeng · · Score: 1

    At least in the US high speed lead used to be used in the early 1900's to break up protests, riots, and strikes.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  76. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not useful against protesters. The police use pepper spray on protestors to hurt and punish, not to protect themselves. A peaceful protestor siting with their arms linked can just close their eyes.

  77. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by gknoy · · Score: 2

    However, when it's done from a kilometer away, how will they identify who hosed the cameras? People already walk up and burn them with tires, which seems decidedly more risky.

  78. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Stalks · · Score: 2

    So, in the last 30 years, the list of notable police incidents involving firearms can be listed on a single page. Is there a similar article for other countries for comparison. I can bet the US edition would be weeks reading.

  79. Wow by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    25,000 pound sterling laser defeated by $20 welding mask. And now I know exactly where to aim the rocket. Well done.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  80. Re:cruel and unusual by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Usually when someone is aiming a rocket launcher at you then you are not yet at the "punishment" phase of the process but usually the "prevention" phase, which can include legally killing that person in self defense. If you don't like it then don't aim rocket launchers at people.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  81. A solution? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    A pair of Ray-bans or a welder's mask.

  82. Add it to the Long List by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we've got the blinding light weapon, and the deafening sound weapon, and that Ray Gun that makes your skin feel like it's on fire. All this massive R&D going into novel crowd control technologies. It's almost as if the US Government anticipates needing fancy new riot gear. Wonder why that could be.

    1. Re:Add it to the Long List by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Now we've got the blinding light weapon, and the deafening sound weapon, and that Ray Gun that makes your skin feel like it's on fire. All this massive R&D going into novel crowd control technologies. It's almost as if the US Government anticipates needing fancy new riot gear. Wonder why that could be.

      exactly.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  83. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dunno why they don't just use flashbulbs.

    "Smile! You're under arrest!"

    Does give a whole new meaning to Legally Blind, Blind Justice and Shedding a little light on the Crime.

    No one wants to see a British smile.

    'ere! 'e's got all 'is teeth sorted. Posh nob, 'e 'is. Give 'im an extra thump!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  84. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    V...You mean the alien reptilian occupation? Led by the call girl from the Companion House Madrassa...I will be first in line.

    V for Vendetta. Must be before your time, eh?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  85. Re:Discarded road signs by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 1

    More theoretical use than a mirror (which would a most deliver 1/4 the power to the shooter), but I doubt they are that efficient.

  86. does anyone seriously believe... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...that this isn't going to ESCALATE?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  87. I think I'm missing something by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Can't this be thwarted by those LCD shutter based welders masks? No so practical for riots but if the criminals are already wearing masks...

  88. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except that in the US, even if somone is shoting at the police, 9/10 times if they kill somone, they get fired.

    Bullshit. Name one instance. Police are practically never punished for anything they do here. If you managed to find a single instance it would be one in a million. Although there are exceptions to every rule, the cops in the US are much, much worse than their UK counterparts. When I leave my house I am much more afraid of the police than I am of any criminals. Cops are far more dangerous and violent. And if they attack you they also throw you in jail and file false charges against you just for fun.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  89. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by sadness203 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The protesters were keeping the police from leaving"

    Yet, you can clearly see the officer in the same video, going on the other side of the protester, walking over them casually without any difficulty, while waiving in his hand a can of pepper spray, just before spraying them.

  90. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

    Unless they're Brazilian and have the bad luck of resembling some most-wanted Arab terrorist.

  91. Why not wear by WizADSL · · Score: 1

    Shades?

  92. oh, just get off my lawn... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Jane Badler is best Diana, junior.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  93. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by infolation · · Score: 1

    This isn't 'Nam, there are rules...

  94. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by rainmouse · · Score: 2

    Although I am pretty sure this goes against a Geneva convention this is healthier for you than high speed lead.

    Though to be fair I would rather go blind the natural way 'as God intended'. Shaking the meat! Choking the bishop... etc

  95. Plutonomy of a Police state by Thaelon · · Score: 2

    Somalian pirates, uppity citizens, same thing.

    --

    Question everything

  96. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by infolation · · Score: 2

    You mean Sergeant Pepper Spray.

  97. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Zeek40 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did you accidentally switch US and UK or something? Cops get away with shooting people in the US all the time. Unless the victim is already handcuffed and in the back of the cruiser, when a cop shoots someone in the US, they're put on paid administrative leave for a few weeks, then returned to duty. Maybe if it's really obvious that the cop had no business shooting the guy, he'll return to duty with a nasty letter in his file.

  98. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Jeng · · Score: 2

    back when all they had was a gun and a baton they tended not to pull a weapon unless you did first. we've seen this now with pepper spray, tazers, etc. the less lethal they are the more quickly they get pulled out.
     

    You must be talking about how it was in the UK or something, because here in the states they used to use bullets to break up riots, protests and strikes in the early 1900's. Back before there were non-lethal alternatives lethal methods were used, extensively.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  99. Re:Welding goggles. by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    I suppose that the welding glass will seems quite transparent when you are illuminated by a blinding light ;)

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  100. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "Right. If the police aren't allowed to use this laser then they will have to shoot protesters. There is just no other way."

    Of which practical ways do you approve? A list please.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  101. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's some sort of weird stupidity from the people buying these items for governments, so they believe all the hype about new gadgets, and don't ask what happens when the problem tries to route around it.

    This is an excellent point. I mean forget about attacking the person who was pointing the weapon. Look at the big picture: Something terrible is wrong politically and a large mass of people are protesting it in a nonviolent way. You bring out your crowd control weapons. You disperse the protestors. Job done, right?

    What do you think those people are going to do if you make nonviolent protesting unavailable? Thank you for your benevolence and then go home and give up? Forget all about the fact that they can't find a job and are heading for bankruptcy?

    The protesters are not the problem. The protesters are the symptom. Fighting the symptom doesn't solve the problem. And not solving the problem will only give it enough time to turn into a disaster.

  102. Tell that to the laser seeking missiles. by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    Also mirrors.

  103. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by siddesu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is worse than that. FTA:

    Similar devices have already been used by British and American troops in Afghanistan to help protect convoys from attack.

    It seems that "normal civilians" are now being treated no differently than your average throat-cutting, convoy robbing, wife-whuppin', goat-fucking Taliban Mujahedin* in the Iraq or the Afghanistan. Yay for Democracy, Freedom and other Western Values.

    _____
    * This image of the Taliban is based on post-Soviet era Western media portrayal. Before that the Mujahedin were brave, just, honest and peace-loving farmers who were badly abused by the Bloody KGB and only kept goats for the milk and the meat.

  104. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can find out how many people have been shot by police over the last 20 or so years here : http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody/police-shootings.

    53 (about 2.6 a year). Compare that to other countries.

  105. Continuation of a disturbing trend by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

    As the police continue to employ more and more technology, they distance themselves even further from the rest of us as human beings, who can feel pain and distress.

    When I was a kid, cops only carried guns and batons. If you mouthed off, you got told to STFU. If you were combative, you got some stick time and thrown in the back of a cruiser. If you constituted a real and imminent threat to the safety of others, you got shot. Of course this is an over-simplication, but bear with me.Then, tasers and OC spray came along. Hey, you no longer got your skull cracked or your knees busted when you resisted arrest, or shot unless you had to be. Instead, you were subdued, then usually hauled away in a cruiser, not an ambulance.

    Somewhere within the last decade or so, something changed. These new tools stopped simply being replacements for more damaging, violent tactics, and instead became items of daily use. Cop doesn't like your attitude? Sprayed in the face. Not moving quickly enough, citizen? Sprayed in the face. Sitting around peacefully protesting? Sprayed in the face. Not complying with what you're being told to do? Tased. Struggling on the ground because you don't understand why you've been pepper sprayed and 3 cops are piled on you? Tased. Don't tase me bro? Extra helping of tase. At what point did these 'less lethal' alternatives to brutal violence become a policing tool be given the same utility as giving commands to a dog?

    Where are we going to be in 10 years when things like this new 'temporary' blinding laser have been deployed en masse? Remember when OC spray and tasers were considered NON-lethal? Now they're 'less' lethal, after a few fatalities. How many people will have to be blinded for life before they realize pointing lasers into eyes is not a risk-free practice? How many of those will be considered acceptable losses? People are still dying from tasers, and occasionally from pepper spray, yet they continue to use them on people who would not have been given more than a stare down and a few terse commands a couple decades ago. It's become a one-sided arms race, and it's terrifying.

    1. Re:Continuation of a disturbing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The CS spray is a clear risk to health, but what worries me is the taser. It is basically an invisible whip, and you should think of it as that too. I see lots of people making heaps of noise and protests when someone gets whipped in Singapore. Well, it's happening right under your own eyes too. It's just a more high tech version.

      I'm just wondering how long it will take before one of those terrorists we keep hearing about will buy such a fun new gadget and deploys it on the landing strip of an airfield. Because if it exists, it can be bought with enough money. Can you imagine that at Heathrow with planes landing about every minute?

      Maybe it's time to focus on proper policing again. Stop taking on psychopaths with personality problems, stop those whip replacements and start bringing back some decency, honor and bravery where it belongs. But also give these people the RIGHT tools to protect themselves, and don't keep throwing cases out because someone has a snazzy lawyer. A system that is readier to convict the victim than the criminal automatically breeds contempt for the law - that's also why overzealous speed ticketing and parking tickets are so corrosive.

      But hey, that would be in an ideal world..

  106. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by couchslug · · Score: 1, Insightful

    To be precise, most of the people the cops plink in the US are the sort many of the rest of us are fine with them plinking, and if they plink in error it only causes outcry if the plinkee is both innocent and has a wholesome prior track record. If they are an established dirtbag then it's an enemy casualty.

    Many Americans prefer that security in their zones be maintained by any force necessary.

    It's not "nice" and we don't give a shit.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  107. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by notmyusualnickname · · Score: 1

    True. Though there could be a loophole - whichever Geneva Convention ruled on 'blinding weapons' or their ilk (probably the same one that outlawed battlefield use of dumdums and the like) maybe meant _permanent_ blinding.

  108. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by funkatron · · Score: 1
    Odd that the list is deliberately left incomplete:

    Note: the following does not include killings by police in Northern Ireland

    you'd think that an encyclopaedia would at least try to be comprehensive.

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
  109. banning countermeasures by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1
    Let me guess:

    This will be followed by a ban on interference filters and the like, effectively making amateur astronomy illegal in all but the most remote rural locations?

    1. Re:banning countermeasures by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      "If you can prove you are really an astronomer you can have a permit. A constable will visit your residence to check you have telescopes and other necessary equipment, and you may be asked to prove you know how to use it."
      Something like that.

  110. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    Well the Geneva convention doesn't apply to the police

  111. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by TheEmpyrean · · Score: 1

    I think Medusa would like to have a word with these fellows too.

  112. Can you say Auto Dimming Welder's Mask by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    Can you say Auto Dimming Welder's Mask. If I were a pirate after millions in ship booty a $50 auto dimming welding mask might just make the $25000 laser useless.

  113. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This. The police crack skulls and ask questions later. There was a recent eviction of travellers where one of them pushed a tazer through a fence and fired it blind, then kept pressing the trigger over and over again without seeing who he was electrocuting. Fortunately he missed and the needles landed in some earth, but we could easily have had another murder enquiry on our hands there.

    Presumably if the police tried to assault you and in self defence you used some form of non-lethal weapon like a laser you would be set upon by his friends and eventually charged. Thugs join the police for this specific reason - they can kick the shit out of people for fun with almost total immunity, and even when they kill someone the ranks close and it gets covered up. It remains to be seen if the murder PC Hardwood will get away with it.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  114. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by korean.ian · · Score: 1

    What's up Sergeant Pepper Spray?

  115. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That article shows four fatalities in ten years. Four.

    Nationwide.

    Compare that with New York, where eight fatalities in one year is reported as a record low. And NY is one of the US's safer large cities nowadays - the numbers in Chicago or Los Angeles are way higher.

    I defy you to even find any figures for nationwide police shootings in the USA.

  116. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 1

    The protesters are not the problem. The protesters are the symptom. Fighting the symptom doesn't solve the problem.

    This. This this this this this. This!

  117. Simple. by Amyntas · · Score: 1

    So.. They spend all this money on such a thing, and then what?
    Auto darkening welding helmet anybody?

    I have one and I can stare at the sun for hours, then walk inside and see just fine.
    It's not a horribly expensive solution to getting blinded.

    The company that develops these will probably get into the business selling welding helmets shortly to ramp up their sales. ;)

  118. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its part of a pattern of using military weaponry against civilians. In The Battlefield Today? In Your Backyard Tomorrow.

  119. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by sjames · · Score: 1

    What damage? They just dazzle the camera and render it temporarily blinded.

  120. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    lol thanks for reminding me of why I'd never live in the US ;) "due process" is for wimps, right? Right?

  121. In other news.. by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

    Sales of full length mirrors skyrocket in pre-protest areas.

  122. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by tg123 · · Score: 2

    Its part of a pattern of using military weaponry against civilians. In The Battlefield Today? In Your Backyard Tomorrow.

    The company's that produce these military weapons have fewer places to sell their products.
    Stuff like fewer wars and more country's starting to sign up to and believe in Geneva conventions puts a dampener on things.

    You know Peace can be a bit of a pain in the arse.

    But do not worry when you have a nation , Insert god fearing christian nation here, thats freaked out by Musilm's ,Black and just generally different to their way of thinking people you have a ready made market for your products.

  123. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I say they line up all the police and test it on them, first. If anyone decides to bow out, or has their vision permanently damaged due to exposure to this device, then they can't use it on civilians. Ever. Scrap it.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  124. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    > the less lethal they are the more quickly they get pulled out.

    More correctly the less lethal they are perceived to be the more quickly they get pulled out.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  125. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by tg123 · · Score: 1

    Unless they're running for a train in London...

    sarcasm warning

    Look that was an honest mistake he did sort of look like one of the guys they were looking for and the coppers are human if at the critical moment , when you have to ID the person you are about to assassinate, nature calls well nature calls man

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm

  126. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    ....average throat-cutting, convoy robbing, wife-whuppin', goat-fucking Taliban Mujahedin* in the Iraq or the Afghanistan. Yay for Democracy, Freedom and other Western Values.

    --------------

    * This image of the Taliban is based on post-Soviet era Western media portrayal. Before that the Mujahedin were brave, just, honest and peace-loving farmers who were badly abused by the Bloody KGB and only kept goats for the milk and the meat**.

    ** This image of the brave, just, honest and peace-loving Mujahedin is in reality Western propaganda while the image of the "average throat-cutting, convoy robbing, wife-whuppin', goat-fucking Taliban Mujahedin" is the truth ... honest.

    Yeah, but back in the day, they were our average throat-cutting, convoy robbing, wife-whuppin', goat-fucking Taliban Mujahedin.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  127. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

    There's no such thing as "non-lethal", there is "less-lethal". To call any of these devices "non-lethal" is to obfuscate how dangerous they are.

    Many people have died already due to tasers & CS spray, this will be no different. People will be blinded or put in positions where they lose their lives due to abuse. If you can't talk someone out of a situation then don't kid yourself that a gun is more lethal than any of these "less-lethal" devices.

    All contravene the Geneva Convention & other treaties designed to stop human rights abuses.

  128. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    V for Vendetta. Must be before your time, eh?

    Says the guy that doesn't know that V with reptilian aliens was a 1980s show.

  129. How is this new? by babboo65 · · Score: 1

    The UK police are testing something that came out some time ago. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20011548-71.html

    Way to stay on top of things!

    As for police forces having another tool in their arsenals, that's fine. Far too often police in the US are hamstrung by being under-funded, under-manned, out-gunned, etc. In all honesty, if you've done nothing wrong you should have no reason to fear any police force operating in the bounds of law so long as they remain within there. The problem lies not in the power but in the abuses. Far too often governments, police, and military misuse and abuse the power they are given by the people. This device could help if used rightly to avoid the use of 'deadly force' - but like any tool, the misapplication can have significant impact.

    People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

  130. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    you're about 30 years out of date.. now it's not just black people anymore.

  131. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    yay for mob mentality eh? ever heard of due process? the bill of rights?

  132. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    Except that in the US, even if somone is shoting at the police, 9/10 times if they kill somone, they get fired. In the uk when they kill innocent people the cops get off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

    Your writing is almost too confused to merit a response. Maybe you mean something else. But anyway, if you mean to say that police in the US lose their job if they shoot someone, that's simply not true. Different police departments have different procedures, but typically other police officers will investigate the shooting and then decide that the shooting is justifiable. I believe it's possible for them to find the shooting unjustifiable, but I don't remember that ever happening.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  133. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Nah, hardly anyone really gets riled up about dead foreign students or white people.

  134. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It seems that "normal civilians" are now being treated no differently than your average throat-cutting, convoy robbing, wife-whuppin', goat-fucking Taliban Mujahedin* in the Iraq or the Afghanistan. Yay for Democracy, Freedom and other Western Values.

    You bet.

    There is an event in our future, and I bet it's sooner than not, when some city or town's police department, or maybe just a handful of officers, are going to refuse to use these tools on fellow citizens. The video will go viral.

    There is still a desire on the part of the political and corporate elite to try to ignore all of these protests and demonstrations world-wide. It won't work because it never does. And we haven't even come to the end of the first act of this drama. With the Olympics in London coming up and two major party conventions in the US, I've got a feeling it's going to be an interesting year coming up.

    And don't think for a second that these press releases about all these "non-lethal" weapons aren't meant as a warning to the protestors. I doubt the warning will be heeded.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  135. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1

    My big concern is that the world is full of dumbasses. A dumbass cop will try to force some stubborn dumbass to move. The stubborn dumbass will sit there with the beam in his eye until the damage is permanent while the dumbass cop will keeps on pointing the beam. I believe that the technical term for this phenomenon is dumbass positive feedback.

  136. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Except that in the US, even if somone is shoting at the police, 9/10 times if they kill somone, they get fired.

    Uh, no.

    Unless it's a really egregious violation of police protocols, in certain cities if you kill an unarmed perp you get a gift certificate for two to Red Lobster and an "attaboy". If the perp is an Hispanic male, you get an autographed poster of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If it's an non-violent Occupy protestor and the video of the shooting goes viral, you may get fired, but you'll definitely get a job as a commentator on Fox News and a ATM from Michele Bachmann (or Marcus).

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  137. Wouldn't this be counterproductive... by lcllam · · Score: 1

    If the terrorists had a missile that could track the beam back to it's source? Kinda like reverse painting a target?

  138. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is hilarious this got modded as flamebait, when a huge chunk of the comments on slashdot bemoan the increasing militarization of the police. A huge step in fighting that is coming up with slogans and language to explain how horrifying this slide towards fascism is.

  139. Re:Welding goggles. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Are we talking arc welding? The goggles you wear for acetylene don't blind you in the daylight and might work ok against non-green lasers... I imagine you could get something a little more notched for laser protection... there are only so many frequencies you need to attenuate....

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  140. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

    "If this sort of thing gets deployed on a regular basis, I can see a good money-making opportunity for some enterprising soul of selling a pair of protective goggles attached to a hat covered in retroreflectors, just to really annoy them."

    Or to fuck up photo-radar.

  141. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by jo42 · · Score: 1

    point lasers at me and blind me

    "Don't Blind Me Bro!"

  142. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

    Police officers in the US are declaring that pepper spray is too inhumane to use... on police officers. It's just fine and dandy to use on unarmed people sitting down.

    They will stand there and feed you this line of psychopathic bullshit with a straight face and be honestly unable to figure out how they earned the title "largest street gang in America".

    --
    Dyolf Knip
  143. corrective lenses by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    what about people who are wearing prescription glasses or contact lenses? wouldn't these lenses intensify the effect and cause permanent blindness?

  144. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Shompol · · Score: 1

    ...before tasers were supposed to replace firearms

    You see, where police formerly used firearms, they still do. But should you object to being arrested/detained/questioned/beaten, that's when taser gets used on you, and hopefully you have a strong heart to survive it. You think cops give a flying fuck about your well-being? They will use the deadliest thing they can get away with, and sometimes what they cannot. Google "anthony bologna".

  145. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Shompol · · Score: 1

    True, cops in the US carry responsibility for their actions. Sometimes they even get sentenced for up to 4 months of paid leave.

  146. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by wdef · · Score: 1

    I believe Orwell set 1984 in what remained of the UK for good reasons. The English developed much of what we now call rights or freedoms over a thousand years following the Norman Conquest. In particular, standardizing the interpretation of laws across the country in the Common Law system using Circuit Judges was a major breakthrough and allowed lesser mortals to seek justice against powerful landowners. And all this well before the French Revolution and the Enlightenment.

    But, taking the longer view, there is more tyranny in English history than justice and the same goes for all of Western society. He knew just how delicate and tenuous freedom in the UK was.

  147. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Shienarier · · Score: 1

    Actually the police doesn't carry pistols in the U.K.

  148. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by wdef · · Score: 1

    You misunderstand the purpose of international treaties. These are intended to look as if something has been achieved and are only observed when it suits the purposes of the particular government that is supposed to be bound by them.

  149. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by dargaud · · Score: 1

    UK citizens should build their own and point them at all the cameras. Instant privacy.

    Oh, that's the first interesting use for those 1 watt laser pointers I've seen. Could we even automate it so it points to lenses (hence CCDs) automatically ?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  150. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Stalks · · Score: 1

    I hardly made the assumption that they were squeaky clean, Anonymous Coward.

  151. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by mshenrick · · Score: 1

    I'm from the UK, and whenever I hear about police brutality at protests I always think 'Why does this news always come from America?'

  152. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Inda · · Score: 1

    So close, and yet so far.

    teef, fump

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  153. Yeah right by mormop · · Score: 1

    "Paul Kerr, managing director of Clyde-based Photonic Security Systems, which came up with the design, said 'If you can't look at something you can't attack it.'"

    Absolutely, said the bloke wearing shades and carrying a mirror.

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
  154. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It isn't that easy, people have tried it but if you shine a read laser the image can be recovered simply by removing the red channel. It will only be black and white but still viewable. Infrared seems to work the best, or a flashing light.

    I'm just glad people carry mobile phones with cameras. Otherwise the police would literally get away with murder. Strangely the CCTV cameras never seem to be working when they break the law.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  155. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

    In the UK (population 62 million) the police have shot about 30 people dead in the last 15 years.

    In Chicago (2.8 million) the police have managed 42 so far this year.

  156. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

    The future's so bright I gotta wear shades...

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  157. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    yay for mob mentality eh? ever heard of due process? the bill of rights?

    People think the constitution is some commie crap if you read it to them. Stay the fuck far away from the USA if you value freedom. And especially stop giving us your money.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  158. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The question then becomes whether enough has been done to make sure that this weapon, which is designed to cause temporary blindness, never causes permanent blindness. They say it's like looking into the sun, which can cause blindness, so odds are it's going to permanently blind someone sooner or later, which will in turn be a violation of the Geneva Convention.

    I think it's clear that the whole thing is a really bad idea. The "brown note" is one thing, nobody believes that's going to make you permanently shit yourself. (I read Snopes. Still undecided.) But it's entirely believable that this will cause permanent blindness. BAD. IDEA.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  159. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

    Wheras in america they can legally shoot back. Don't tread on me, officer.

  160. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by funfail · · Score: 1

    Says the guy that doesn't know that V with reptilian aliens was a 1980s show.

    I believe the name of the show was "Visitors" then. "V" is the name of 2010(?) remake.

  161. My Solution To The Problem by ApepUK · · Score: 1

    Whilst I can agree with the original intended use for this invention, I cannot agree at all with the UK police getting their grubby mits on it.

    The UK police force are a disgrace. They accept drug addicts and people of vastly inferior morals & intellect willingly into their ranks. I know because my cousins are part of the UK police force and one of them failed his first medical because they found narcotics in his urine test; they just invited him to come back three months later! Then I saw him just before he left and he boasted of going "Paki bashing". The other cousin isn't much better. Another thing that irks me, is that the police force do not even need to keep fit or have regular fitness tests! The fire brigade do, as do the Navy, Army, Marines, RAF etc. etc.

    My solution to this issue would be to have some kind of national service for a police force. In this case you would have a general public with knowledge of the law and a confidence in the police force with reduced risk of corruption. At some point the majority of the population would be/have been both the public and the police authority, therefore those that have not served yet know they will gain an understanding of the law, those that are serving will be less tempted to be corrupt as they know that they will be certain to leave the force after their national service and enter back into the general public where their replacements will be the general public they ruled over recently. Those that have served will be far more aware of their rights and will have greater empathy with the current police force.

    Obviously it's not perfect, because you may well need an over arching consisting authority of officers, but then you would have an officer training college such as the military equivalent, Sandhurst.

  162. protective eyeware by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    wouldn't the criminals just wear protective eyewear?

  163. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

    Because it America it is not news, just business as usual?

    --
    Music is everybody's possession.
    It's only publishers who think that people own it.
    Fuck Beta
    ~John Lenno
  164. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    I believe the name of the show was "Visitors" then.

    No, it was "V" right from the start. I remember it well.

  165. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Due process is fine, but instant surrender is required and resistance is to be destroyed.

    I and many Americans do not care about capturing resisting humans in one piece. Where I live most criminals are repeat offenders. They stop repeating when they stop breathing.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  166. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by couchslug · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with due process, but DEMAND instant surrender.

    I also want MY neighborhood swept clean of those who don't belong there. That means leaning on them, but what's MINE is MINE.

    Idealism is nice, but it doesn't work on trash. Beat 'em, lock 'em up, or cap 'em.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  167. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    There is still a desire on the part of the political and corporate elite to try to ignore all of these protests and demonstrations world-wide.

    What protests and demonstrations worldwide?

    Are you talking about the "Occupy xyz" thing? It was interesting, but un-guided and seems to me to have pretty much fizzled out.

    What other major movements are going on that I'm missing?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  168. Re:If you can't look at something you can't attack by bofh69 · · Score: 1

    There's some sort of weird stupidity from the people buying these items for governments, so they believe all the hype about new gadgets, and don't ask what happens when the problem tries to route around it.

    This is an excellent point. I mean forget about attacking the person who was pointing the weapon. Look at the big picture: Something terrible is wrong politically and a large mass of people are protesting it in a nonviolent way. You bring out your crowd control weapons. You disperse the protestors. Job done, right?

    What do you think those people are going to do if you make nonviolent protesting unavailable? Thank you for your benevolence and then go home and give up? Forget all about the fact that they can't find a job and are heading for bankruptcy?

    The protesters are not the problem. The protesters are the symptom. Fighting the symptom doesn't solve the problem. And not solving the problem will only give it enough time to turn into a disaster.

    JFK said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

  169. I can't be the only one... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    "Temporarily blinding laser"? Does anyone else think that sounds roughly as sensible as 'temporarily killing rifle'?

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  170. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by BetterSense · · Score: 1

    This. I routinely make trips across the country via car. You know what I worry about? It's not highwaymen, robbers, carjackers or gangs. It's cops. So far, I have been unable to drive across the country without getting pulled over at least once for a fishing expedition..and that's in a fairly nice sedan, while white. I don't know what invisible metric about me causes them to let me go with no ticket; they are obviously looking for something. One day I worry they will 'find' something. I'm pretty sure whatever is in my car is legal, but you never know anymore.

  171. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    The company's that produce these military weapons

    Why do you do that? It's "companies". Don't you read anything but the illiterate ramblings on Yahoo? Meet Bob, maybe you can look less like an illiterate moron.

    Mods, I'm offtopic, please mod me down.

  172. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Smallpond · · Score: 1

    Its interesting that you pinpoint education as a critical requirement for rebuilding. According to the web, foreign aid has helped start or rebuild over 6000 schools since the US invasion; and the Taliban has targeted and destroyed at least several hundred. This seems to be understood by both sides as a key component for the country's future. The schools would be more at risk if the US pulled out of Afghanistan.

  173. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Smallpond · · Score: 1

    About 500 people are killed per year by police in the US (1540 in range 2003-2006)
    About 15,000 people are murdered each year, the majority by guns.
    About 50 are executed by the courts, so you might want to be paranoid about judges as well (although now the executive branch is also getting into the act, but they aren't publishing statistics).

  174. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by darkmeridian · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why the hate for this comment when it is certainly true for the United States? We have Predator drones being deployed along the US-Mexico border to interdict smugglers. Rick Perry is calling for boots on the ground in addition to more drones. During the Occupy Wall Street protest, the LRAD acoustic cannon was deployed against protesters by the NYPD. Yes, a city police department deployed a military-grade weapon against civilians.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  175. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Thank you for sharing your bigoted and inflammatory opinion with us.

    Please be assured that even if "the nearest bunch of hippie travelers" were responsible for stealing from my garden, torturing them with electric shocks is still the wrong response.

  176. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    LOL..I dunno.

    I read the first headline about a couple dozen or so people still wanting to camp out in a little park in NYC.

    I hardly call that an uprising of merit.

    And I'm hardly a 1%'er....I make a good living, but I'm not wealthy by any stretch...don't own a home yet.

    working and saving for one, but not yet.

    I, unlike many in recent years...am making sure I can save for a good down payment, on a home I can actually afford to buy, maintain and furnish.

    I think we had one last Occupy guy taken from our park near our govt. buildings today...so, no, I don't have too much concern for world wide uprising and turmoil over this....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  177. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

    V (for reptilan aliens) May 1983
    V for Vendetta March 1982
    LOL. You are fail. Vendetta still come first.

  178. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    I also want MY neighborhood swept clean of those who don't belong there. That means leaning on them, but what's MINE is MINE.

    Idealism is nice, but it doesn't work on trash. Beat 'em, lock 'em up, or cap 'em.

    I think that maybe when you reached for the dog whistle, you picked up the regular whistle instead. Because when you blew it we could all hear it.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  179. Bad idea (I've got some experience here...) by F69631 · · Score: 1

    I have been surrounded by the riot cops more than once and I really doubt you could pull that off.

    If you are in the middle of a crowd, hold a reflective surface and the cops target you with a weapon like this, all you're doing is reflect the light at your fellow demonstrators. Sure, some might reach the cops but much more will be directed at the demonstrators who are closer to you and perhaps just turning their faces towards you (as they try to look away from the cops with the light). Even if the cops aren't protected against this, you're doing them more good than harm.

    Thus, the only way to pull this off would be to have large reflective surfaces between the crowd and the cops. I'm not sure if this can be pulled off at all: It's easy to create reflective surfaces quickly (metal foil, etc.) but often the cops are too close for you to hold any significant sizes of reflective surfaces between you and them. Besides, it is easy enough to spot such surfaces and target the weapon somewhere else. I guess that you could technically have a disciplined enough crowd to spread something reflective on top of them (like shields in a phanlax formation)... but really, I can't see that happening in any real-world scenario.

  180. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    How pitiful. I'm glad I'm no lilly livered coward like you. Grow a spine, son.

  181. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    What other major movements are going on that I'm missing?

    Look at the cover of the newest Time magazine. They've named their Person of the Year "The Protestor".

    Now, I don't care what Time Magazine thinks about anything, but if even a mouthpiece for the status quo like Time can no longer ignore that there are protests, surprisingly similar in nature and intent, happening all over the world, then you know the reality is way beyond what we're hearing in the media.

    Get back to me if you still have questions.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  182. Two words: by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Kent State.

  183. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    The Geneva conventions prohibit the use of blinding weapons on the battlefield. They say nothing about using them at the local mall.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  184. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    LOL..I dunno.

    I read the first headline about a couple dozen or so people still wanting to camp out in a little park in NYC.

    So you completely missed the headlines about those people shutting down some of the busiest ports in the nation?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  185. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by tg123 · · Score: 1

    The company's that produce these military weapons

    Why do you do that? It's "companies". Don't you read anything but the illiterate ramblings on Yahoo? Meet Bob, maybe you can look less like an illiterate moron.

    Mods, I'm offtopic, please mod me down.

    Oops, Sorry!.

    Hope my poor spelling did not stop you from understanding my message.

    Seriously dude, It's slashdot and you find my minor spelling mistake so changing ?

  186. Re:What is with the UK and all this surveillance a by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    It's annoying to those of us who read once in a while. Typos are one thing, everyone makes typos, but thinking that you need an apostrophe for a plural is ignorant. When I see that particular mistake I don't picture a nerd writing it, I picture a dumb jock that never finished a book in his life. Sorry, but that's the perception. On somewhere like Yahoo? I expect Yahoo rednecks to be semiliterate at best, but not slashdot nerds.