Slashdot Mirror
NYPD Developing Portable Body Scanner For Detecting Guns
Zothecula writes "You have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives — after all, if someone who doesn't want to be arrested is carrying a lethal weapon, the last thing most of us would want to do is get close enough to that person to touch them. That's why the New York Police Department teamed up with the United States Department of Defense three years ago, and began developing a portable scanner that can remotely detect the presence of a gun on a person's body. The NYPD announced the project this week."
That's one big gun you've got there buddy.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I have four knives on me right now. This is what I carry with me on a daily basis give or take. Three of them are Leatherman brand, but none are the traditional multi-pliar, I find having the tools spread across multiple devices better as a tech for various reasons.
I first fired a shotgun at the age of five. At six my dad handed one to carry with me when we were out quail hunting.
New York, like Chicago, Great Britian, and many other places too much fear in the tool and not enough effort into education, trust and tollerance.
The reason I could carry a shotgun at the age of six is my dad took me out at the age of four, shot some rabbits and explained death and danger to me. He taught me to respect the tools that guns are. When I was seven he gave me a pocket knife and expected me to carry it as it is one of the most ancient, practical and useful tools known. I got in trouble if I didn't have it on me when he asked. I often didn't have it on me because the school system had the same mentality as NYPD and I knew better than to got with my dads logic, which I considered supperior.
In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways. In a rural setting they're a meal ticket, something to protect your livestock with, and occasionally a form of entertainment - when used responsibly.
When everyones armed the random individual who wishes to victimize others has less power to do so. Things like this scanner empowers criminals as it prevents otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying their tools of protection.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I'm sure they won't abuse these items by just randomly scanning pedestrians. After all, they uphold the law!
You know, maybe it would be easier if they just got rid of the entire bill of rights and put us all in cages.
Don't give them ideas...
All that matters is that people on the street THINK that every cop has one that does work.
like some early radar guns did.
NYC's "zero tolerance" bullshit on handguns is pure idiocy.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
No, really, what is going on? First drones, read as warrant-less search and wiretapping of your home, then body stripping at the airports, and now this, gun and knife scanner....SO WHAT IF I HAVE A KNIFE IN MY POCKET. Am i guilty of something? What happened with Magna Carta guys, WHAT?
Like the scanners at airports ... I'm not sure I'd be willing to entrust my health to the lowest bidder on a government contract.
And, of course, no matter what happens with the safety record of this, I'm sure it will become a crime to refuse to be scanned by this. You're not allowed to tell an law enforcement agent that his lack of medical training means he's not qualified to tell you it's perfectly safe.
I know at airports I won't get into it ... frisk me down if you like. When you're talking about cops, this is to save them needing to pat you down.
To me this is a violation of the 4th amendment, but I'm sure the NYPD won't care about that and the Attorney General will say it doesn't apply here.
Papers please, comrade!
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You have a knife in your pocket? Quick, taze and spray!
Check your premises.
Just what we need.
What is next home scanners so you can size your own shoes and see your toes wiggle around?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And give a blurry image of it.
Or any other object that blocks the normal IR radiation from the body.
"Your honor, we had probable cause to search the individual because we thought that vague rectangular outline in his pocket was a gun. Our bad. It was a cell phone with a metal case. But, we did find the joint in his backpack during the search that we only did to ensure our own safety."
well, if the police have probably cause, and they find a knife. They will probably ask you to remove it. If you are hostile, they will take it away. Just like they do now if they see you have a knife vs. finding a knife when the search you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I know this counts as troll-feeding, but have you ever heard of the Irish?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
but I doubt many have used them winningly in a Meatspace Hero boss fight, nor faced the consequences. If you do shoot someone to 'save the day', try to make sure they're friendless orphans with no gang affiliations.
Your new cancer and lack of presumed innocence are a small price to pay, in order to defeat statistically non-existant terrorists.
Police Commissioner Kelly said the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances and could cut down on the number of stop-and-frisks on the street.
But the New York Civil Liberties Union is raising a red flag.
"It's worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down the street without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the Police Department when you're doing nothing wrong," the NYCLU's Donna Lieberman said.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/
After years of rebuffing health concerns over airport scanners, the Transportation Security Administration plans to conduct new tests on the potential radiation exposure from the machines at more than 100 airports nationwide.
But the TSA does not plan to retest the machines or passengers. Instead, the agency plans to test its airport security officers to see if they are being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation while working with the scanners.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120116,0,7082529.story
"Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this," John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, told CNET. Sedat has raised concerns about the health risks of X-ray scanners, and the European Commission in November prohibited their use in European airports.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I live in louisiana, it is illegal to carry a knife here. Period :(
Everyone carries one, but the law on the book says no.
"you have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives"
No, i dont. thats their job. I have to feel sorry for an author so desparate to spin the idea of shredding my constitutional freedoms that hes resorting to an empathetic appeal to "my fellow man."
nothing stops gangs and crime like a job. this perpetual incarceration model where once released a felon is bankrupt, banned from food stamps, and legally unemployable is whats virtually guaranteed america will enjoy some of the highest violent crime rates in the first world. developing the ways and means to catch the bad guy do nothing if you arent willing to address the heart of the matter.
Good people go to bed earlier.
In DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), when discussing why black can't be considered citzens, the Supreme Court listed some common rights they would have:
More guns in honest hands == less crime and fewer deaths
READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Regarding the constitution, they don't have the right to pick-pocket me if they don't have very very good reason. But with this new tool, they could, and they would do it without any reason, or warrant.
While I want Police to be safe while doing their jobs, I also believe that people have the right to privacy, and this in my opinion is pretty invasive.
Of course this is thought of as a great way to protect those police officers (who already have guns) against those bad guys who might have guns.... and what about those honest law abiding gun owners who have followed all the laws to be able to both possess and carry a weapon, what about their rights and safety?
Once again, for those in society who don't break the laws, we're the ones most punished.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
How quaint - a fourth amendment reference.
What are you, some sort of seeker of justice? /snark
Check your premises.
totalrecall
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Total Recall time!
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/total_recall_skeleton-scanner.jpg
Then don't feel sorry for them, but remember that you don't want to be apprehended by a jumpy cop. You're not going to get rid of cops, and they aren't going to stop having some capability to do serious damage to you if they get freaked out. If I was legally carrying, I would make a point of telling a cop I was, but I'd prefer that they know and do what it takes to make them feel less likely to shoot me when they think I do have one, but don't know.
for the NYPD to try to win the tricorder prize.
If you say that the constitution is just piece of paper that no one reads and follows......then actually i would be very much happy. Welcome to the jungle man, and its laws....
"You have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives..."
Actually, I really don't. (a) People should have the right to be educated and carry the means to defend themselves. This should not be considered ipso facto a threat to law enforcement, it should be seen as support for it. (b) The types of "terry stop" frisks mentioned here are almost uniformly used as a fraudulent means to search for drugs, which of course don't directly threaten anyone. This is yet more propaganda to ratchet up the Drug War that the majority of Americans do NOT want.
End the Drug War, end the quotas for cop frisks/arrests/rights violations, and both citizens and cops will be more stable and secure.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
These are the same xray scanners that they are using at the airports. Thats right, in total disregard for the public health, these police will hit you with a harmful shot of radiation just for walking down the street. They are also doing this at the borders, but hitting the whole car with xrays. If you dont like where the country is going, if you dont like the constitution dying, vote Ron Paul as he is the only hope for us. Otherwise, watch the descent into tyranny.
However, in doing so, they also have to assume that that person's friends or neighbors are not armed. I'm pretty certain that an armed citizen witnessing a robbery across the street is even more of a threat to the criminal.
You know, if you just went ahead and put everyone into a concentration camp, the job of the police would get very easy and very safe ... just sayin'.
The fact of the matter is that the safety of any law enforcement personnel is not and should not be a motivation to impune civil liberties. If you don't like having a job with some risk, find another job.
embarassing incidents such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T9YaDZRUTw
Sadly this is nothing new in NYC; they have been doing stop and frisks for years. I wonder what happens when they deploy this technology and find a firearm on someone who is licensed to carry one? There are actually people who hold such licenses in NYC; given the extreme anti-gun attitude of the NYPD they'll probably wind up looking at the wrong end of a Glock and discovering the wonders of face meeting asphalt. That's if they are lucky; if they aren't they'll wind up being shot 40 times as they reach for their drivers license/pistol permit.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I hope this scanner gives the cops who use it TESTICULAR CANCER.
You know, it it gave AC's a few more brain cells, then I'd be all for it.
Jesus, people are dumb today.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
NYC is blatantly violating the constitution both with its gun laws and this new scanning device. The 2nd amendment provides no exceptions to allowing citizens the right to bear arms. The 10th amendment limits the government's powers to those stated in the constitution and reverts anything else back to the states and the people. New York State adopted this constitution as law therefore they have no right to tell a law-abiding citizen that they can't carry a gun.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
This will absolutely be abused, starting on day 1. In fact, the abusive possibilities are far more likely to be the driving reason for development of this tech. The line about not wanting to frisk arrestees is just PR to win hearts and minds.
People who have permits to carry concealed weapons can expect to be needlessly hassled and targeted more than they already are.
They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns. They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".
You are mistaken, at least with respect to California. Law abiding citizens can be frisked. If a police office wants to *interview* you on the street he has the right to search you for weapons. Now there needs to be justification for the interview but the threshold is far lower than that for an arrest. Your car may be similar to a suspect's, your clothes may be similar, your physical characteristics may be similar, etc.
Indeed. Scanning for knives from 80 feet (unless the circus is in town) is useful. For guns, you might as well be close.
Contrary to what you see on TV and in movies a person 80 feet away is hard to hit with a handgun, especially the more compact and concealable models. It requires training and periodic practice, its a perishable skill. Even police officers who don't go to the range often enough have problems. Now add stressful circumstances.
1) place foil gun silhouette in waistband
2) have friend film you
3) walk down street lawfully
4) get harassed
5) sue
6) profit!
I agree that the TSA is out of control but I can't imagine any sane person thinks preventing guns on plans is a bad thing. Guns are for hunting - who are you hunting on a plane?
Guns are also for target shooting. Putting holes in pieces of paper, knocking over metal plates, breaking pieces of clay, etc. Its an olympic sport. Of course your larger point is still entirely correct, none of these sporting activities are appropriate in flight entertainment.
I'm all for the rights to carry weapons. In a big city though, I recommend against it as they seem to cause more problems than they solve. If someone is jumps out at you from around a corner to mug you, you probably won't have time to pull out your weapon. Most likely they'll just steal it and use it to commit a crime. Alternately, if you do have some warning, you have the option of getting in a shooting spree with several other armed people, possibly injuring those around you. Your best bet is still to give up the $50-100 in your wallet and have them leave you unharmed. I don't buy that they deter crime at all because most of the guns that criminals use are stolen from law abiding citizens who clearly were not helped by owning them. People are stupid and don't lock up their guns when they're not home, then they get robbed while not home and a criminal uses their stolen weapon to rob or kill.
I wonder if this is just as effective as the scanners in the airport, and what the cost difference is.
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
You should try cracking a dictionary sometime:
militia
[mi-lish-uh]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
You probably don't even realize that "well regulated" doesn't mean 'covered in red tape.'
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Implication that more gear has lowered the occurrence of abuse notwithstanding.
Given that Magna Carta has no bearing on American law, or the right to wield a knife... nothing?
And given that the constitution is actually based on Magna Carta. But who reads history books, who?
Sod guns, obviously the most useful application this technology would have, assuming it can have the range claimed for it, is spotting suicide vests as frisking is clearly impossible. I believe the only current option is to force the suspected bomber to undress at gunpoint, while standing well away from them.
I'll be interested to see if the Israelis start buying this technology. Though I assume it'll only take a another 7/7 in London before they put these into every tube station.
Can we split flights into handgun and non-handgun allowed flights, at least? I don't want to die because some idiot leaves a round chambered in the gun in their bag and shoots through the control cabling.
If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".
OK, 1. Presumption of Innocence, and 2. The NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" program.
You're working on old assumptions. Yes, the NYPD is stopping and frisking random, innocent people on the street.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
That's a silly argument, and doesn't my MC any more a valid document to reference.
If you have a master degree in math, would you bother to read about all these old guys like Archimedes, Aristotel, etc.. for example?
................
If you have a master degree in physics, would you bother to read about all these old guys like Archimedes, Aristotel, etc.. for example?
If you have a master degree in chemistry, would you bother to read about all these old guys like Archimedes, Aristotel, etc.. for example?
If your well being depends on living under rules, laws, statutes, constitution (in case you have one), would you bother to know everything about the reasons behind it, why and what caused this and that paragraph, who made it, sign it, who amended it, and why........
And there are countries that have very legitimate reason for not doing this historical research, like lets face it: China, with their over 3000 years of history, i wonder what is your excuse, when USA has less than 200years of history!!!
How long until the bad guys can get their hands on these? Finding someone who is unarmed, or how armed they are, can't be a completely safety oriented process.
Terrorists! If all (or most) passengers were armed, there is no way a terrorist would be able to hijack the plane.
Spray an aerosol of your favourite hallucinogenic.
Deleted
Furthermore, it doesn't matter. First, let's parse the language of the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now this was written 200+ years ago... but it breaks down like this in more modern lingo:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed [as] a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State.
(Bolded & bracketed text was inserted by me for clarity.)
Also keep in mind that back then a militia was basically "every able-bodied man in the area". When something bad was happening and a defense needed to be organized, the militia was called up.
So what the 2nd amendment is saying is basically this: having the general populace armed is necessary to keep the state secure, and therefore we cannot take away their ability to be armed.
All of this now is really just discussion of legality and semantics, though, since the Supreme Court already ruled that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm within their homes and other federal enclaves (thereby striking down any bans on owning firearms in one's own home) and that this same ruling supercedes the ability of the states to go against it (meaning that the States cannot override the Due Process clause and have an unconstitutional law against owning a gun).
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I believe the pilgrims left the Magna Carta in England when they emigrated. Habeus Corpus, on the other hand, was only abandoned last year.
Lets not restrict the sale of guns but lets catch them after we have given them millions of guns to alot of people. Guns violence kill more people in a half a year that every terrorist attack against america combined. 11 thousand deaths a year can be attributed to it.
Gun violence kills people? No, people kill people. The gun is a tool, like a shovel or a hammer. The tool holds no malice, it can be used for good or evil depending on the heart of the person wielding it.
I like how people do not read the hole thing and just the last half of the law.
I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia.
First, I am a member of the militia. As a male citizen that has not yet reached the age of 45 I am a member of the militia under federal law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Second, YOU need to read the whole thing. You even quoted it and yet you did not read it.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The amendment states that the militia is to be regulated. You can regulate the militia into oblivion if you like but the right to keep and bear arms still remains protected from government infringement. The Supreme Court of the United States has even pointed this out in recent opinions. The right of keeping arms (that whole "bear" thing is still being debated) is not dependent on membership in the militia. The first half of the Second Amendment is a "declarative clause" and therefore only states the reason for the amendment to exist. The second half is the "operative clause" which can stand on its own and the government must act upon. The declarative clause merely states the desired outcome of the operative clause, it is not the only outcome that is possible. This outcome might be achieved by other means but that does not negate the operative clause.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.