Slashdot Mirror
Police Nation-Wide Use Wall-Penetrating Radars To Peer Into Homes
mi writes At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside. The device the Marshals Service and others are using, known as the Range-R, looks like a sophisticated stud-finder. Its display shows whether it has detected movement on the other side of a wall and, if so, how far away it is — but it does not show a picture of what's happening inside. The Range-R's maker, L-3 Communications, estimates it has sold about 200 devices to 50 law enforcement agencies at a cost of about $6,000 each. Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.
...and wasn't the conclusion that we were waiting on a ruling through the courts?
If a police dog is considered equipment, and cannot be used without a warrant when dealing with homes, and if other law-enforcement devices whose specific purpose is to detect into homes have been ruled in the past to need warrants, then wouldn't it follow that once this does reach the courts, it'll be found inadmissable because of a lack of warrant?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Huh, controversial use of tax dollars (and a very small percentage of tax dollars) implies that all taxes are bad? I didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.
Like Bernie Madoff proved that capitalism didn't work? Or that plane crash in San Fran meant planes were dangerous? Or a particularly cold winter means global warming isn't real?
And even then, when used with a warrant, I see this as preferable to a bunch of cops rounding corners, getting scared and shooting.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The problem isn't the ability of the device. The problem is the lack of due process.
For instance, if we know we've got a hostage situation, this kind of thing is entirely appropriate, and no judge should hesitate to enable it via a proper warrant. That doesn't mean the police should be free to use it at any time, at their own discretion.
Same thing goes for any other search tech that enables normal privacy boundaries to be crossed on a whim.
Search is like any other weapon in this way: a critical issue is how it is to be used, both in what the rules are, and in how well the rules are obeyed.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Argument one will be that these devices are in no way in contradiction with the fourth amendment because nobody with RF-permiable walls can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they just leave lying around in the open like that. It's not different, aside from wavelength and a few hundred thousand dollars worth of hardware, from leaving things right next to a giant window, right?
If that one fails (sadly, this can be rated as only 'moderately' probable), its utility against Drugs, Terrorists, Pedo-terrorist-drugs, and similar threats to the community will be trotted out. If (again, sadly, this can be rated as only 'moderately' probable) the judge points out that 'utility' is actually orthogonal to 'legality' we will move to argument three:
The devices will be transferred to the jurisdiction of an entity with substantial clandestine activity(DEA, say) and all information pertaining to its use will be classified, and all information derived from its use will be laundered by 'parallel construction'; and any FOIA requests, evidence requests by defense attorneys, and similar uppity behavior will be referred to a blank denial on the grounds of 'potentially compromising classified sources and methods'.
How will a radio jammer stop radar?
True. I'd like to add that another problem that is quickly ramping up in the U.S. is the militarization of the police force. We are heading down a path where the civilian police force will have near equal capabilities, technology, and weapons of the military. And if you don't think that's bad news, just ask Admiral Adama:
There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
Be careful here. Real careful. There is some truth to that statement but the implication is overbroad. It is the military structure that puts it's command away from local government. What you want is local civilian governmental control of the police, not federal control. Weapons and tactics are of little import and have been more than a little hyped.
It's the feds coopting local police by offering money, equipment, communications and help that is very concerning. Of course, it can work both ways - we have seen where local control of police causes real harm to members of the community and those harms don't get addressed locally. The entire civil rights movement would have been dead in the water if the US Federal government hadn't been there to 'overwhelm' the entrenched southern interests. No clear winner either way and checks and balances are crucial.
But guns and trucks are only a small part of this.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!