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.
... of innocent law-abiding civilians.
Because the criminals will have these www.instructables.com/id/Radio-Jammer/
Nothing to see here... move along, SNAFU.
Sent from my ENIAC
the issue is that the police in this country have shown that they cannot be trusted. this tech will be abused just like stingrays are used in the grey area.
plain and simple, any "search tech" should require a court order (clear, not FICA) to be used and if the tech is used without one, the cops who carried it out, the superiors and the department as a whole should be held accountable to the highest extent possible. Last I checked we still have a 4th amendment
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The cops need a warrant to use these things is because of an interesting Supreme Court decision from 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
The traditional "liberal" and "conservative" wings fell apart and Ginsburg joined Scalia in the majority. Scalia's decision specifically addressed future technologies like this. It's strange how he's really good on privacy issues and really bad on everything else.
> I expect to see hundreds of law enforcement officials going to jail.
If that is what you expect, then you are going to have a very bad time. Police only occasionally go to prison and it really takes extraordinary circumstances. We know incidents of illegal searches happen, we know that because evidence gets excluded at trial, yet, only 10% of people who are convicted actually even go to trial.... yet in that sampling, we find illegal searches.
Now, do police get charged with a crime for an illegal search? The constitution itself garauntees us freedom from searches without due process, not freedom to have the evidence tossed out in court, so far, only part of that is being upheld....where is there ANY attempt being made to ensure that illegal searches NEVER EVEN HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I see no attempt being made. If anything, all I see is attempts to do end runs around our rights and limit exposure of the truth.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The point is not that they are in inviolation of the Geneva Conventions since as you point out they are not covered by them, it is that if a weapon is not suitable for even military use, why is it suitable for law enforcement?