Police Nation-Wide Use Wall-Penetrating Radars To Peer Into Homes

With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-20 05:59 · Score: 1

Is not it great, how much civilization you can buy with your taxes today?

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2015-01-20 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 06:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-20 06:18 · Score: 1

I didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.
You must be new here...

And even then, when used with a warrant, I see this as preferable to a bunch of cops rounding corners, getting scared and shooting.
The problem, of course, is not the warranted use of such devices — it is the routine unwarranted (as in "without a warrant") usage, which gives me creeps.
But nice to see Illiberals confounded by the dilemma of "taxes are good" vs. "government surveillance is bad"...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-20 06:23 · Score: 3
the issue is that the police in this country have shown that they cannot be trusted
No police anywhere in the world can be "trusted" to stick to legal methods in doing their jobs.
Such is their job:
1. they must have severe powers over us to do it at all;
2. those powers often go into their heads — and they are hardly the only government employees, who are convinced, they "know better" than their subjects ever will;
3. they deal with the worst among us quite often (shielding the rest of us from it), which further shapes their opinions and default course of actions.
If anything, American police are, probably, well above your average bribe-taking empty uniform...
--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Obfuscant · 2015-01-20 06:39 · Score: 2

The problem, of course, is not the warranted use of such devices -- it is the routine unwarranted (as in "without a warrant") usage, which gives me creeps.

What is the "routine uwarranted use"? Is it similar to the "routine uwarranted use" of pat-downs for weapons during initial contact that the courts have ruled are justified? Is it similar to the "routing unwarranted" search of a room subsequent to arrest of an occupant? Is it "routine unwarranted use" if the devices are used to determine whether a space is occupied prior to executing a search warrant?
I notice you made a great leap from "fifty police agencies" to "police nation-wide". The latter implies large-scale use, while the former is a pretty small number. If I took a few minutes I could probably come up with fifty "police agencies" in just this and two neighboring counties where I live.
But "fifty police agencies use wall-penetrating radar" wouldn't be as good a headline.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 06:40 · Score: 2

While I dont disagree, we do have some of the better cops on the world wide scale. Id like to keep it that way. Giving more power to them has the opposite effect

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mr_mischief · 2015-01-20 06:48 · Score: 1

If you're talking about "stop and frisk" then the courts are certainly not okay with that. A pat-down of someone who's being detained for probable cause is okay. Being black, young, or poor is not probable cause.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by DarkOx · 2015-01-20 06:53 · Score: 1

Don't worry about your precious tax dollars. I am sure they mostly paid for these things with civilly forfeited assets.
How lucky we are to live in a society where the police can just take money and property from people they don't like on some thin pretext of drug involvement. The best part is since there is expensive overhead associated with review or due process 100% of the revenue can be directly reinvesting in to further civil rights abuses ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ additional policing even more greatly reducing tax monies we would other wise have to commit to oppression ^H^H^H^H^H^H law enforcement.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by afidel · 2015-01-20 06:55 · Score: 1

According to this chart the 50 largest police departments cover some 51m people or 16% of the countries entire population. If you don't consider nearly 1 in 5 people being covered by such technology large-scale then I'm not sure what to say.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by NatasRevol · 2015-01-20 07:00 · Score: 2

And if YOU had read the first link, you'd see that it includes the FBI & US Marshal Service.
So, yes, nationwide is an appropriate descriptor. So would 'large-scale use'.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by TheCarp · 2015-01-20 07:11 · Score: 1

> 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.
Not sure standard case works either. Non-controversial uses of tax dollars should not be allowed to justify or excuse the less standard and more abusive ones. If taxes pay for abusive uses then taxes are bad. This is a standard that is appropriate and every single person whose actions are representative of the people who take taxes should be reminded of it and should feel the full force of that dire responsiblility.
Yes an illegal search in some way invalidates taxes because.... it is a violation of the very rights that this government was founded to uphold, and ALL other functions are secondary to imposing those limits on itself.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2015-01-20 07:17 · Score: 1

it is the routine unwarranted (as in "without a warrant") usage, which gives me creeps.
The unwarranted use is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled warrants (or exceptions to the need for warrants, like exigent circumstances) applies to radar like this a while ago. Like over a decade.

But nice to see Illiberals confounded by the dilemma of "taxes are good" vs. "government surveillance is bad"...
It's no dilemma. I never said "every government program is perfect." I said, "cherry-picking the dumbest example of something to argue against all instances is wrongheaded". In much the same way that I don't respond to your current post, and every one of your posts, by looking through your history, choosing your dumbest statement, and repeating a totally coherent and unambiguous rebuttal of it. Each act should be addressed on its own merits.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by afidel · 2015-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

An arrest warrant is NOT a search warrant, unless the weapons were in plain sight or the arrestee made some move towards them that would indicate immediate threat of harm to the officers then yes, a search warrant was needed to conduct a search, and if the marshals service wants to use these devices as a part of servicing an arrest warrant then they need to file for a concurrent search warrant.
Look, it's not like there are too many judges that are going to fail to issue a warrant for Marshalls to observe a residence before conducting a raid so this is about police following proper procedure and making sure that scope of the technology usage is limit to permitted actions under proper oversight of the courts. It's a matter of the fundamental role of the courts in reigning in the excesses of the executive.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by meta-monkey · 2015-01-20 07:38 · Score: 2

plain and simple, any "search tech" should require a court order
First, I would amend that to say "requires the same standards for judging the reasonableness as any other search." Searches don't require warrants, just reasonableness, and a warrant is one way of demonstrating reasonableness. Searches can be reasonable without a warrant, such as "hot pursuit." When the cops see the murderer flee into your home, they don't have to sit outside waiting while he butchers you until the court order comes through.
As far as the restrictions on this tech go, their use is already governed by the same standards. In Kyllo vs US the Supreme Court ruled that thru-the-wall imaging constitutes a search. So you can't do it without a warrant. This was the case about the helicopters with the IR cameras looking for grow houses. To my knowledge abuse of these cameras hasn't been an issue since.
I am no fan of the police state, but the stories I've seen about these radar devices is just clickbait for the tinfoil hat crowd (of which I am a proud member...I'm just not falling for this one).
The intended use of the device is good. The cops are going to enter the home anyway. They have a valid search warrant to do so. With the radar device, maybe they'll know there's just a baby sleeping in the front room, so they're less likely to throw a flashbang in its crib. That's wishful thinking, of course. They're still going in with overwhelming force. But hey, maybe we can hope knowing who is where in the house will allow them to subdue the subjects more quickly before they or the cops have a chance to shoot each other.
I know, I know, we would much prefer the cops not bust down doors with overwhelming force to serve search warrants, but that's another debate.
And if you're worried about improper use of these devices, then banning the proper use of the device is irrelevant. Use without a warrant is already banned. If you think they're going to ignore that ban, then they'll ignore the ban on possession of the devices at all, too.
Basically, nothing to see here. Move along.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Archangel+Michael · 2015-01-20 07:40 · Score: 1

Taxes are a necessary evil. They are both necessary, and evil.
They are also always regressive.
The greatest reason though is an implied "right" of government to tax its populace to its breaking point.
Therefore, it is my conclusion, that taxes should be the LAST resort of raising revenue.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by tinkerton · 2015-01-20 07:46 · Score: 1

Ow, good quote.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-20 08:02 · Score: 2

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.
I am well aware of — and generally agree with — the sentiment, but, in my opinion, the current concerns are misplaced.
Until these civilian police are also placed under the same command as the military, the police — along with their advanced weapons — will remain a counterbalance against some future Hugo Chavez...
Yes, the police agencies discussed in TFA are, largely, federal — and thus already under the Commander in Chief's authority. But the local police departments, that are "militarized" nationwide are not.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by sumdumass · 2015-01-20 08:17 · Score: 1

I do not think anyone believes you are as smart as you think you are.
The constitution sets requirment for searches (the act, not the method) and it does not matter if you use radar, your hands, or a piece of fruit, if those requirements are not met, its not constitutional.
How you can miss that and go on to bable about the second amendment sort of signifies that you shouldn't be talking about either. Well, at least not until you solve some thinking and cognitive processing issues you seem to display.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by ColdWetDog · 2015-01-20 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Obfuscant · 2015-01-20 08:58 · Score: 1

An arrest warrant is NOT a search warrant ... and if the marshals service wants to use these devices as a part of servicing an arrest warrant then they need to file for a concurrent search warrant.
Not according to the court. From the findings in the actual court case:

The Supreme Court has held that "an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within."
But it was the radar that gave them "probable cause", right? Nope. Ibid:

We're the first to admit that in isolation none of these facts may mean much. Even together they hardly prove a suspect is home. But in combination we believe they are enough to establish probable cause (a fair probability) for such a conclusion.
What are "these facts"? Nothing that included "radar said so". And the court went so far as to point out that the Supreme Court ruling did not require "probable cause", but only "reason to believe".
What about the search that found the guns? Ibid:

It is settled law, though, that officers lawfully entering a home to effect arrest can conduct "a quick and limited search of premises" -- what is sometimes called a "protective sweep" -- if they have reason to worry about someone lurking inside who could pose a danger to them ... And there is much to suggest this standard was met in our case. ... Mr. Denson was a fugitive ... he had a history of violent crime. ... he was a gang member and had violent associates. ... a second person lived in the home who was wanted on an outstanding warrant."
The court goes on to say that the use of the radar might have negated the concern about a second person in the home who would constitute a danger, but then questions whether the radar could actually detect every potential occupant or even differentiate between one and more than one target.
Sorry, the case used to whip up a frenzy over the "wide-spread" "nation-wide" willy-nilly free-range use of this technology doesn't actually show anything of the sort. A fugitive felon who was reasonably believed to be at home can be served an arrest warrant and the radar device was actually irrelevant. It provided neither probable cause for believing he was at home, nor was it necessary to prove probable cause for a search for weapons.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by blue9steel · 2015-01-20 09:20 · Score: 1

And even then, when used with a warrant, I see this as preferable to a bunch of cops rounding corners, getting scared and shooting.
With a warrant I think it's a great idea, as a warrantless approach I find it horribly intrusive.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by blue9steel · 2015-01-20 09:29 · Score: 1

Therefore, it is my conclusion, that taxes should be the LAST resort of raising revenue.
You'd prefer state owned businesses?
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Totenglocke · 2015-01-20 09:36 · Score: 2

We currently use the military to train our police and their bosses (police chiefs and mayors) take their orders from governors (who also command the National Guard) and they take orders from Congress / the White House. So yes, they are under the same command as the military, just not as high of a rank.

--
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2015-01-20 09:40 · Score: 1

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.
There is nothing even slightly controversial about it. US Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement may not use electronic devices to determine what is going on inside a home without a warrant. Period. Doing so is quite illegal.

Many states, such as mine, have laws that are even stronger. But I don't pretend to know the laws in all 50.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Cederic · 2015-01-20 09:50 · Score: 1

I think I'm with you on this. It would be silly for someone like the NYPD to not have a unit equipped with these, as they can make a massive difference in a hostage type scenario - and those are sufficiently frequent to justify the investment.
That's a long way from unfettered use, which will be the more likely outcome..
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by HornWumpus · 2015-01-20 10:04 · Score: 1

State owned businesses never raise revenue. They become jobs programs for worthless politicians worthless relatives.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 11:37 · Score: 1

the police in this country have shown that they cannot be trusted. this tech will be abused just like stingrays
Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Catbeller · 2015-01-20 11:46 · Score: 1

The people in this country cannot be trusted. The police are just an expression of the common culture. Given a choice, people prefer fascism, under whatever name you like. What was it Terry Pratchett said through the Patricican... what people want, what they really want, is that tomorrow be pretty much like today. They want stability and a perception of safety. To that end, they know no limits in restricting the efforts of their neighbors to not-be-like-every-else. From surveillance, to secret police and secret arrests, they support conformity and the Others getting their heads kicked in by the guards. The police are civilians, and they have no special belief system not held by the people they sometimes admit they work for... our culture likes authoritarian thugs (for use against troublemakers), so our police likes being authoritarian thugs when necessary.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by blue9steel · 2015-01-20 11:48 · Score: 1

Ok, so if taxes and state owned enterprises are out (never liked those anyways) how do you suggest funding government? Voluntary contributions and seigniorage are woefully inadequate.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-20 14:19 · Score: 1

police chiefs and mayors take their orders from governors
No, they don't. There is no chain-of-command in civil government of different levels (such as between state governors and mayors). Mayors are locally elected, not appointed by governors — their authority is derived from the voters. As is the Governors' and the President's too.

governors (who also command the National Guard)
Actually, President is Commander in Chief of all National Guard.

[governors] take orders from Congress / the White House
Nope, they do not. What a silly idea! Do you really need an immigrant to point out these glaring errors in your civics education?!

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by amxcoder · 2015-01-20 14:38 · Score: 2

Your arugument makes no sense... here is why...

The NRA and 2nd amendment "crazy types" as you call us, make the argument that regardless of what technology (surveillance or gun related), existed back when the Constitution was written and what exists now is irrelevant. It is what the spirit of the law written in the Constitution that matters. When it comes to guns, it means that citizens should be able to own modern weapons that are similar in spec to what the military of the time uses. Back then, the Military used muskets, so civilians had muskets, and now the military uses AR-15 type rifles, and why those should be allowed as well as other military type weapons. It's the purpose of "why" that matters, in case of insurrection, government tyranny, or foreign invasion, military type weapons would be required by the civilians that make up the state militia's.

Same interpretation to this type of technology, it doesn't matter if radar (or spy drones, or X-Ray devices) didn't exist when the Const. was written, what matters is the spirit of the 4th amendment, which discusses unlawful search and seizure without probable cause and a warrant describing the exact items that are being searched for. Technology is irrelevant, using this radar is a type of search, and is protected against in the 4th amendment. So is back-scatter X-Ray devices and other "pervasive" technologies that work from a distance like this.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by amxcoder · 2015-01-20 14:40 · Score: 2

So why can't police do it?
Because the police have the power to put you in jail
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 16:52 · Score: 1

True but nearly all large city mayors do take their marching orders directly from this commander-in-chief.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 16:55 · Score: 1

Since the Geneva Convention was ever only intended to govern the interaction of opposing uniformed military forces, I don't see how any police force could ever be thought to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 17:01 · Score: 1

Wow, just wow, ganjadude. Plenty of people have used exactly that "incoherent" logic to claim all manner of crap. It has been used to claim that warrantless searching of email is okay, that warrantless search and seizure of electronically stored documents is okay, to claim that banning modern handguns and rifles is okay. It sounds very ridiculous the way it was written but completely legit when phrased properly, doesn't it.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 17:02 · Score: 1

Yes, yes you are. See my reply to ganjadude for an explanation of why.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 17:04 · Score: 1

Well, if it could actually produce the type of image you are imagining it produces (but according to the summary does not produce) then your voyeurism would be illegal in most jurisdictions.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 17:05 · Score: 1

I'll agree that it is acceptable for police to have and use in limited circumstances but very limited circumstances and even then they should have no problem obtaining a warrant.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by sumdumass · 2015-01-20 20:48 · Score: 1

Dude, i cannot tell what you are trying to say in regards to my post. It appears as if ws are in agreenent but who knows. Please, in the future, if you are replying to me, actually do it instead of pointing to some other reply to someonr else. It will make a lot mord sense to the both of us as well as anyone following our discusion who might have something insightful or informative to add.
That being said, all sorts of people have tried to weasle through government restriction imposed by the constituton. Usually, those people find out how wrong they are. Unfortunately, it likely isn't until after someone gets screwed first. The constitutional limits on government limit concepts in general and not specific items that existed. It not dated and irrelevant not is it a living document subject to reinterpretation as the AC mentioned.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by jecblackpepper · 2015-01-20 22:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by dave420 · 2015-01-20 22:24 · Score: 1

There is no dilemma. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the fact you seem to think they are speaks more about your tenuous grasp of logic than it does about "Illiberals".
Stop seeing everything in such black and white terms - it's evidently hurting your ability to think clearly.
Re: With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mr_mischief · 2015-01-21 03:07 · Score: 1

What the fuck part of " A pat-down of someone who's being detained for probable cause is okay" did you manage to misread?
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Totenglocke · 2015-01-21 03:25 · Score: 1

While they may not officially take orders from their superior, the reality is that they do. Just like how officially police chiefs do not work for the mayor, but the reality is that the police chief will always support the mayor for fear of losing their job. Same goes for the other levels, they know that they can't step out of line from what their superiors want for fear of losing their jobs / losing funding.

--
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-21 03:29 · Score: 1

There is no dilemma.
Ah, but there is. On this very board we went from the outrage at the government's unwarranted peeking (yet another manifestation of the already much-discussed spying on citizens) to defending the practice against the crazy Libertarians like myself, who laugh and sneer at the idea, that "taxes are good".

your tenuous grasp of logic
It is not about me, dearest. Shove your ad hominems up, where they'll do more good — such for treating your hemorrhoids.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by tinkerton · 2015-01-21 03:32 · Score: 1

I said such a thing in a recent post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6696045&cid=48782413), but much less eloquently .
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by mi · 2015-01-21 03:37 · Score: 2

While they may not officially take orders from their superior, the reality is that they do.
Of course! And that's a perfectly normal — as long as the country remains at peace with itself.
Should another civil conflict unravel, however, these arsenals distributed nation-wide and under control of local authorities (each with his own agenda and loyalties) will be part of a problem for any usurper of central power, not part of his solution.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by HornWumpus · 2015-01-21 05:42 · Score: 1

With a bake sale and via high seas privateering.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by Agripa · 2015-01-21 06:35 · Score: 1

. . . 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.
Since the only remedy is the exclusionary rule, the 4th amendment only applies to those who are charged and go to trial.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by sasquatch989 · 2015-01-21 06:41 · Score: 1

Quickly ramping up? You is a few year late to the game, son. This shizzy OD'd on militarization on September 12, 2001
Re: With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by broadriver · 2015-01-21 10:25 · Score: 1

Just see the movie 'Spartacus' with . In one scene Marcus Glabrus (John Dall) is banished by Crassis
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? by kwbauer · 2015-01-26 12:38 · Score: 1

because the Geneva Convention only governs militaries in declared wars between countries. It does not cover police forces dealing with citizens/subjects inside countries.

RTLSDR? by Guy+From+V · 2015-01-20 06:01 · Score: 1

Maybe some kind of software defined radio contraption in a flying platform.

Aluminum Foil Wallpaper? by Zymergy · 2015-01-20 06:01 · Score: 1

I know, the foil hat theory... But seriously, science backs up that foil works to block RF (and when done well could approach Faraday cage tightness)...

Re:Aluminum Foil Wallpaper? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 06:58 · Score: 1

Copper and silver are better conductors than gold, and aluminum is nearly as good of a conductor as gold (but gold is much more resistant to corrosion).
Re:Aluminum Foil Wallpaper? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2015-01-20 07:09 · Score: 2

Aluminum is not the greatest conductor, copper is better and then silver and gold
Actually silver and copper are better conductors than gold. But depending on the usage, gold can be a better choice because it doesn't oxidize (easily).
Re:Aluminum Foil Wallpaper? by Agripa · 2015-01-21 07:29 · Score: 1

I would not have to be Faraday cage tight to be effective but it would be easier and cheaper to use some kinetic sculptures which duplicate things like heartbeat and breathing.

Umm.... by korbulon · 2015-01-20 06:02 · Score: 1, Funny

At least we're safer now?

Re:Umm.... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2015-01-20 07:38 · Score: 2

Absolutely not. When the burglers get these they will be able to see if there is anyone at home before breaking in.
This means I need to be able to create ambiguity or block things completely, without interfering with my mobile phone's reception. Stopping drive-by WLAN eavesdropping is not really something I'm bothered about.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Didn't we have this discussion... by TWX · 2015-01-20 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

...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.

Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by MitchDev · 2015-01-20 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The radar will never come up in court, they'll use it to uncover things they can use without needing a warrant.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by afidel · 2015-01-20 06:13 · Score: 5, Informative

No, we already have a ruling, Kyllo vs U.S. where the court quite clearly stated the limits of extra-sensory detection equipment:
"Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by eyenot · 2015-01-20 06:25 · Score: 1

Why are you assuming a warrant hasn't already been obtained by the time this technology is being used? In some places it is ridiculously easy to obtain a search warrant.
In this case, considering that the method of search does not involve entry into the home or even setting foot on the premises, should a warrant once obtained even need to be delivered before this method of search can begin?

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by plover · 2015-01-20 06:31 · Score: 1

Agreed, it's clear the use of these without a warrant provides inadmissible evidence today.
So if an open source version becomes available, and people can just print one on their 3D printer so lots of people start using them, that somehow makes warrantless use of these legal for evidence gathering tomorrow? Go, Open Source, go!! ??

--
John
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by afidel · 2015-01-20 06:38 · Score: 1

That doesn't really get around Kyllo since there were civilian thermal imaging cameras available (commonly used in energy audits) but were not in widespread use by the general public. A better analogy might be detecting the name of a WiFi access point from the street that says "drug den", since the police could use commonly available equipment that are in general use to detect the AP it would not constitute a search.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Mashiki · 2015-01-20 06:55 · Score: 1

They tried this in Canada with thermocams. The supreme court hit them so hard on that being a warrantless search that crown attorneys and police services across Canada are still smarting over it. There is precedent, and legal justifications are often carried from other countries on things like this.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by bluefoxlucid · 2015-01-20 06:58 · Score: 1

No, the conclusion was that the headline is using hyphens incorrectly. It should read: "Police-nation wide-use, wall-penetrating radars to peer into homes."

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by afidel · 2015-01-20 07:01 · Score: 1

With some dangerous exceptions like NSLs you as the accused are to be informed of any warrants used to gather information against you at the time of arraignment as a normal part of discovery. If the police were actually obtaining warrants for the widespread use of such technology you'd think that defense attorneys would be made aware of it and would be talking to the media. We already know that with the stinger cellphone interception technology that police forces used the technology in an unconstitutional manner and covered up the use of the technology and the details behind it as a mandated cloak in the NDA from the tech company behind it (the police can not sign an NDA for something the intend to use to gather evidence as that necessarily means the defense does not have access to relevant information which is clearly against due process)

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2015-01-20 07:02 · Score: 1

If you can show that the cops used one without a warrant, your case gets tossed.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2015-01-20 07:05 · Score: 1

The US Supreme Court did the same thing in 2001.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2015-01-20 07:11 · Score: 1

That was written by Antonin Scalia, who is usually a total douche, but occasionally gets things right.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by TheCarp · 2015-01-20 07:19 · Score: 1

Honestly, dogs shouldn't even be used except in certain situations, for the post part, their findings should be as inadmissable as a polygraph because; and I want to be clear IN THE WAY THEY ARE COMMONLY USED they are little more than a prop.
The reason for this is while, they have excellent snouts, they are even better at playing clever hans.
So if you have an endless line of luggage to check, or lines of random cars waiting.... that is, situations where the handler himself has no reason to suspect anything in any particular place, dogs perform quite well, they are excellent sniffers.
However, its been shown that in cases where there is any suspicion at all on the part of their handler, that a dogs false positive rate goes through the roof to the point that they actually "hit" on nothing more than their handlers pre-existing suspicion more often than not.
Essentially maning, dogs are worst than useless in the most common use cases, and really work best in the rather uncommon cases of tracking and large scale checkpoints; and have little to no place at all anywhere else.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Chris+Mattern · 2015-01-20 07:27 · Score: 1

And if the cops never try to use the radar scans as evidence, how will you show that they scanned you at all? In fact, how you will ever suspect that they scanned you so you can try to show they did?
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Immerman · 2015-01-20 07:33 · Score: 1

See, there's the problem. If something so invasive is used without a warrant it should be the cops who get tossed - into mandatory jail time.
I mean come on, we've already had mandatory minimum sentencing for low-level drug possession - if a cop knowingly and willfully violates the US Constitution they should be personally punished and barred from ever serving in law enforcement again. No exceptions.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Solandri · 2015-01-20 07:36 · Score: 1

The votes in Kyllo were all over the political map.

Majority: Scalia (right), joined by Souter (center left), Thomas (right), Ginsburg (left), Breyer (center left)
Dissent: Stevens (center-left), Rehnquist (right), O'Connor (center right), Kennedy (center)

If you read through the decision, nearly every justice had their own reasons for voting the way they did. That's usually a sign of a bad decision (bad as in likely to be overturned in the future). The good decisions tend to have strong central themes defining the votes. Those usually stand the test of time (unless/until the country's feelings about those themes shifts). While I was pleased with the outcome, I expect this issue will become a SCotUS case again simply because the decision was so schizophrenic it provided little guidance for lower courts trying to pigeonhole similar cases into the framework the SCotUS set up.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2015-01-20 08:31 · Score: 1

In fact, how you will ever suspect that they scanned you so you can try to show they did?
Because they knew something that couldn't have known otherwise.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2015-01-20 08:38 · Score: 1

This is just invented for parallel construction.
Basically, you do an illegal search, find what you want, then spend time to create something that can get someone arrested.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by tlhIngan · 2015-01-20 08:39 · Score: 1

They tried this in Canada with thermocams. The supreme court hit them so hard on that being a warrantless search that crown attorneys and police services across Canada are still smarting over it. There is precedent, and legal justifications are often carried from other countries on things like this.
Technically, the justification is "can the public get their hands on it and would it be expected to be used". If so, the police can use it - so things like telescopes, binoculars and other optics are perfectly legitimate tools.
Thermal cameras currently are not, but you can expect that to change because consumerization of thermal cameras has happened and they're now $200 items (Seek Thermal sells one for Android and iOS, and FLIR sells one for the iPhone 5/5s, with an upcoming Android and iPhone one later this year). At least to a limited extent.
Radar penetrators, currently are not available to the general public, so they aren't allowed without a warrant.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by TWX · 2015-01-20 09:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, the distinction is "naked eye".

Katz v. United States.

There is a subsequent ruling that essentially allows a drone to spot what's in plain view in the backyard of a home, even if that stuff is within the curtilage behind a fence, but Katz seems to establish the right to privacy where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, so long as there isn't a warrant.

Any technology that could see into someone's home through an opaque barrier would seem to be in violation of that.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by MitchDev · 2015-01-20 10:18 · Score: 1

Hadn't heard the name, but this kind of thing is what I was envisioning.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by TWX · 2015-01-20 10:30 · Score: 1

For the purposes of searches, they're considered equipment.

Florida V. Jardines

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Rich0 · 2015-01-20 15:35 · Score: 1

Well, if dogs can't be used without warrants somebody needs to explain that to the local police. A few weeks ago I saw police following a dog through private property in my neighborhood without any apparent specific target. The walked right through my patio, around neighbor's yards, and so on. They didn't climb any fences, but I guess no putting up barbed wire is considered consent to a search.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by TWX · 2015-01-20 16:05 · Score: 1

If you want to risk the inherent problems in confronting the police when they do something illegal, I'm sure that there would be an organization that would sue on your behalf, something like the ACLU. Unfortunately it's very likely that it'd be a rough few years and that the police would not give you any benefit of the doubt in encounters with you.

In my neighborhood our backyard fences are 6' high. We also have dozens of thorny rose bushes that were here when we bought the place that we've maintained. There is no practical way to casually trespass.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Agripa · 2015-01-21 07:35 · Score: 1

then wouldn't it follow that once this does reach the courts, it'll be found inadmissable because of a lack of warrant?
More likely the evidence will be allow under inevitable discovery or because the police were not expected to know the law.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... by Agripa · 2015-01-21 07:42 · Score: 1

Police dogs are considered officers in the US.
Only when they are charging a civilian with a crime. When the dog is kill or injures by another officer, then they are just equipment.

I reckon by Hognoxious · 2015-01-20 06:04 · Score: 2

Have they tried ringing the doorbell? I could supply them with a device to do that at, what, half the price of these doohickeys.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:I reckon by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 06:10 · Score: 1

a selfie stick?

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:I reckon by Obfuscant · 2015-01-20 07:18 · Score: 1

Have they tried ringing the doorbell?
"Gosh, guys, we rang the doorbell and shouted 'Federal Marshals' and nobody opened the door. The guy we've got the warrant to arrest must not be here. Let's go get some donuts and come back tomorrow..." If only it should be that simple to avoid an arrest warrant. A well-stocked larder and pizza delivery could delay a federal arrest by months.
Re:I reckon by Hognoxious · 2015-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1

Another example of trying to impose a technical solution on a human problem.
You're supposed to shout "Candygram".

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes of by Press2ToContinue · 2015-01-20 06:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

... 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

Wrong issue by fyngyrz · 2015-01-20 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Wrong issue by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 06:43 · Score: 1

mission creep, while a real thing should never be an excuse to not use something worthwhile. Take for example the case not to long ago where the SWAT got the wrong home and threw a flash grenade in a baby crib. Ignoring the fact that as you alluded to this kind of thing shouldnt be happening to begin with. In that instance, a baby might not be horribly scared for life because of a flash grenade. (lets assume that there was a real issue at hand for a moment)

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Wrong issue by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2015-01-20 07:11 · Score: 1

That doesn't mean the police should be free to use it at any time, at their own discretion.
They're not. The Supreme Court ruled in the early 2000's that the police require a warrant for FLIR and wall-pentrating radar.
I suppose that doesn't make for a good headline: Police acquire new tech for performing searches; searches still require warrant!

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Wrong issue by Wootery · 2015-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

mission creep, while a real thing should never be an excuse to not use something worthwhile.
What's the difference between this position, and mission creep, while a real thing, should just be ignored?
Re:Wrong issue by Immerman · 2015-01-20 07:25 · Score: 2

However, knowing that "mission creep" is inevitable, and will rapidly overwhelm legitimate uses, we must consider any authorization of new powers to be an authorization of their abuse as well. At least until such time as proper checks and balances are imposed on the system.
Any other perspective is hopelessly naive.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Wrong issue by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 07:29 · Score: 1

Instead of saying "well, we know it will be abused in the future so we cant have it, I think we simply need to institute harsh penalties for people who commit mission creep. and im not simply talking fines, Im talking prison and worse (depending on the mission creep involved) For example, the people who ok-ed the swat that i alluded to before i would not be upset at an eye for an eye. put them in a small room and throw a flash bang on them while they sleep.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Wrong issue by fyngyrz · 2015-01-20 07:32 · Score: 1

They're not. The Supreme Court ruled in the early 2000's that the police require a warrant for FLIR and wall-pentrating[sic] radar.

The thing is, they regularly act like they don't need a warrant, and they will act on that basis. Just as they are... casual... about other restrictions, and manipulative in escalating confrontations. These things illuminate a severe problem with our present police culture. You may rest assured that these technologies will be misused, and not to the citizen's benefit.

I suppose that doesn't make for a good headline: Police acquire new tech for performing searches; searches still require warrant!

Skipping over the critical issue at hand never makes for a good headline, insofar as "good" incorporates the meaning of "responsible."

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Wrong issue by Immerman · 2015-01-20 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Certainly. And once we start seeing regular convictions of officers that abuse their existing powers, then we can talk about giving them new ones. Until that time, however, any grant of new powers is a de-facto blessing on their abuse.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Wrong issue by Darinbob · 2015-01-20 09:35 · Score: 1

Very good point. I fear we get too many knee jerk reactions in opposite directions though; from those who want to ban all new tools, versus those who want to encourage them with minimal to no oversight.
Re:Wrong issue by fyngyrz · 2015-01-20 11:06 · Score: 1

I think that's a wise position. Well put, too.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Wrong issue by Catbeller · 2015-01-20 11:52 · Score: 1

Due process is meaningless as far as limiting behavior. It sorta means "customary" or "expected". Secret charges and secret courts and secret prisons have been permanently established in this country following due process. Process just rubber-stamps whatever the madhouse wants to do. The real dichotomy is what is illegal versus what is immoral or just plain wrong. Rules are morally neutral.
Re:Wrong issue by Agripa · 2015-01-21 07:10 · Score: 1

However, knowing that "mission creep" is inevitable, and will rapidly overwhelm legitimate uses, we must consider any authorization of new powers to be an authorization of their abuse as well. At least until such time as proper checks and balances are imposed on the system.
Scalia assures me that the increasing professionalism of police forces will prevent this abuse.

Re:real question by __aaclcg7560 · 2015-01-20 06:05 · Score: 1

Stud Finder @ Home Depot

Yay for timothy! by Hognoxious · 2015-01-20 06:08 · Score: 2

Title: "Police Nation-Wide Use Wall-Penetrating Radars To Peer Into Homes"

Summary: "it does not show a picture of what's happening inside"

P.S. Layout's still fucked. If you're too dumb to fix it just revert to the old one already.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

A crook's dream by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 06:10 · Score: 1

This peekaboo device is exactly what the break & enter artists have been dreaming about. Nobody home? Perfect!

Re:A crook's dream by jklovanc · 2015-01-20 07:11 · Score: 1

That can already be done with FLIR. Which is actually better because the radar only detects movement. It would not detect someone sitting, watching tv and not moving.
Re:A crook's dream by fnj · 2015-01-20 07:50 · Score: 1

Radar does NOT "only detect movement". It can detect stationary objects just fine. If the particular equipment being used by police only detects movement, that says nothing about what radar can and cannot do.
Re:A crook's dream by goodmanj · 2015-01-20 08:09 · Score: 1

FLIR can't see through walls.
Re:A crook's dream by jklovanc · 2015-01-20 08:33 · Score: 1

Take a look at this.
Re:A crook's dream by goodmanj · 2015-01-20 13:34 · Score: 1

I saw that before I posted here, and it proves my point: FLIR can't see through walls, but it can see the warmth of the outside of the walls. So if the bad guy stands perfectly still for a minute or two with his back up against an uninsulated metal wall... not exactly useful, eh?

Re:real question by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 06:12 · Score: 1

Knew about that...

But with 3d renderings? That would be much cooler... To find that cross brace that someone tacked up to hold up a shelf that is no longer there...

And let me guess... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2015-01-20 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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'.

Re:And let me guess... by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 06:49 · Score: 1

dont forget the next law. Felony RF blocking wallpaper

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:And let me guess... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2015-01-20 07:09 · Score: 1

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

The Supreme Court already ruled that you DO have an expectation of privacy against wall-penetrating infra-red cameras. Prior to that, police helicopters would fly around looking for indoor pot growers.
Re:And let me guess... by bluefoxlucid · 2015-01-20 07:19 · Score: 1

Sadly, two out of three is pretty good.
The government has gotten so far with the terrorist thing that Congress had to have a hearing investigating why Congress had two previous hearings about whether the American Muslim community is a terrorist threat to national security and what they should do about them (remember FDR putting all the Japs and Krauts in concentration camps?). The pedophile-childporn angle is working so well we can't get proper care for these people: in Europe, broad-age-range attraction is dealt with by counseling, while narrow-age-range attraction to minors is dealt with using libido-killing drugs; in America, any hint to anyone of attraction to minors will get you violently attacked, fired from your job, and generally foisted from society. They've accepted drugs, which is ludicrous, because drug dealers are selling poisons to children while these people are shrieking about people possibly harming their children.
We've convinced the masses that certain people with certain labels are monsters, and are standing right on the edge of the precipice, ready to dive into the witch hunt for anyone who vaguely looks like they may associate with the marked.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:And let me guess... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2015-01-20 07:22 · Score: 1

And preemptively said the same applied to wall penetrating radar.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

Last laugh? by pla · 2015-01-20 06:15 · Score: 1

And everyone called me crazy when I wrapped my whole house in grounded chicken-wire when I re-did the siding. Now who gets the last laugh?

Mwa. Ha. HaHa!

Funny though, my cell phone doesn't work inside the house anymore. Damned AT&T and their crappy network!

Re:Last laugh? by plover · 2015-01-20 06:34 · Score: 1

Just remember: the chicken-wire salesman got the first laugh when he cashed your check.

--
John
Re:Last laugh? by GrumpySteen · 2015-01-20 06:51 · Score: 1

Now who gets the last laugh?
Everyone who knows that the openings in the Faraday cage have to be smaller than the wavelength of the signal you're trying to block.
Re:Last laugh? by omnichad · 2015-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Wasn't hard to find chicken wire that goes down to 1/2" gaps. Wavelengths of 20GHz and below are more than 1/2".
Re:Last laugh? by bytestorm · 2015-01-20 11:41 · Score: 1

I believe you need the gap to be smaller than the half-wavelength + some physics about energy absorption. With that caveat, I figure your half-inch chicken wire would be effective to 12GHz or so. More than enough to destroy cellular service in your home.
Re: Last laugh? by omnichad · 2015-01-20 13:30 · Score: 1

And likely this tech.

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by xevioso · 2015-01-20 06:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

How will a radio jammer stop radar?

Thanks...Justice Scalia by Ralph+Wiggam · 2015-01-20 06:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Thanks...Justice Scalia by GrumpySteen · 2015-01-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Not so strange. He doesn't want anyone to find out about the hookers chained to the wall in his basement, so he's big on privacy.

Already requires a warrant by schwit1 · 2015-01-20 06:17 · Score: 1

Little different than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Discussed earlier
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

Re:Already requires a warrant by raind · 2015-01-20 06:20 · Score: 1

Yes, a warrant will surely protect our rights in a highly charged situation where knowing if someone is there would be helpful.

--
Get up!

Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-01-20 06:26 · Score: 2

10 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of IR devices, that, although they were passively observing, government needed to get a warrant to use them. Technological adgancements shall not obviate expected constitutional protections. People expect privacy and advances that did not exist then cannot take advantage of loopholes like that.

So, I hope these people are getting warrants, or I expect to see hundreds of law enforcement officials going to jail.

By the way, as people move more and more of their lives into virtual, online arenas, they take with them the same expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court should similarly require warrants for all that, too, closing the loophole that, since it's at some coompany, "you have no expectation of privacy."

People create this virtual presence for their own convenience, not so government can have a virtual warrantless panopticon.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... by TheCarp · 2015-01-20 06:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

> 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"
Re:Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... by TheCarp · 2015-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1

Oh I fully agree, in no way did I mean to imply that throwing out the evidence was wrong..... its the best thing you can do under the circumstance and the only proper way to handle in within the context of the original case.
My comment is 100% aimed at the lack of followup and the lack of any even attempt to prevent the issue beyond hiding the truth of the matter and avoiding dealing with it.
Its correct to toss out such evidence, its incorrect to not treat the criminal searches as a crime.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... by HornWumpus · 2015-01-20 10:10 · Score: 1

When cops are caught lying under oath they are NEVER charged with perjury.
Because if they were charged, every case they ever testilied for would be reopened.
I propose that defense lawyers start independently collecting transcripts of cops lying. So they can be impeached the next time.
It would only take a single wikipedia type server. Entries recorded under department, cop name.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... by dave420 · 2015-01-20 22:38 · Score: 1

You have a strange definition of "never"...
Re:Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... by TheCarp · 2015-01-20 23:57 · Score: 1

Sure while it is strictly correct that it can happen and does happen, it certainly doesn't happen with nearly the frequency which it should, which is, every single time. These events are such a rarity that we really may as well ignore the few times it happens since its not significant compared to the magnitude of the problem.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

chickenwire & radar cross section by volvox_voxel · 2015-01-20 06:34 · Score: 2

I understand that chicken-wire has an extremely high radar cross section, as it's a regularly spaced array. I wonder how hard it is to see behind such a screen. Of course the attenuation varies by the spatial dimensions, A fun bit of calculation would be to find what the right size(s) of chicken-wire you need to block such instruments given their frequency ranges (assuming ISM band?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

I first read about how strong a return you get from chicken-wire from Stimson's book "Introduction to Airborne Radar" ..which is a pretty easy to read with a lot of colorful graphs, and is mostly targeted to fighter pilots, with blue boxes around the more complicated math for the more interested students. Most books ether have no math/calculus, or are geared toward graduate students. This particular one is a good mix between the two that gives you intuition when reading the graduate books..

Time Domain Systems was Pushing This Tech in 2001 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-20 06:39 · Score: 1

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-12/news/time-domain-through-wall-surveillance-radar-aids-in-counter-terrorism-and-urban-warfare.html

My recollection is that the device worked as claimed but operated at frequencies that ultimately were not approved by the FCC. They attempted a wireless alternative to USB 3.0 which failed but got some press. They have morphed their application of ultra-wide band frequencies and are still around today.

Captcha: romance

Not all. by Lumpy · 2015-01-20 06:46 · Score: 1

Metalized low-E glass really limits that stuff as well as aluminum siding. The magnetic paint sold for kids rooms also will create a very high reflective barrier to significantly hamper this tech.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Solved! by ScottChi · 2015-01-20 06:47 · Score: 1

Consider installing a metallic foil shield that lines the interior surface of your roof. Sound farfetched? It isn't. Its called a Radiant Barrier, and it serves a very practical purpose. It substantially reduces your air conditioning bills in the hot months. That's not going to help protect your privacy through your walls though. Perhaps it's time for the wall mounted mirror tiles and foil-based wallpapers of the 1970's to make a comeback...

Re:Me too? by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 06:48 · Score: 1

in your eyes perhaps. not in mine

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:To Protect and Serve Cancer by plover · 2015-01-20 06:53 · Score: 2

Highly concentrated beams of radio waves are known to cause cold pizza to become hot.

FTFY.

It takes a lot of RF exposure over a very, very long time to increase your chances of getting cancer by a statistically detectable amount. Despite decades of data, (and several very poor quality, highly-biased studies) there is still not a clear correlation between cell phone exposure and brain cancer*. During the course of a police action, the device will likely be on for a few seconds while they recon the inside of the building. For that to cause harm over that short amount of time, it would have to be emitting many kilowatts or even a megawatt of energy; and not only would the resulting burns be ridiculously painful, your heart would short circuit and your eyes would probably boil and explode. Cancer would be the least of your worries.

* If there was a link, cell phone usage is so prevalent across the globe that we should be able to trace a perfect curve that matches cell phone usage to brain cancer mortality statistics. But there isn't even a hint that brain cancer rates are changing due to phones. Toxins? Pollution? Asbestos? Smoking? Volatile Organic Compounds? All those have traceable curves that map exposure to human diseases. Cell phone exposure? Zero.

--
John

Re:Firefighters use IR-detecting devices by mr_mischief · 2015-01-20 06:54 · Score: 1

A firefighter has a reason to be there if there is a fire to fight. As the SCOTUS already said, police using this sort of thing without a warrant is an illegal search.

Get a warrant first and I'm ok with this by Morpeth · 2015-01-20 07:01 · Score: 1

As others have said, this definitely seems to be a warrant required device -- cops should in NO WAY be able to just run around willy nilly doing this. The opportunity for abuse is too great.

I think in the case of a say a hostage situation (or something along those lines), you could argue it's an exigent circumstance and could exclude a warrant. But the exclusion should only in extreme circumstances.

--

'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates

NOT EFFECTIVE VS H2O by tommyatomic · 2015-01-20 07:03 · Score: 1

Radar is completely ineffective against water. Radar doesn't penetrate water. Any criminal with a basic understanding of even the most basic science will hide next to a hotwater heater.

That OR the police kick in everyones door because they've confused all hot water heaters with criminals in hiding.

Re:NOT EFFECTIVE VS H2O by omnichad · 2015-01-20 07:45 · Score: 1

It's a little hard to hide inside the water heater. Otherwise, you have to pick to hide on one side or the other.
This thing detects movement. Not moving will work - whether you're behind the water heater or not.
Re:NOT EFFECTIVE VS H2O by Sowelu · 2015-01-20 08:47 · Score: 1

Fine, you can hide from it if you know what they're using and you know they're after you right now and you are willing to stay in an inconvenient spot. I don't think that's most situations, and water heaters probably aren't the best tactical positions, so the theoretical bad guys still suffer from the availability of this thing.

Re:"Plain Senses" by ganjadude · 2015-01-20 07:12 · Score: 1

plain smell should not even be used. I cant tell you how many times when people get pulled over cops all of a sudden "smell" something when they wanna look in the car (before anyone brings up my name... dont. I get the irony of me complaining about cops sense of smell)

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by X0563511 · 2015-01-20 07:13 · Score: 1

They don't "see" into shit. Read the summary. All it does is inform the officer if there's movement inside, which doesn't really tell them much.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Wire mesh upgrade by mysidia · 2015-01-20 07:13 · Score: 1

My plan is to install a 15ft high wire mesh completely surrounding my yard and gate and underneath my roof to block IR, Radar, X-Rays, and other RF signals.

Within my yard, I will generate disruptive signals which the mesh will fully contain but prevent the usage of any kind of drone or bug or other wireless device inside the shielded area.

Surely that should help discourage this kind of privacy invasion?

Depends when it's used by jcwayne · 2015-01-20 07:15 · Score: 1

Yes, there's a good chance that versions of this technology capable of producing detailed 3D maps will be abused without the courts stepping in. On the other hand, it seems to me there's also a perfectly legitimate use for which the simple versions described in TFS are well suited: SWAT teams checking to see if there's anyone on the other side of the door they're about to bust down (with a warrant). That use has the potential to save lives without infringing on anyones rights.

--
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by andydread · 2015-01-20 07:19 · Score: 1

well duhh a RADAR uses radio signals. Radio signals are emitted by a radar and it measures the reflection of those radio signals. Read radio waves.

Minority Report anyone? by slimshady76 · 2015-01-20 07:26 · Score: 1

Looks like those building raids the police carried on on Minority Report and other Sci-Fi stories are closer and closer to come true...

Re:real question by omnichad · 2015-01-20 07:29 · Score: 1

That doesn't work on my walls. I have an older drywall that was plastered over. I think my walls are somewhere between 3/4" and 1" thick and nothing I've tried will find the studs.

Re:Firefighters use IR-detecting devices by Slashjones · 2015-01-20 07:30 · Score: 1

And the NSA COULD use mass surveillance to help catch actual terrorists... but the ends don't justify the means. Get a warrant or screw off.

And finding indoor pot farms isn't even a good thing; the war on drugs is garbage.

Re:real question by rubycodez · 2015-01-20 07:33 · Score: 1

or to keep you from driving picture nail denting and then through duct right behind drywall that you didn't know went to upper floor...

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by fnj · 2015-01-20 07:41 · Score: 1

Thank you. It seemed like nobody realized that someone vegging out in a chair, or lying quietly in a bed won't be picked up by this shit. Or, on the other hand, there is SOMETHING radar reflective moving inside. Could be a dog or a robot.

So it really doesn't tell them anything useful whatsoever.

Secret police behavior? by Subm · 2015-01-20 07:49 · Score: 1

> At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices

I can't think of anything wrong with secret police behavior. I mean, has that led to any problems in the past? What could possibly go wrong?

They had this back in the '80s by spuke4000 · 2015-01-20 08:08 · Score: 1

Hudson: 9 meters. 7. 6.
Ripley: That can't be; that's inside the room.
Hudson: It's reading right man, look!
Hicks: Then you're not reading *it* right.
Hudson: 5 meters, man. 4. What the hell?

--
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.

Re:They had this back in the '80s by mjwx · 2015-01-20 12:40 · Score: 1

By 2176 they still hadn't perfected the flat screen monitor.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Dupe by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-01-20 08:10 · Score: 1

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/12/31/0310256/doppler-radar-used-by-police-to-determine-home-occupancy

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Warrant? by goodmanj · 2015-01-20 08:13 · Score: 1

I have no problem with this, provided the cops obtain a warrant through established judicial process.

So walls are windows. by houghi · 2015-01-20 08:16 · Score: 2

If a police officer walks by and he is able to look into your house because you did not close the window, it is legal. Right?
If he needs glasses to see he uses a device to better see, there still isn't an issue, right?
So this device is perfectly legal, right?

This is what you get when you think privacy is only about where you are. They will take it away, inch by inch. To me privacy is not about WHERE I am, but about WHAT I am. So it must include not only my home, but also my data, where I was when and what I was doing.

There will be reasons that this must be overruled. That is what due process should be for.

Privacy should be the first thing that you must defend. Without it all the other rights are useless. See how many amendments will keep standing if you take away privacy. And those that are not imediatly are gone will be easy to take away if the rest is gone.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

It's VERY easy to fix the problem with radar. by Futurepower(R) · 2015-01-20 08:20 · Score: 1

It's VERY easy to fix the problem with radar going inside houses. Build houses with aluminum foil on the walls.

In older houses, put aluminum foil on the walls, then more insulation, then drywall. Save money on heating and cooling.

Make a law that says no new houses can be built without foil on the walls.

Re:It's VERY easy to fix the problem with radar. by Derling+Whirvish · 2015-01-20 11:34 · Score: 1

Then your cell phone won't work. You won't have over-the-air TV reception. WiFi will only work in the room that the wireless router is in. And so forth. Not a good solution.

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by Holi · 2015-01-20 08:21 · Score: 1

Want to cite a law about that? Because I have never seen that exception in any law regarding radio frequencies. Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and wireless networking services (Wi-Fi). Applicable Law The Communications Act of 1934 Section 301 - requires persons operating or using radio transmitters to be licensed or authorized under the Commission's rules (47 U.S.C. 301) Section 302(b) - prohibits the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices within the United States (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)) Section 333 - prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C. 333) Section 503 - allows the FCC to impose forfeitures for willful or repeated violations of the Communications Act, the Commission's rules, regulations, or related orders, as well as for violations of the terms and conditions of any license, certificate, or other Commission authorization, among other things. Sections 510 - allows for seizure of unlawful equipment (47 U.S.C. 510) The Commission's Rules Section 2.803 - prohibits the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices within the United States (47 C.F.R. 2.803) Section 2.807 - provides for certain limited exceptions, such as the sale to U.S. government users (47 C.F.R. 2.807) The Criminal Code (Enforced by the Department of Justice) Title 18, Section 1362 - prohibits willful or malicious interference to US government communications; subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1362) Title 18, Section 1367(a) - prohibits intentional or malicious interference to satellite communications; subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1367(a))

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by Holi · 2015-01-20 08:22 · Score: 1

I hate you slashdot, thanks for handling (completely ignoring) my formatting so well.

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.

I thought this had already been dealt with?? by cayenne8 · 2015-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1

I thought this type of surveillance, was addressed as requiring a warrant back when it was first brought out using infrared tech to 'peer' into peoples homes?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:I thought this had already been dealt with?? by kwbauer · 2015-01-20 16:50 · Score: 2

but that was infrared. You see, when it was visible light we didn't need warrants then a document was written that said they did. Then this infrared thing came along and they said that the constitution didn't cover infrared because it didn't exist when the constitution was written. Then the courts said that infrared requires a warrant. The interpretation is not infrared requires a warrant because a search is a search but because a court said so. Now we have this radar thing and it doesn't require a warrant because it wasn't around when the constitution was written and the court only said that infrared gets added to what was around when the constitution was written.
Re:I thought this had already been dealt with?? by Agripa · 2015-01-21 06:46 · Score: 1

There is nothing to worry about; there are enough exceptions to cover the lack of a warrant.

Re:they have these tools.... by Sowelu · 2015-01-20 08:44 · Score: 1

And that is the reason why I'm not sad to see the use of this stuff become more advanced and more widespread. This device wouldn't have prevented that--kid in a crib isn't moving around--but if they could actually see stuff through walls, or at least spot heat signatures (yeah I know it's really damn hard), that would be a great tool in a SWAT team's kit for minimizing fatalities on both sides. Restrict it to entry warrants and I don't see a problem.

Don't quit your day job. by westlake · 2015-01-20 08:48 · Score: 1

Because the criminals will have these www.instructables.com/id/Radio-Jammer/

It is easy to picture the geek turned criminal putting a neon sign on his roof with an arrow pointing to "Rocky's Hideout," like a character in an old Bugs Bunny cartoon. He never thinks these things through.

Re:NSA, Air Force, US DoJ have this tech by ColdWetDog · 2015-01-20 08:55 · Score: 1

Wow. You've managed to out-cube Time-cube.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

They're not thinking clearly: Side-effects. by Futurepower(R) · 2015-01-20 09:02 · Score: 1

Exactly. And maybe one of the radar makers will secretly start a corporation that makes radar jammers. Eventually all radar will become useless.

And anyone re-painting a wall could put aluminum foil on the wall first.

Most importantly: Some of the automobile radar detectors would probably work as house radar detectors.

Re:They're not thinking clearly: Side-effects. by amxcoder · 2015-01-20 14:25 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, current car radar detectors only look for certain frequency bands. Most newer ones look for X, K, & Ka bands only (plus laser if it's equipped). I didn't RTFA to see what bands this works on, but I highly doubt it is the same as what is used by traffic cops.

As far as paint goes, what could work great, would be a paint, with metallic flakes in it designed to block and dispurse the radar. Unfortunately for both options (tin foil or metallic based paint), I also think there would be the unintended side effect of making it harder to pick up cell phone signal and WiFi propagation within your own home with a solution like that, so you'd be crippling your WiFi and Cell phone all the time in order to possibly cripple the police radar that may never get used on you.

Bring back lead-based paint. by craigminah · 2015-01-20 09:02 · Score: 1

How much energy will the police need to transmit in order to penetrate a home and accurately see it's occupants? Are we all just to accept the fact we'll receive several lifetimes worth of x-ray radiation if the police suspect us of something?

I suspect the laws in the '70's banning lead paint was to prepare for this inevitable day.

Re:To Protect and Serve Cancer by HornWumpus · 2015-01-20 09:09 · Score: 2

Your looking at the wrong studies.

Look at the studies of military radar operators from the 50s and 60s. They would stand in front of the radar dishes to stay _warm_ north of the arctic circle.

They have no detectable increase in cancer rates beyond what all electronic techs have. They can statistically see the cancer caused by flux, but see no increase from massive exposures to RF energy. Even better they are mostly dead by now, so the study is final. They were tracked to the grave.

The cops and a bunch of lawyers are trying to prove that basically any cop that gets cancer deserves even more money. Because they claim it was caused by radar guns. No statistical correlation.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:In other news... by Phreakiture · 2015-01-20 09:14 · Score: 1

Taken from the manufacturer's website (emphasis added):

Wall Penetration
RANGE- R will penetrate most common building wall, ceiling or floor types including poured concrete, concrete block, brick, wood, stucco glass, adobe, dirt, etc. However, It will not penetrate metal. RANGE-R will generally penetrate up to one foot of wall thickness without adverse effects. While small metal objects embedded in walls (i.e. rebar, conduits, etc.) usually do not inhibit operation, a large enough metal object can impair operation. When this happens, the wisest course of action is to make more than one scan from different locations (move a few feet) for confirmation. If a porous wall is saturated with water, performance can also be degraded due to excessive absorption of the radar energy.

It seems a layer of sheet metal just behind the drywall would be a Good Thing. It may resolve some other problems as well.

--
www.wavefront-av.com

Re:real question by njnnja · 2015-01-20 09:41 · Score: 1

Off topic but I hope this helps:

Powerful magnetic stud finder. Works better than just a magnet, and better than any kind of auto sensing electronics or something. I have inch thick lathe and plaster walls so the studs are waaaaay back there but this works really well. It takes a little practice to get used to the very subtle pull but once you get the touch it works wonders.

Re:real question by omnichad · 2015-01-20 09:52 · Score: 1

That's brilliant. Not buying one, but I have several rare earth magnets that should do the job. Thanks! I still have not put up any towel bars in my bathroom since moving in. I've seen cheap stud finders that are magnet-based but I never thought about a stronger magnet.

Re:real question by Tablizer · 2015-01-20 10:11 · Score: 1

Are they any good at finding studs...?

Human studs, yes. Building studs, no.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Widen the Moat by pubwvj · 2015-01-20 10:13 · Score: 1

The solution is to widen your moat, breed more moat monsters and get dogs. Ninja pigs help too.

Re:The response by Slashjones · 2015-01-20 11:16 · Score: 1

Which Americans are sick of this? Because from what I see, most support unconstitutional things such as the NSA's mass surveillance and the TSA, or are apathetic about them.

Good for finding vermin? by eric31415927 · 2015-01-20 12:03 · Score: 1

I could have used one of these last summer when I had rats in my walls.

TV and cell phones: Easy by Futurepower(R) · 2015-01-20 13:44 · Score: 1

TV and cell phones: Use an outside antenna, and bring a stronger signal inside. From $29, it says, for the cheapest antenna.

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by Rich0 · 2015-01-20 15:38 · Score: 1

Well, I can't vouch for any specific model, but from what I understand from articles I've read at least some units are perfectly capable of detecting breathing and other involuntary movements. They use doppler radar and can pick up incredibly slow motion. Your chest is very large - I don't know if it would pick up insects, but it wouldn't surprise me if they could detect a breathing person. Pets would likely set it off as well.

Re:To Protect and Serve Cancer by plover · 2015-01-20 17:44 · Score: 1

That's even cooler than I thought. I knew high power radar was responsible for some bird deaths, but they were directly exposed to very high power radiation. I didn't know about the army tech statistics, so thanks! (And would you happen to have a citation to it I could use?)

--
John

Antennas. Bands are limited. by Futurepower(R) · 2015-01-20 22:29 · Score: 1

WiFi and cell phone reception can be aided by antennas, even antennas that don't have amplifiers.

I wonder what bands are used for the radar. There are limits to what is available.

Re:This Makes Me Wonder... by craigminah · 2015-01-21 02:49 · Score: 1

I'm going to move into a house formed from hundreds of Hoffman enclosures...

Re:Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes by amxcoder · 2015-01-21 04:44 · Score: 1

"Theres something wrong with the radar sir...I've lost the sweeps, the bleeps, and the creeps.".

"The radar, it appears to be...JAMMED!"

"Raspberry, no body gives me the raspberry, except... LoneStar!"

Re:To Protect and Serve Cancer by HornWumpus · 2015-01-21 05:39 · Score: 1

I Googled it years ago. S/N ratio is high in the results. Didn't save the link, but it was out there.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Slashdot Mirror

Police Nation-Wide Use Wall-Penetrating Radars To Peer Into Homes

189 of 290 comments (clear)