Slashdot Mirror


Meet URL, the USB Porn-Sniffing Dog (cnn.com)

HughPickens.com writes: CNN reports that URL, the porn-sniffing dog, is the newest crime-fighting tool at the Weber County Sheriff's office with a nose that could help put away some of the country's most predatory and dangerous criminals. URL (pronounced Earl) sniffs out electronic storage media. Still just a pup, the 18-month-old K-9 is one of fewer than two dozen such dogs in the United States that hunt the unique chemical compounds emitted from flash drives, memory cards, cell phones, iPads and other similar devices. While dogs like URL can't tell detectives if a device has electronic evidence on it, they are able to find devices that humans might otherwise miss. Detective Cameron Hartman points to the high-profile case of former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle, who was convicted on child pornography and other charges last year. A K-9 named Bear, who was trained by the same man who trained URL, led investigators to hidden thumb drives inside Fogle's home. The U.S. Attorney's office for Southern Indiana confirmed those devices contained evidence against Fogle. URL has found evidence relating to pornography during the execution of search warrants for the task force in several investigations of child sex crimes and child trafficking. "He actually found a USB that was in this jar that was closed, and the jar was in a box, and the box had stuff in it. The jar itself had stuff in it."

299 comments

  1. I want one!!! by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can never find my USB drives and SD cards. Say what you like about spinning disc, at least they were (are) easy to keep track of.

    1. Re:I want one!!! by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      If the dog could find the tv remote and car keys he truly would be mans best friend. I would send my dog to that training camp.

    2. Re: I want one!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says you. I never labeled mine

    3. Re:I want one!!! by nucrash · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward is right. You poor unfortunate soul. I am sorry to hear that you are so threatened by others.

      --
      Place something witty here
    4. Re:I want one!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just tie the remote control and car keys to the dogs collar. Problem solved.

    5. Re:I want one!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us, what do you lick to get the taste of shit out of your mouth?

    6. Re:I want one!!! by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I was just watching a show last night about exactly this. You can train most dogs to find you keys or phone with about 2 weeks of training. http://iview.abc.net.au/progra...

    7. Re:I want one!!! by dublin · · Score: 2

      I misplace/lose all kinds of things around the house (especially tools: razor knives and tape measures seem to be especially furtive), but I think I've misplaced my keys maybe four or five times in my entire life - How in the world can you possibly lose your car keys?

      (I'm not even particularly organized here, but if I'm wearing anything at all over my skivvies, then the keys are in the right front pocket (phone goes in the left). If I'm not wearing pant/trousers/shorts, then the keys are either in the pocket of whatever I wore last (if I just hung them up on a hook), or on the bathroom counter or the top of the dresser, all within about a dozen steps. I'm honestly mystified that anyone would ever buy (or even ever need) something like Tile or other key-finders...)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    8. Re:I want one!!! by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      I currently have one vehicle and a wife that also drives it so you never know where the keys will end up. If she didn't hang them back up they are most likely on the kitchen counter or the nightstand but not always.

    9. Re: I want one!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too ........ always have a recent USB device but just because I always lost them !!!

  2. Slashdot, Meet My Bullshit Sniffing Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Come on, can't you do better than this shit?

  3. AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

    1. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Maybe exporting the pooch to Saudi Arabia is being planned.

      Then again, aren't dogs now banned there? Because it could allow you to "meet women"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Child porn is certainly illegal, and that's what they use these dogs to look for, with a warrant as well.

    3. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Child porn is certainly illegal, and that's what they use these dogs to look for, with a warrant as well.

      No, they detect *ALL* flash media, even if it is totally and completely unrelated to porn. Then they confiscate *ALL* of this media and now the onus is on the victim of the seizure to attempt to get *THEIR* property back (most likely unsuccessfully).

    4. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, they detect *ALL* flash media, even if it is totally and completely unrelated to porn.

      Has anyone ever heard of that?

      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by tysonedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's what the article is suggesting. The dog can't sniff for porn, but it can sniff for flash memory, and is being used to identify flash memory that may be concealed in non-obvious locations.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    6. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Islam dogs are "unclean"

    7. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You sound lucky enough to have never dealt with American Police.

      Getting your shit back after seizure, innocent or not, is difficult at best and pointless at worst.

    8. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by andreas.hummelbrunne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah. Because 100% of porn is illegal child pornography.
      Let's be real here:
      Having a storage device doesn't mean that the state needs to know what's stored on it.
      Having a storage device doesn't mean that the content is pornographic and/or illegal.
      Having a storage device doesn't mean that you're a criminal.

      And yet you get treated as such.

    9. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because you are. The State has learned to treat its own citizens as enemies and to deal with them as such. Because they can, and because it's practical.

    10. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're so concerned about cleanliness, why do they wipe the shit off their assess with their bare hands?

    11. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep voting for an all-powerful government - and reap what you sow.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    12. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't. They use the inside of their turbans.

    13. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a storage device doesn't mean that you're a criminal.

      But if you are a suspect in a crime that involves electronic files, the police will try to get a search warrant for electronic storage devices, at which point a dog that can find electronic storage devices could come into play. Having a knife, pair of boots, fingerprints, or DNA doesn't mean you're a criminal either, but the police can get warrants for such things as part of an investigation.

    14. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, I think the idea is if they are already searching a perv's house, to go ahead and find any hidden devices, not just sniffing for them at traffic stops

    15. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      If they're so concerned about cleanliness, why do they wipe the shit off their assess with their bare hands?

      Because their toilet roll is sacred?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 2

      Child porn is certainly illegal, and that's what they use these dogs to look for, with a warrant as well.

      There was an older article on slashdot about this same subject, the dogs can smell the flash, drives not the how the individual bits are arranged. Also I wonder how they can tell if if they are flash drives, and not just some other random integrated circuit with chips...

    17. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      In Islam dogs are "unclean"

      'Unclean' is probably the wrong term. Dogs betrayed the prophet when he and his minions were attempting to infiltrate Mecca (they barked and gave them away). So dogs are bad, not so much dirty.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    18. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Warrant? Are those things still around?

    19. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hate to break this to you bit your vote doesnt really count here in the US.

    20. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dog saliva and hair is najis (ritually impure) not unclean so Muslims have to make sure they don't have either on their clothes or skin when praying that's all.

    21. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You COULD have child porn on those devices and never know about it. Just wait until the police finds it.

    22. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslims use running water to wash the shit away from their arses, as opposed to smearing it up their crack with paper then walking around stinking the place out.

    23. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Outside US they are.

    24. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Muslims use running water to wash the shit away from their arses, as opposed to smearing it up their crack with paper then walking around stinking the place out.

      And leave shit stained water all over the bathroom. Seriously, you need wellies to enter a bathroom in a Muslim country.

    25. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That's what the article is suggesting. The dog can't sniff for porn, but it can sniff for flash memory, and is being used to identify flash memory that may be concealed in non-obvious locations.

      All the flash media in my house that I can't find is concealed in a non-obvious location, or I would have found it.
      However the most recent USB flash drive I purchased is probably bigger than the rest of them put together. I found a 32MByte one when I cleared out the garage a couple of weeks ago.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    26. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not quite. First, the cops send you an email with a link to a child abuse video. Then you're a criminal.

    27. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another reason the Muslim religion is full of fucking wack jobs.

      Anybody who believes this shit or follows this shit is inherently a sucker.

    28. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 2

      Keep voting for an all-powerful government - and reap what you sow.

      But that's the only choice they've given me!

    29. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, I don't recall electing the members of the supreme and other courts who routinely decide that state laws don't matter, and any excuse is good enough to conclude that there's federal jurisdiction...

    30. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just how long have they had running water? Seems for a long time they were using their hands.....or sand

    31. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1

      Everything you say is true except for your second statement. If they have a warrant they have the right to look.

      If the police have a warrant and are looking for storage devices and then use URL to find a USB sticky thingy in a jar in a box under your floor, then I would support them tagging that USB thingy as evidence and looking at what is on it. If it's your family vacation photos to Russia or even ordinary porn, then it can't be used as evidence against you. However if there is one image of child porn on it, then I hope they arrest you on the spot and you never get out.

    32. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, Jesus the long-dead carpenter will rise from his grave and save them with his magic chisels.

    33. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't look at me! I voted for Krag!

    34. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1
      It's not all about what people vote for, though that is part of the problem: we keep voting for people who support a big government. However, part of the problem is the continued support SCOTUS gives to laws which are clearly unconstitutional. As Charles Black, an expert on constitutional law wrote on the New Deal:

      the standard version of the story of the New Deal and the Court, though accurate in its way, displaces the emphasis. ... It concentrates on the difficulties; it almost forgets how the whole thing turned out. The upshot of the matter was (and this is what I like to emphasize) that after some twenty-four months of balking... the Supreme Court, without a single change in the law of its composition, or, indeed, in its actual manning, placed the affirmative stamp of legitimacy on the New Deal, and on the whole new conception of government in America.

      When the supreme court makes a decision, it helps people shut about about things being unconstitutional

      Of course, not everyone was satisfied. The Bonnie Prince Charlie of constitutionally commanded laissez-faire still stirs the hearts of a few zealots in the Highlands of choleric unreality. But there is no longer any significant or dangerous public doubt as to the constitutional power of Congress to deal as it does with the national economy. ... We had no means, other than the Supreme Court, for imparting legitimacy to the New Deal.

      Leaving the government to dictate what the government can do is... counterproductive and leads to the same tyranny the constitution was meant to prevent.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    35. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      Proofreading... *shut about about -> shut up about

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    36. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the article is suggesting. The dog can't sniff for porn, but it can sniff for flash memory, and is being used to identify flash memory that may be concealed in non-obvious locations.

      Don't conceal in non-obvious locations, use the Edgar Allan Poe model. Bury flash drives next to the nearest fire hydrant.

    37. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do what all sniffing dogs do - they alert based on cue's given to them by their handler

      dogs are basically used by police to get around probable cause or 'racial profiling'. watch any video of a police dog in action, watch and listen really closely before the dog "hits" - the handler is always doing a tongue click or finger snap or "show it to me boy"

      police dogs and polygraphs are just two pieces of pseudoscientific horseshit our police state shoves in our face, and people believe it

    38. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Same cool-aid, different flavoring.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by nnull · · Score: 1

      The whole "Possession of child pornography" has become an industry in itself to prosecute people. It's easier to plant evidence of child pornography than it is to drop drugs in a persons vehicle, especially nowadays that they can consider someone with a child like body to be considered child pornography. And then you have people being charged for child pornography for taking selfies of themselves.

      And then you have the FBI literally distributing child porn to catch people:
      http://reason.com/blog/2016/08...

      The madness continues.

    40. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Koran has rules. They only use running water when they have been bleeding from their ass.

      Otherwise paper or rocks are acceptable.

    41. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Flash drives containing no porn?

      Never heard of that. Completely outside my experience.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    42. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Try 3rd Parties. Read the Constitution (assuming you live in the US). Work to bringing the Federal Government down to size. Have the states do more and the feds do less.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    43. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will happen is people who are not involved in illegal activity will be searched for child porn because this dog found a flash drive in a couch or under a floorboard. The person did nothing wrong but will be without their computer and other electronics for a while as the crime lab goes through every bit of their hard drives and other media. They will also use this dog to obtain other warrants since they can easily say an honestly misplaced thumb drive wasn't misplaced and was placed where it was to conceal illegal activity.

    44. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by hucker75 · · Score: 0

      Apparently child and animal porn is, even though neither of them harm anyone.

    45. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what they are really sniffing for is the residual jizz from your fingers when you unplug the USB drive to put it away.

    46. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Child porn is certainly illegal, and that's what they use these dogs to look for, with a warrant as well.

      the dogs are searching for puppy porn.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    47. Re:AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      If they're so concerned about cleanliness, why do they wipe the shit off their assess with their bare hands?

      because the middle east isn't covered with forests of pine trees asking to be pulped into paper products?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    48. Re: AFAIK Porn is not illegal. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Start working on changes in the local government. If there are no good candidates, run yourself. Local politics don't take as much time or money as federal, but can change things for the better. Also, the pay is pretty decent for the amount of work expected of you.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Misleading??? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Misleading post is misleading! It's a huge jump from a USB drive to a porn-ladden USB drive.... But typical Slashdot bait.

    1. Re:Misleading??? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Misleading??? Nah... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2, Informative

      URL is trained to sniff out USB sticks that have Vaseline remnants on them.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re: Misleading??? Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean typical Slashdot bate.

  5. Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    So here's a possible solution, and a market for recycled electronics.

    Start a business that grinds old (but relatively modern) electronics into a fine powder that can be dusted around anyplace you want to keep your stuff hidden from the pigs. The dog will be useless.

    1. Re:Possible solution... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      People dump alot of the old tube tv's all the time

    2. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's there's smoke, there's fire. Where there's action, there is a reaction.
      Blacks being the most disruptive minority is the fire and action, and racism is the smoke and reaction.
      What lead to blacks being so fucked up as a collective is irrelevant. The fact is that they are, and that blacks need to start policing themselves and regulating their own collective instead of thinking up external excuses and pushing blame.
      If you want to stop racism, start by cutting the roots that give it excuse to exist. You can't stop people from having opinions and applying basic math think on their surroundings, just like a religious organization can't make everyone believe in their shit.

      I'd like to see the police announcing that they are going to start policing a black neighborhood for a year, complete lack of presence. I'd bet that within an hour the same black people bitching about the police harassing blacks will congregate in front of the stations begging them to go back to protect them from their own black people. Whether on YouTube and the Internet, blacks are always out against other blacks on an astounding level.

    3. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean the "pigs" that protect your chubby suburban white ass from getting killed?

      The criminal always has the initiative. The "pigs" don't protect or prevent ANYTHING. They show up after the fact to clean up the mess, and SOMETIMES get up off their asses to actually try to catch a perpetrator - you know, someone who has already DONE the crime. You have this wild notion that police somehow are the only barrier between the citizen and crime. No, the police are the CONSEQUENCES of crime for the criminal. That is, when they get the right guy. But anyone guilty enough will do, at the end of the day. The only barrier the police are really for is between you and those who rule you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who do you think is going to protect you in your little suburban house?

      No one. Protection is a myth.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Possible solution... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Right. Tell you what: lets give your local police a day off. I give you three hours before you wet your pants.

    6. Re:Possible solution... by jcochran · · Score: 1

      I would suggest you take a look at what the police actually do. The military uses the word "Police" in the following fashion. "Go police the area." in normal plain english, that means "Go to the area and pick up all the trash and generally clean the area up" and if you really think about it, that's also what the police do. They DON'T prevent crime. They clean up the area after a crime has been committed and if they're lucky, manage to apprehend the criminal. If you want to be protected, that is on you. NOT THE POLICE.

    7. Re:Possible solution... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Then lets give your local police a day off and see how long it takes before you wet your pants.

    8. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The police ARE the consequences and are the ONLY thing giving criminals second thoughts about breaking into your suburban house and knocking you over the head.

      Which is exactly what I said. But then again considering the fact we still have crime, it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it?

      You suburban white kids

      You are quite obviously a racist fucker. You have no idea who I am or what I look like, let alone what my history is.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Troll

      I live in a country you don't even dare visit. What you consider horrible crime I consider a normal day. But I'm happy here. Beats being a slave.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Possible solution... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because we still have crime, the police don't work well? Nice logic. I know EXACTLY who you are. You are the typical narcissistic loser who rails against the "pigs" but who would be the first to call them whenever you need them.

    11. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      That's the problem with people these, days. They're pussies. You need to protect yourself, and not rely on others to fight your battles for you. Take the time and expend the effort to get the resources and training to protect yourself and your family and never, ever rely on the police or anyone else. Maybe they'll be there to help you, maybe they won't. Maybe when TSHTF it's them you'll need to protect your family from, who knows. But if that's your idea of being safe, you're living in la-la land. Being reliant on others doesn't make you safe, it makes you cattle. Moo.

    12. Re: Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald?

    13. Re: Possible solution... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Just get one of those blenders.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    14. Re:Possible solution... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what I said. But then again considering the fact we still have crime, it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it?

      You are never going to eliminate crime. That's not really even the goal. The goal is to minimize crime. The thing about crime whether it is stuff like speeding, tax invasion, shop lifting, or something serious, the chances of getting caught for a single crime is extremely low but if you continue to break the law then you will eventually get caught. This has two effects. Because people know they have a small chance of getting caught, they are less likely to speed, illegally park, etc... Combine that with the fact that most people who do continue to commit crimes eventually are locked up and you have a fairly stable society where you don't have gangs busting down your door to steal your TV every night.

    15. Re:Possible solution... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      GP is actually correct... Police are reactive, and unless you live next door to a busy police station, you can count on the lag time being greater than the time spent committing (individually) vast majority of crimes. In the vast majority of cases, it's about retribution (albeit justified retribution). At most, the protection is abstract (as in protection of society as a whole).

      The one and only person you can count on to protect you is... you.

      Now if you're a child or an invalid, your parents/family are supposed to fulfill that role as needed, but that's the only real exception.

      As for your challenge? I live in the middle of nowhere. We only have the county sheriff, and they cover a *lot* of ground given their small manpower complement. Therefore, we take it on ourselves to protect ourselves. The reason we're not inundated with criminals is because a) we live remotely, but most importantly b) all of us out here are armed, and have no compunction against bearing deadly force on anyone dumb enough to commit a crime against persons or property.

      Is it a perfect system? Of course not... but it's all we have, and IMHO, is still much preferable to living in a near- police/big-brother state that most densely-populated cities endure. In exchange for the freedom, we bear our own risks to an extent. *shrug*

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:Possible solution... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      They DON'T prevent crime.

      They prevent crime the same way that a single bullet in a revolver prevents people from wanting to play russian roulette. The odds of getting killed from russian roulette is pretty low on any given round but cumulatively it's not a game anyone wants to play.

    17. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are a pathetic troll.

    18. Re:Possible solution... by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      How bout someone comes to your house and busts the door down. What do you do, call the cops? They won't be there to stop the initial break in. They won't even SHOW UP for 10-20 minutes, at best. Some areas of the country have response times over an hour on reports of violent crime.

    19. Re:Possible solution... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I know you guys think you are safe living in your rural setting because criminals are afraid of your peashooters, but that isn't what keeps crime from you. It is the fact that you are so remote. Period.

    20. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logical fallacies today are: Fear-mongering Infantilzation.

    21. Re: Possible solution... by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      I'd think it's because you likely know a vast majority of the people in your area (at least superficially), and in the event that something happens by an outsider, they'd have a 30-60m drive to leave the county on the 1, possibly 2 highways out of town. I say that having lived in a place just like that.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    22. Re:Possible solution... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I already mentioned the remote location as a primary reason (though it doesn't seem to slow down the tourist traffic much...) But then, it works both ways - that remote location also means you (As a criminal) have *more time* to take what you want, and you can be sloppy about it, because really - who is gonna hear you do it - the guy living 1/2 mile away?

      So no, your argument falls flat... there is obviously something else keeping the criminals from being stupid.

      It's all about risk and reward, and even the most common criminal is usually smart enough to make that calculation. The motivation and higher firearm possession/skill count out in the sticks will almost always push the calculus in favor of staying in town.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    23. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small penis man thinks gun makes penis bigger.

    24. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I know, right? :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    25. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      No - because we still have crime, police don't PREVENT crime. They respond to crime. That IS logic.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    26. Re:Possible solution... by operagost · · Score: 1

      So not the cops and their peashooters, then?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Possible solution... by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      They made a serious of bad movies about this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Chances are, if you really don't like cops, then you are the problem. They're men and women who risk their life daily to enforce the laws. If you have a problem with the laws, then that isn't their fault they didn't write them, that's your politicians. Those assholes are fair game to hate. Hate the law and hate the asshole who passed it, not the cop.

    28. Re:Possible solution... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I think it's fair to say that they prevent SOME crime. Maybe even a LOT of crime.

      If there were no police there would be a lot more crime. Sure, we still have some crime (in the west crime is at historically low levels though) and the crime that does happen all the police CAN do is respond to it.

      I wouldn't want police who could arrest someone before a criminal act had occurred.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    29. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      whoa fellas, this guy not only punctuated with a period, he explicitly made a whole sentence with the word 'period'

      no sense with any more discussion, this means he's right and you're not

    30. Re:Possible solution... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some. But jail is also full of people who never thought they would get caught. Ergo, the "police" had zero influence on their choosing to commit a crime. Most people don't commit crimes because they were brought up properly, not because they're "afraid of the police". The police only have an effect on those borderline people who don't give a shit about anyone else but still care enough about themselves to not want to end up in jail. The sociopath doesn't give a shit, period. And decent human beings don't need police. in fact, lived many, many years without police. Police is a relatively NEW invention.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    31. Re:Possible solution... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Nope. YOU said that not me. Who do you think is going to protect you in your little suburban house? Your Mom? Stupid suburban white kids always say they hate the "pigs", but whenever there is a problem that is who they go crying to.

      Protect from who? Isn't this why you people won't let go of your guns, so you can protect yourself and all that?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    32. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... considering the fact we still have crime, it doesn't seem to be working too well now does it?

      Sooo, the solution is no police? There are areas of the world with effectively no police (and, for that matter, effectively no government). I assume you are from one of those areas and are espousing its virtues or are looking to move to one of those areas soon, yes?

      Also, how do you propose to stop crimes before they happen? Especially with no entity to enforce rules? For that matter, what evidence do you have that the presence of a police force does not prevent crime? Are there sociological studies that have been done comparing communities with police to those without that have found a lower incidence of crime in the community without police? Or are there real-world examples that show this benefit?

      Or are you willing to admit that, in a tantrum against both real and imagined failings of existing police forces, you resorted to a reactionary emotional response that offers no real solutions to any problems?

    33. Re:Possible solution... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Right. Tell you what: lets give your local police a day off. I give you three hours before you wet your pants.

      Do you call the police that often? Do you think that there are predatory packs of people just waiting for the chance to rape, murder and rob you at the first opportunity if only the mighty brave police force weren't standing guard to hold the savages back? Is that your world outlook?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    34. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same here :-)
      I live in a country that usually referred to as a 'shithole', too dangerous to go .
      Excellent, keeps americans out here ;-)

    35. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct, but police can and often do defend other civilians. Yes, they are really about justice and aggregate crime prevention, but they can and do stop crimes in progress and save people from others, and sometimes themselves.

    36. Re:Possible solution... by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      C'mon, stop posting the same lines over and over. This is just like when you go on your space nutter rants. Either you're a really dedicated troll or just plain fucking stupid. Maybe both.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    37. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the "pigs" that protect your chubby suburban white ass from getting killed? The police should take a break one day so you guys can find out how much your "life matters".

      Yup. Those pigs.

      Those pigs that also prevent the suburban white ass from cleaning house and finishing off the problems roaming our society.

      The pigs protect the criminals and their rights more than they do anything else.

    38. Re:Possible solution... by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Informative

      The main thing that makes crime in higher population areas so much more appealing than crime in remote locations is the anonymity that large populations afford.

      Someone driving up to your house in the remote location stands out like a sore thumb, everyone for miles might be looking at them wondering what they are up to and notice the exact make and model of the car/truck.

      In the city, not so much.

      The main deterrent to crime is not the prospect of punishment; its the prospect of being caught. In the case of your remote location, even if they get away with the goods, chances of being caught are much higher because their presence is more noticeable.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    39. Re:Possible solution... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Two kinds of people in jail:

      1) People who knew they had a risk and could end up in jail but considered the crime necessary for their own well being.
      2) People who were too full-of-themselves to think they would ever get caught.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    40. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. I know you guys think you are safe living in your rural setting because criminals are afraid of your peashooters, but that isn't what keeps crime from you. It is the fact that you are so remote. Period.

      Are you calling black people lazy?

    41. Re:Possible solution... by Falos · · Score: 1

      To a degree, there is probably a bit of protection afforded by the threat of retribution.

      That said crimes (particularly the "of desperation" types LEOs highlight) aren't committed with regard to "deterrence", which doesn't accomplish anything towards finding perps or helping victims, and definitely doesn't do anything about the real parasites of society, insulated behind lawyers and paper walls.

    42. Re:Possible solution... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      No one. Protection is a myth.

      I got a box of Trojans that says otherwise.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    43. Re: Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they'll dry-rot long before you'll ever get a chance to use any of them, his point stands.

    44. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always found this to be stupid nonsense. A gun is weapon. Men don't engage in combat with their dicks. A gun is a replacement for biceps, rocks, swords, etc., not dicks.

      Second, I know it makes you feel smart/superior when you put idiotic words into peoples mouths or stupid thoughts/motivations into their heads, but it doesn't really reflect reality. It does, however reveal something about your particular psychology.

    45. Re: Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mentioned guns, he didn't say the word gun or firearm once in his post. Yet you deemed it necessary to try to call him out on it. You sir are a fucking idiot.

    46. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is not the police which keep the general order, it is the overall decency of humankind as a whole and its desire to have order which does. I should be quite worried about the mental stability of any person who refrains from casual theft and murder exclusively because they fear being caught (Much as I fear for the stability of someone who states that their only reason for believing any crime is wrong is "because I think God said so.").

      Non-police outnumber the police thousands to one. Do you actually believe that, if the majority of people were inclined to madness, the police could stop them? No. The fact that anarchism is an altogether losing community strategy and has therefore been bred out of humanity over the eons is 95% of what keeps the order. That the very words to describe mass incivility - riot, chaos, madness - all have a connotation of mass insanity as well, should be proof enough.

      The only conditions under which people ARE inclined to mass incivility are those in which they are being abused and feel they have nothing to lose, or if the police are the ones leading it.

    47. Re:Possible solution... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The police, especially those involved in community policing like "beat cops" and even your average highway patrolman, does prevent crime. If you were inclined to mug an old lady for her purse and you knew Officer Friendly was just around the block, you'd probably be deterred.

      But yes, the police cannot stop all crime, and cannot often walk beats any more with population growth and funding issues.

      It isn't enough to end crime, but it *is* sufficient to prevent crime from happening with impunity. As soon as impunity rises, society is in real danger.

      So, no, the cops can't really stop one person or even ten from being raped or murdered, but they do prevent it from becoming all-out warfare. Losing the cops at current urban population densities would be an apocalyptic disaster for those areas.

    48. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone driving up to your house in the remote location stands out like a sore thumb, everyone for miles might be looking at them

      Slight problem with that theory: out in the boondocks, "everyone for miles around" is within statistial noise of "nobody".

    49. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's what we have the 2nd amendment for, no? If someone invades your home and you have good reason to fear for your life, well, sucks to be them.

      Just remember that you can't use deadly force to protect your property, only to protect yourself.

    50. Re:Possible solution... by dublin · · Score: 1

      The true purpose of police is to protect the rule of law. That means preventing crimes where possible, and bringing to justice those who are thought to commit crimes.

      Note that this latter function, which is arguably more important for the system at large, actually has the police protecting the criminals from the citizenry until the accused can be fairly tried and punished if found guilty. Protecting the citizenry from criminals is far harder, without any a priori knowledge of criminal intent.

      In any country with a properly functioning legal system, police maintain order by protecting both citizens and criminals from each other. When your police have SWAT tanks and you need protection from them, then the system is broken...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    51. Re:Possible solution... by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Going to them when there's a problem is when white people start to hate the cops too, the minorities don't get the luxury of initiating contact.

      I'm sure there's good cops, but even the good ones will lie to the public to make their life/job easier. From fooling the public into consenting to searches, to purjery because what they know and what they can prove are different things.

      As for protection, if they're so efficacious why do rich enclaves hire their own patrols?

    52. Re:Possible solution... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with that. I think my point is merely that it is possible for the cops to prevent crime, but as you say, they're also there to prevent the criminals from being targeted and having the country turn into a vendetta riven hellhole where justice is defined by who has the most friends and family with weaponry.

    53. Re: Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You smell like bacon...

    54. Re: Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from nerds? They're always aggressive (on the internet), always calling people names (on the internet), always throwing their hissy fits (on the internet) and then boast about their "technological weapons" that will "bring down the system". Then whenever they see a mall cop they shit their pants.

    55. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Two kinds of people in jail:

      1) People who knew they had a risk and could end up in jail but considered the crime necessary for their own well being. 2) People who were too full-of-themselves to think they would ever get caught.

      also, idiots. {apologies for slandering idiots, who may or may not have criminal intent) every day the newspaper is full of crime stories where the perpetrator gets caught because he has his name tattooed on his forehead, or drives around the corner and runs a red light, or tries to break down the door of a store which is actually open at the time, etc. etc. etc.. this is, of course, over and above the crimes of passion, drunken spousal murders, etc. where they act completely on impulse and then just stand there blankly until the police take them away.
      on a related note, the crimes the police have an effect on don't include the general white collar crimes, government corruption, etc. or course.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    56. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Who do you think is going to protect you in your little suburban house?

      No one. Protection is a myth.

      God will. and/or Jesus. Or maybe Satan, I suppose.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    57. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      No one. Protection is a myth.

      I got a box of Trojans that says otherwise.

      I wouldn't stake my safety on a product named after a bunch of soldiers who hid inside a vessel until it had penetrated the opposition, then burst outwards to do their job.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    58. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I live in a country you don't even dare visit. What you consider horrible crime I consider a normal day. But I'm happy here. Beats being a slave.

      But enough about Hell.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    59. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You really are a pathetic troll.

      Could he be speaking of Trollhattan? Are Saabs built by slaves?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    60. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      GP is actually correct... Police are reactive, and unless you live next door to a busy police station, you can count on the lag time being greater than the time spent committing (individually) vast majority of crimes. In the vast majority of cases, it's about retribution (albeit justified retribution). At most, the protection is abstract (as in protection of society as a whole).

      The one and only person you can count on to protect you is... you.

      Now if you're a child or an invalid, your parents/family are supposed to fulfill that role as needed, but that's the only real exception.

      As for your challenge? I live in the middle of nowhere. We only have the county sheriff, and they cover a *lot* of ground given their small manpower complement. Therefore, we take it on ourselves to protect ourselves. The reason we're not inundated with criminals is because a) we live remotely, but most importantly b) all of us out here are armed, and have no compunction against bearing deadly force on anyone dumb enough to commit a crime against persons or property.

      Is it a perfect system? Of course not... but it's all we have, and IMHO, is still much preferable to living in a near- police/big-brother state that most densely-populated cities endure. In exchange for the freedom, we bear our own risks to an extent. *shrug*

      Uh huh. Even many cop shows nowadays show the other side of policing; being out in the community, getting in touch with the citizens, getting a feel for what's happening, building relationships with everybody from grandmothers sitting in coffee shops to teenagers looking for random teenage thrills to hardcore gang members who view the right to defend their turf as just and noble, defusing tensions, investigating rumors, and generally doing preventive work.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    61. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I already mentioned the remote location as a primary reason (though it doesn't seem to slow down the tourist traffic much...) But then, it works both ways - that remote location also means you (As a criminal) have *more time* to take what you want, and you can be sloppy about it, because really - who is gonna hear you do it - the guy living 1/2 mile away?

      So no, your argument falls flat... there is obviously something else keeping the criminals from being stupid.

      It's all about risk and reward, and even the most common criminal is usually smart enough to make that calculation. The motivation and higher firearm possession/skill count out in the sticks will almost always push the calculus in favor of staying in town.

      Higher firearm possession/skill count? You shoot a lot of people out there do you guys?
      You can't simultaneously argue that the cities are full of heavily armed gangsters who will jump out at you when you least expect it, and also the people in the cities are just too unfamiliar with guns.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    62. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The main thing that makes crime in higher population areas so much more appealing than crime in remote locations is the anonymity that large populations afford.

      Someone driving up to your house in the remote location stands out like a sore thumb, everyone for miles might be looking at them wondering what they are up to and notice the exact make and model of the car/truck.

      In the city, not so much.

      The main deterrent to crime is not the prospect of punishment; its the prospect of being caught. In the case of your remote location, even if they get away with the goods, chances of being caught are much higher because their presence is more noticeable.

      Yeah, your neighbors 2 miles down the road are sitting watching who is at your door, whereas the retired grandparents on my block who sit and watch everything which moves, 24/7 are missing all the action.
      time was, I lived in a neighborhood of brownstones converted to 3 story apartment buildings, and my upstairs neighbor went out onto the back fire escape one day carrying his cat; and the police arrived ten minutes later, having gotten several calls from people across the alley concerned that he might be going to toss the cat off the fire escape. none of whom were visible from the outside, mind you.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    63. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      To a degree, there is probably a bit of protection afforded by the threat of retribution. That said crimes (particularly the "of desperation" types LEOs highlight) aren't committed with regard to "deterrence", which doesn't accomplish anything towards finding perps or helping victims, and definitely doesn't do anything about the real parasites of society, insulated behind lawyers and paper walls.

      imagine if the police came and hauled away some guy who had robbed thousands of people of hundreds or thousands of dollars each, for instance by selling them fake courses in a fake university where he guaranteed that supposedly hand picked faculty would teach them the skills that would make them wealthy and successful in business, none of which had any relation to the truth. just kidding, that wouldn't happen.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    64. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How bout someone comes to your house and busts the door down. What do you do, call the cops? They won't be there to stop the initial break in. They won't even SHOW UP for 10-20 minutes, at best. Some areas of the country have response times over an hour on reports of violent crime.

      that's why you live in the city, near the police station. frankly, having been in a situation where somebody did bust down my back door in the middle of the night, despite motion sensor lights, high quality deadbolts securely fastened to the wall studs, etc., it took them so long that the police got there a couple of minutes after the door finally gave way. So I had to fade into the woodwork for a grand total of 3 minutes. As it happens, they were armed with nothing more than a taser anyway, which is my luck. But even if we'd both been outfitted with military night vision goggles and AR15s, I was and am absolutely grateful to let the police deal with them rather than get involved in a firefight in my living room, as would be the case if the sheriff's office was in the county seat way down the road.

    65. Re:Possible solution... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Right. Tell you what: lets give your local police a day off. I give you three hours before you wet your pants.

      Do you call the police that often? Do you think that there are predatory packs of people just waiting for the chance to rape, murder and rob you at the first opportunity if only the mighty brave police force weren't standing guard to hold the savages back? Is that your world outlook?

      Oh, you know, the people the Mexican government sends here deliberately.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    66. Re: Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect them to be slightly above average when it comes to dispassionate, rational analysis. What you are describing doesn't sound like a nerd. It reads more like: typical human between the ages of 10-15 years.

    67. Re:Possible solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police ARE the consequences and are the ONLY thing giving criminals second thoughts about breaking into your suburban house and knocking you over the head.

      No what gives the criminals second thoughts about breaking into my home is the fact known by everyone around me is I have a 12 ga. and a 45 auto and I will shoot you and I am a VERY good shot. This is crime prevention.

      The other thread is correct the police only come after the fact. I have friends that are police and they will tell you the same thing. They can't "stop" crime.

  6. No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "While dogs like URL can't tell detectives if a device has electronic evidence on it"

    Where do you think we are, Facebook?

  7. Does it work? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Is this a voodoo divining rod, or an actually-useful tool? It's hard to tell in the field, with so much electronic stuff everywhere. The smell of electronics would be on everything, and the dog wouldn't be able to sniff out anything useful. There's also a ton of stuff everywhere, so you'd easily find stuff without the dog. Then there's the false-positive rate: if the dog looks somewhere but finds nothing useful, that's probably a thing that's going to happen anyway; if the dog keeps looking random places, because of earlier point, he's going to find a lot of random stuff.

    We know drug-sniffing dogs are bullshit.

    1. Re:Does it work? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, "we know" drug-sniffing dogs are "bullshit". Of course "we" do.

    2. Re:Does it work? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is this a voodoo divining rod, or an actually-useful tool? It's hard to tell in the field, with so much electronic stuff everywhere.

      Probably not Voodoo. I doubt that a dog would ever be brought in to sniff for thumb drives in general, but there was already a case building against Fogle, and they just were looking for corroborating evidence. As for the smell of electronics, hell I can smell them, so I'm certain that a dog will do just fine.

      The smell of electronics would be on everything, and the dog wouldn't be able to sniff out anything useful.

      Depends on who and when you are looking for something. Using Fogle's example, they are going to take every piece of electronic storage in the house and go over it as part of the criminal investigation. A false positive means nothing, they'll just move on to the next thing the doggo alerts at. Outside of a criminal investigation, the doggo probably won't ever be used - at least for that. There's just too many of the devices sitting around.

      I fear you might not know just how accurate some critter's sense of smell is.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Does it work? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      A voodoo divining rod is all you need for probable cause. Which is all you really need, if most of your department's income is from civil forfeiture.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Does it work? by waveclaw · · Score: 3, Informative
      Does it work? No. But that depends on your definition of "work."

      But Drug dogs work perfectly for law enforcement: they provide whatever answer the police want and the gullible public believe the dogs are infallible.

      I fear you might not know just how accurate some critter's sense of smell is.

      You might just not know how dogs behave.

      If search dogs work then the dog should be fine to hunt these without the handler there at all. Just let the dog search on his or her own.

      Search and rescue dogs work this way just fine every day. You let them go and they hunt down people easily that you or I cannot see or hear or smell.

      But any person who raises and breeds and trains dogs professionally knows the first and only thing a well trained dog wants is to please the handler. That's the definition of well and trained for a dog. Drug sniffing dogs are very well trained.

      In the hands of their handler a dog is just a dowsing rod for the man with the leash. Combine that with objects that conveniently fit in an officer's pocket and the long history of corrupt government officials. You shouldn't have plausible evidence. You should have plausible deniability. Yes, dogs are great at finding skunks or burnt joints you might be able to smell yourself. Not so much for things in air-tight closed containers on in piles of stuff that smells exactly like it.

      But like you demonstrate, most people don't know how dogs behave. (Or how to spot magical thinking.)

      Keep the handler away from the dog. Let it search on its own. Otherwise he or she is just a furry four-legged lie detector.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    5. Re:Does it work? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Does it work? No. But that depends on your definition of "work."

      But Drug dogs work perfectly for law enforcement: they provide whatever answer the police want and the gullible public believe the dogs are infallible.

      You might just not know how dogs behave.

      Um huh, give me the citations of exactly how dogs olfactory organs operate. And thanks, I'm always happy to be edumacated by an expert. Here's the thing. and this is what will happen.

      Doggo merely makes things a little easier. When the police have a warrant, they can tear your house, car, and life apart, ad they can make you shit through filter paper for a week in case you swallowed the thing and you will comply. Doggo not specifically needed. The police just keep hunting. they aready had probable cause, and any thumb drive Fogle might have had is just one more piece of evidence.

      And tell me, if the dog found the drive, but couldn't find the drive because dogs can't find the drives, then how did the dog find the drive? As noted before, the Police can turn your life and belongins upside down, so are you saying that they would have found the drive anyhow, the dog was completely superfluous, and they just brought the dog along for the lulz? Or are you saying they took their own kiddie porn of the exact girl that Fogle and hid buddy were yencing, and planted it on a drive that doggo pretended to find? Especially interesting since Fogle is suing the parents of said underage girl for creating a situation where she rebelled and became his girltoy. So what is your story, Alex? Please answer, because I really want to know how police wanted to find the exact kiddie porn Fogle had, that miraculously he didn't have before they apparently planted the evidence. This is getting pretty good here Alex. So keep digging,

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      >Um huh, give me the citations of exactly how dogs olfactory organs operate. And thanks, I'm always happy to be edumacated by an expert. Here's the thing. and this is what will happen.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html

      Apparently, what a dog smells is very much determined by if the handler wants to find something there or not.

      Is that link scientific enough for you?

    7. Re:Does it work? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I've owned two beagles now, not bright animals but I love them. They do not try to please me. The first picked up a taste for french fries. I kid you not, that dog could smell a french fry a block or two away. He would guide me a certain direction and sure enough awhile later I'd hear a munch. My second beagle is a total predator. When I first got him, at 2 in the morning I'd hear him baying at a tree. I'd try to get him to come in, but I'd go get a flashlight to check. There was always a rat peering back at me. He was never wrong. Even today at 12 years old, when I take him into fields he often will start baying and sure enough I spot a rat or rabbit around. I never underestimate a dog's nose anymore.

    8. Re:Does it work? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      >Um huh, give me the citations of exactly how dogs olfactory organs operate. And thanks, I'm always happy to be edumacated by an expert. Here's the thing. and this is what will happen.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html

      Apparently, what a dog smells is very much determined by if the handler wants to find something there or not.

      Is that link scientific enough for you?

      So what you are sayinng is that when the dog finds anything, the dog actually finds nothing, or else finds something that the handler knows is already there?

      What you are referring to in that "experiment" was a re-enactment of what is called the Clever Hans phenomenon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And yes, an animal can and often does take cues from a trainer of handler.

      Does it follow then that in 100 percent of cases, that the dog is taking a cue form the handler? As shown in the experiment, there were no actual positives. to be had!!! Please explain the scientific aspects of a test where it is impossible to have a positive identification? There was only false positives based on Clever Hans. This test, for whatever reason was designed to have the outcome that it had. Oddly enough, a little bit of Clever Hans in whoever was calling themselves researchers, it would seem. Therefore, the experiment was not remotely scientific, it was designed to implement the Clever Hans solution, exactly. You could use that to have the doggo count to 10 as well.

      Final answer - Nope - it's not scientific enough for me. It's something that was designed to have a specific result from the beginning.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Does it work? by meerling · · Score: 1

      I know in my place a dog like that would have a nervous breakdown from sensory overload! They'd have an easier time finding a square meter without electronics by going next door to my neighbors. I occasionally find lost flash drives in the drawers of my dresser, in my daughters doll house (what do you mean you don't know how daddys usb drive got in your dollhouse...), and pretty much everywhere else as well. In the couch cushions, under the pillow, behind the books, on top of the fridge, etc. We have those things all over. (lots of little ones, they were cheap and convenient to share files with friends) Of course there are also the DVDs and the CDs, and the hard drives, and stack of scraptops, and so many other 'detectable items'.
      That dog would be more worked up than an explosive sniffing dog in the bomb dump!

    10. Re:Does it work? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Dogs can be trained to alert to all kinds of things, but you still have to be careful since they are still dogs. At one of my bases, one of the dogs they had on the front gate kept giving alerts on people, but nothing inappropriate was found. They eventually figured it out. Whenever the dog was hungry, and he was a regular chowhound, he'd alert on any car that had food in it, and he'd scarf that while nosing around the inside of the vehicle. The dog outsmarted the handle, for a few weeks.

    11. Re:Does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this.

      back when i had longer hair, the dogs at the airport would hit on me every time. there was never anything there for them to smell, i wasn't smoking or into weed, i just had long hair.

      hair gets cut, dogs suddenly stop smelling drugs on me

      drug dogs and lie detector tests, fuck sakes.. just hook my cock up to the e-meter and i will piss for justice

    12. Re:Does it work? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Is this a voodoo divining rod, or an actually-useful tool? It's hard to tell in the field, with so much electronic stuff everywhere. The smell of electronics would be on everything, and the dog wouldn't be able to sniff out anything useful. There's also a ton of stuff everywhere, so you'd easily find stuff without the dog. Then there's the false-positive rate: if the dog looks somewhere but finds nothing useful, that's probably a thing that's going to happen anyway; if the dog keeps looking random places, because of earlier point, he's going to find a lot of random stuff.

      We know drug-sniffing dogs are bullshit.

      the combination of solder, plastics, and semen traces is unmistakable.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    13. Re:Does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it work? No. But that depends on your definition of "work."

      But Drug dogs work perfectly for law enforcement: they provide whatever answer the police want and the gullible public believe the dogs are infallible.

      I fear you might not know just how accurate some critter's sense of smell is.

      You might just not know how dogs behave.

      If search dogs work then the dog should be fine to hunt these without the handler there at all. Just let the dog search on his or her own.

      Search and rescue dogs work this way just fine every day. You let them go and they hunt down people easily that you or I cannot see or hear or smell.

      But any person who raises and breeds and trains dogs professionally knows the first and only thing a well trained dog wants is to please the handler. That's the definition of well and trained for a dog. Drug sniffing dogs are very well trained.

      In the hands of their handler a dog is just a dowsing rod for the man with the leash. Combine that with objects that conveniently fit in an officer's pocket and the long history of corrupt government officials. You shouldn't have plausible evidence. You should have plausible deniability. Yes, dogs are great at finding skunks or burnt joints you might be able to smell yourself. Not so much for things in air-tight closed containers on in piles of stuff that smells exactly like it.

      But like you demonstrate, most people don't know how dogs behave. (Or how to spot magical thinking.)

      Keep the handler away from the dog. Let it search on its own. Otherwise he or she is just a furry four-legged lie detector.

      any damn pet dog can, and usually will, spontaneously smell out a package containing a dozen hot dogs from any amount of random stuff, without the help of the owner.
      without too much trouble that same ability can be used by dogs to identify a package leaking any particular distinct aroma for which they have been trained, given enough of a motivation in the process of said training. Whether this ability can override a determined amount of concealment inside multiple layers vacuum packed bags which were all washed in solvents, etc. etc. is another matter, but it's not at all hard to train a dog to identify, for instance, the quintessential battered cardboard box full of weed without the handler's having to hint at it, whether in the middle of a conveyer belt of postal packages, or hidden in a house or airplane. After all, at some level of gaseous emissions a human being can sniff it out, obviously a dog could, and with their much better sense of smell (a human's receptor area is the size of a postage stamp; a dog's is the size of a handkerchief) it would seem likely they would be more sensitive. And it's faster and easier to let the dog do the searching.
      So it's not that the dog's indications are completely bogus. the possibility of bogus IDs based on the dog's response to the handler's possibly unconscious signals exists of course, but that's a matter of the quality of the training and the handling.
      the key is obviously to find a distinct scent for the dog to identify; even if you don't know what the dog is sensing.

    14. Re:Does it work? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      >Um huh, give me the citations of exactly how dogs olfactory organs operate. And thanks, I'm always happy to be edumacated by an expert. Here's the thing. and this is what will happen.

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html

      Apparently, what a dog smells is very much determined by if the handler wants to find something there or not.

      Is that link scientific enough for you?

      having done a tiny bit of tracking training with a dog, it's my somewhat educated impression that, although sometimes it's unmistakable, in many times the skill of the handler is involved, both interpreting the dog and also "working" it. For the tracking, the dog is equipped with a harness, not a collar, and is trained to pull pretty hard when on the scent. In the case of a sudden change of direction and/or a short loss of scent, the dog continues forward but less enthusiastically. It's up to the handler to notice this, try to ascertain whether the dog has lost the scent or it's just weakened, whether there should have been a turn back a few feet, etc. and generally act as a superego to the dog, via the lead. Similarly, in cases which are not clear cut, it's up to the handler to determine whether the search is over and the dog found something, or the dog has not found anything and the search continues, or the search is over and there is nothing to find.
      I note that the paper mentions "In addition, the experimenter was informed that three handlers admitted to overtly cueing their dogs to alert at the marked locations [!!!], suggesting that handlers would not call alerts unless and until they observe the dogs’ trained responses." (not sure it really suggests that), Also there was this weird time series thing they found, where there were a minimum of alerts on run 3 and a max on alert 6 (out of 8 runs per team). wonder what's up with that.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  8. URL is also known by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    as parallel construction.

    1. Re:URL is also known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tell that to its bitch. Upset, jealous dog is what you'll get.

    2. Re:URL is also known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as parallel construction.

      I'm on the fence with that, I'll explain.

      So let's say Jared's privacy was violated at some point before the warrant was issued.
      Apparently it was done in a way nobody can prove or disprove, which makes it ripe for conspiracy theories even when it doesn't happen.
      It could have been a secret informant, eavesdropping, something that's illegal or can't be disclosed etc, but almost always unprovable.

      Then somehow a judge was convinced to issue a search warrant. Ok, at this point I'm going to say you probably done fucked up somewhere if the police got this far with your case. If the reasons were utterly fabricated, why bother with the first step, just skip to this part.
      In parallel construction, the idea is there is an alternative, but legit reason to request a warrant. If it's an entirely made up reason, THATS the problem, not the secret snooping hat took place beforehand.

      Then there's the actual execution of a search warrant and finding evidence. Real hard to feel sorry for that outcome.

    3. Re:URL is also known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ends justify the means is what you're saying, right? So we shouldn't have any laws whatsoever since as long as it can eventually, at some point in the future, be proven that someone did something wrong, authorities should have a blank check to run roughshod over privacy laws and the constitution? Are you dense?

      The problem is that we have no checks or balances on what the authorities can do to go fishing if someone pisses them off. Sure, they might get lucky and get a juicy CP charge against someone they don't like, or they could just find out he bangs hookers on the weekend and pop him for that. Or, since laws don't seem to be an issue for you, they could just plant whatever they want on his computer/in his "cloud storage", since it can no longer be proven how they found out it was there. Do you honestly not understand why having laws to protect people's rights and due process is a good thing?

      Would you rather go back to the pre Magna Carta days where everyone is simply a subject of the reigning oligarch?

    4. Re:URL is also known by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      It depends on the terms of the search warrant, and why it was obtained.
      I can't find online details of the warrants in question.
      If the warrants were 'you can toss the place looking for porn' - based on other credible evidence then great - no problem.
      It seems unlikely on its face in this case that parallel construction was directly involved in the finding of the USB drive.
      (unless the warrant did not give them permission to toss the place, and they in fact did).

      It is an unusually great method of getting beyond the iniital bar of 'reasonable suspicion' if the officer has facts that he cannot rely on in court (for example, from extra-legal surveilance methods), if you can get (or claim) the dog indicated on the suspects vehicle, or ...

    5. Re:URL is also known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In parallel construction, the idea is there is an alternative, but legit reason to request a warrant.

      One of the problems with that is, they would not have known about that alternative, legal method, without their initial, illegal search. So what happens when the cops perform that initial, illegal search, and come up with nothing?

      If it could be guaranteed that some sort of severe penalty actually occurred for such illegal searches, I might be OK with this. Like, say, one million tax-free dollars, paid for out of the state budget, to the person who was illegally searched. Yes, that cost eventually goes back to us in the form of higher taxes, but then that is incentive to demand that our cops stop performing these illegal searches unless they are absolutely certain.

    6. Re:URL is also known by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is used when the police wish to conceal not just the details of a source, but the existence of a source. The textbook example of the 'legitimate' use is protecting informants. If you have an insider in a gang tell the police that Mr Mule is going to be transporting cocaine on Tuesday, and the police stop and search his car, then the rest of the gang are going to be pretty confident that they are compromised and start their internal security processes - which may involve requiring gang members to prove their loyalty with some violent criminal acts, and killing all who refuse. So the police might arrange an 'accidental' stop, like pulling him over for a minor traffic violation and bringing out the dog or having the officer claim he smelled pot. The police get their mule, and the gang leaders are none the wiser that a traitor lives among them.

      More cynically, it's also the best tool the police could ask for when it comes to covering up their own violation of the law. Warrantless searches, tip-offs from the intelligence services, threatening suspects to extract information. It's all easily hidden with parallel construction.

  9. You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) Having a flash card is not a crime
    2) Having a flash card concealed is not a crime
    3) Having a flash card concealed that contains porn is not a crime
    4) Possession of child porn is a crime. ...."Whether it’s child porn, terrorism intelligence, narcotics or financial crimes information, "...

    You make a blind false *blanket* accusation, which you then use to justify a blanket fishing expedition, which you occasionally catch a criminal.
    Your dog cannot sniff out child porn, terrorist intelligence, data on narcotics, or data on financial crimes. You just haven't been stopped in your random searches yet, and you hope by marketing this miracle dog the courts won't take action.

    Either:

    a) You are a liar doing blanket searches and occasionally catching someone.
    b) You are hiding parallel construction (i.e. being given evidence illegally obtained by mass surveillance and then using a dog to conceal the source of that evidence to fool the courts).
    c) You pick a victim and set the dog on them, this has been done in drugs cases where the dog is used to sniff around cars and signalled to give a bark which is then used as excuse to justify a search you already decided you wanted to make.

    I recall this:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/federal-court-rules-search-laptop-border-unreasonable/

    A Korean man was stopped at the border, his laptop cloned and searched for evidence while he was detained for hours (missing his flight).. 'on a hunch'. They had a hunch he might have data on illegal sales of exports.... on a hunch.... and lo and behold they found some evidence on that hunch.

    The court was not fooled and suppressed the evidence. There was no way an expensive forensic data search was done on a hunch. It was likely parallel construction to conceal a previous illegal hack or search.

    1. Re:You mean parallel construction by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "1) Having a flash card is not a crime
      2) Having a flash card concealed is not a crime"

      You wish. Though this was once true of cash, any bundle of money can now be presumed to be crime-related if the cops deem it profitable to make this declaration. Say goodbye to your Apple gear now under the same legal pretext.

    2. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c) You pick a victim and set the dog on them, this has been done in drugs cases where the dog is used to sniff around cars and signalled to give a bark which is then used as excuse to justify a search you already decided you wanted to make.

      This happens in airports in the UK, land-side. Guys under colour of law will walk up to you and walk a dog around you, saying, "I'm just walking the dog around you," before you even have the chance to question what they're doing. And what they're doing is getting the dog to sniff for drugs.

      Unlike an official search, these are not recorded, so you can pretty much guess what sort of person is targetted.

      Unfortunately, fruit is rarely regarded as of any poisonous tree in the UK, but this is one stage further. "We're not searching you - the dog's nose is!"

    3. Re:You mean parallel construction by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Informative

      As America (and let's be honest, other countries are turning total fascist as well) continues it's slide into making 1984 look like a freeman's paradise....

      Sad really

    4. Re:You mean parallel construction by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      Not always. Jared Fogle was suspected because the head of his charitable foundation had already been found with child porn and probably turned on Jared. I don't remember the story and too lazy to look it up. Anyway, they already suspected him when they got the valid warrant, and the dog was used to find his SD cards where he kept his stash of kiddy porn. As far as I know Fogle never tried to claim that he was framed or anything like that.

    5. Re:You mean parallel construction by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

      keep your pron on a Ipad that auto wipes after a few bad passwords and then the cops will have no case and make the password some like fuck / fuckoff / jackoff / pigs / etc. So you can I told them the password and they did not enter into my ipad the right way.

    6. Re:You mean parallel construction by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What sort of person is targetted? Because that happens to me at airports too. Happens to everyone. They aren't just looking for drugs, but also explosives. Here is a hint: they aren't out to "get you". You guys are paranoid. No one cares you smoke pot. Grow up.

    7. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Your dog cannot sniff out child porn, terrorist intelligence, data on narcotics, or data on financial crimes. You just haven't been stopped in your random searches yet, and you hope by marketing this miracle dog the courts won't take action.

      Don't be an idiot. Of course the dog isn't sniffing out porn, its been trained to sniff out the compounds used in the manufacturing of printed circuit boards.

    8. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When these sorts actually DO violate your rights...they are "out to get you".

      In their mind, you're either one of them...or a PERP. You've just not had the dubious joy of them taking things without a valid warrant or probable cause- I have.

      Enjoy your chains, slave.

    9. Re:You mean parallel construction by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Your rights? You are sitting in a private airport. Oh yeah, I am sure they are out to "get you" because they have nothing better to do. Another narcissist.

    10. Re:You mean parallel construction by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      So you can I told them the password and they did not enter into my ipad the right way.

      Yeah, you just try this... Good luck!

    11. Re:You mean parallel construction by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Your rights? You are sitting in a private airport.

      Airports are not private property.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:You mean parallel construction by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As America (and let's be honest, other countries are turning total fascist as well) continues it's slide into making 1984 look like a freeman's paradise....

      I think the real tragedy is that we're not even getting anything for being treated like criminals at all times, like stability or prosperity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:You mean parallel construction by operagost · · Score: 2

      You are hiding parallel construction (i.e. being given evidence illegally obtained by mass surveillance and then using a dog to conceal the source of that evidence to fool the courts).

      This. It would be quite easy for them to B&E, find the contraband via normal means, then return later and prompt the K9 to indicate toward the location of the evidence (which has been proven to happen in multiple studies).

      Maybe you don't deal drugs, distribute child porn, or steal identities. But do you want police freely rooting through your stuff, hoping to find something incriminating?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think you can get stability and prosperity from a police state under any circumstances. You get told that whatever you have is stability and prosperity, provided by the suppression of enemies internal and external.

      The saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" should be retired and replaced with "Mussolini made it dangerous to notice when the trains were late."

    15. Re:You mean parallel construction by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      1) . Though this was once true of cash, any bundle of money can now be presumed to be crime-related if the cops deem it profitable to make this declaration.

      Although I fundamentally believe it is wrong for a cop to think this way (without any other evidence to back it up), you can understand why cops could jump to the conclusion that wad of cash = crime.

      With the exception of older men, few people hold on to large amounts of currency in this day and age. 90% of people with a large wad of cash probably are criminals or engaging in criminal activity...

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:You mean parallel construction by hey! · · Score: 1

      People who haven't read 1984, or were forced to read 1984 in high school therefore none of it stuck in their brains, probably shouldn't use it as a metaphor.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:You mean parallel construction by camg188 · · Score: 1

      Don't be sad. The tide is turning. Laws are starting to get passed against forfeiture. We have the mechanisms in place to end these kind of practices.
      Please note that these laws are coming from state legislatures, not federal.

    18. Re:You mean parallel construction by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      I have read that piece of garbage...

    19. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many airports are privately owned. In fact, huge numbers are privately owned. Big ones, no, but smaller ones are very commonly private. I fly out of one. No, we're not talking about somebody with a grass strip in a farm field either.

    20. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with a "large wad of cash" is that "large" has been getting smaller and smaller. Some people are carrying around a few hundred dollars, literally, and the cops will seize it knowing that the person can't fight it affordably. Myself, I got $400 out of the ATM the other day, that's seizable. Yes, I have proof where it came from but going to court ain't worth it. Google around for texas vs. gold crucifix.

    21. Re:You mean parallel construction by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Many airports are privately owned. In fact, huge numbers are privately owned.

      We're not talking about little rural airfields where crop-dusters fly.

      We're talking about airports that handle commercial air traffic. The only US airport that is privately owned where you can catch a commercial passenger flight is Branson, and they've been so unprofitable that they're going to go municipal shortly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:You mean parallel construction by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Your rights? You are sitting in a private airport. Oh yeah, I am sure they are out to "get you" because they have nothing better to do. Another narcissist.

      Well they are out to get *someone*. They have quotas to fill. Even if its just pulling someone in for a detailed search and they don't find something, this makes their monthly 'balance' sheet look better.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    23. Re: You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The echo chamber here, is getting completely ridiculous.

    24. Re:You mean parallel construction by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "No one cares you smoke pot."

      Police care. Pot is valuable to them in two ways: First, it's easy and low-risk arrests and convictions. No years-long court fights or expensive hundred-officer investigations to infiltrate and bring down a gang. Just criminal, clear physical evidence, officer testimony, and usually a plea bargain or an open-and-shut case. Secondly, it's a route towards something they can seize assets on if they find a distributor. Money, cars, even entire houses.

      Yet, for all their enforcement efforts and jails crammed far over their designed capacity with non-violent drugs offences, it's still readily available. It's really hard to ban a substance for which the raw ingredients are just seeds and soil.

    25. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, the government looks like a lot of crude amateurs in that dystopia. Look at the movie "Brazil": same problem.

      But then you can't blame Orwell or Gilliam for having to predict 70 or 30 years of history. "1984" being published in 1949 is actually pretty good. It had underestimated the technical developments, sure. But the political ones are getting there, partly because the technology allows doing this a lot less obvious, so the totalitarian government enabled by total surveillance and media control can work a lot more subtly than Orwell envisioned it.

    26. Re:You mean parallel construction by lgw · · Score: 2

      You have the constitutionally-protected right against searches by the government without a warrant. There's no "except on private property" there. There's no "unless we're scared" there. The TSA is wholly unconstitutional, always has been, where private contractors doing the same thing were OK. Searches to enter a courthouse are wholly unconstitutional.

      But no one cares any more. We even get trolls like this asshole arguing it's a good thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:You mean parallel construction by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Sometimes oppressive regimes can keep the peace though. Look at Iraq: A country packed with different religious/cultural factions that loathed each other, but kept in check by a brutal dictator. People could live there and go about their lives in safety, so long as they steered clear of politics and didn't take up any campaign against government policy. Then the coalition steps in, removes the dictator and most of the regime he managed, and what happened? Chaos, civil war, years of terrorist attacks so common the world media barely bothered to mention them after a while.

    28. Re:You mean parallel construction by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest error in 1984 was failing to recognise the role of the private sector. Government and business interests can easily work together to mutual advantage, and that is not always to the advantage of the people.

    29. Re:You mean parallel construction by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      People who buy used cars and shop at garage sales routinely carry from a few hundred to a few thousand around with them for such business. Even the least of these amojnts is now up for grans.

    30. Re: You mean parallel construction by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The echo chamber here, is getting completely ridiculous.

      If you can scrape up a justification, any justification at all, for civil forfeiture, please enlighten us.

    31. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparisons to 1984 are misused more than comparisons to Hitler these days.

    32. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're wrong. Switzerland is a benign police state. By law (not enforced), you must carry ID and even citizens must carry cash to cover emergencies.
      The coppers are all armed, all the time. The laws (not all enforced) are strong enough to put anyone away that they want.
      And I can tell you, Joe, my Swiss hosts certainly enjoy stability and prosperity the likes of which you have not lived with yourself.

      Surfing on a wave of illegal money helps a lot, but it's still a police state...

    33. Re:You mean parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a smarmy little cunt aren't ya?

    34. Re:You mean parallel construction by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      1) Having a flash card is not a crime 2) Having a flash card concealed is not a crime 3) Having a flash card concealed that contains porn is not a crime 4) Possession of child porn is a crime. ...."Whether it’s child porn, terrorism intelligence, narcotics or financial crimes information, "...

      You make a blind false *blanket* accusation, which you then use to justify a blanket fishing expedition, which you occasionally catch a criminal. Your dog cannot sniff out child porn, terrorist intelligence, data on narcotics, or data on financial crimes. You just haven't been stopped in your random searches yet, and you hope by marketing this miracle dog the courts won't take action.

      Either:

      a) You are a liar doing blanket searches and occasionally catching someone. b) You are hiding parallel construction (i.e. being given evidence illegally obtained by mass surveillance and then using a dog to conceal the source of that evidence to fool the courts). c) You pick a victim and set the dog on them, this has been done in drugs cases where the dog is used to sniff around cars and signalled to give a bark which is then used as excuse to justify a search you already decided you wanted to make.

      I recall this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...

      A Korean man was stopped at the border, his laptop cloned and searched for evidence while he was detained for hours (missing his flight).. 'on a hunch'. They had a hunch he might have data on illegal sales of exports.... on a hunch.... and lo and behold they found some evidence on that hunch.

      The court was not fooled and suppressed the evidence. There was no way an expensive forensic data search was done on a hunch. It was likely parallel construction to conceal a previous illegal hack or search.

      "Your honor, the terms of usage clearly state that I do not own this child porn, I merely have a license to use it".

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    35. Re:You mean parallel construction by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can get stability and prosperity from a police state under any circumstances. You get told that whatever you have is stability and prosperity, provided by the suppression of enemies internal and external.

      The saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" should be retired and replaced with "Mussolini made it dangerous to notice when the trains were late."

      No, in a "benevolent" totalitarianism, you do get stability and prosperity, at the cost of 1) a good chance of being punished for dissent and 2) a smaller chance of being punished randomly with the excuse of dissent. This might overall be a better bargain than instability and chaos; Iraq pre and post "liberation" being the perfect example.
      In a "bad" totalitarianism, you pay the price without getting the benefit of a secure life, so there's really not much reason not to rebel
      this is not dissimilar to the frequently analogized situation of the sheep, where the flock is pretty safe at the cost of one of them getting eaten every now and then. Or the lesser known model of a society where everybody is happy and content, at the cost of a single small child who lives in continuous torture.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    36. Re:You mean parallel construction by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      People who haven't read 1984, or were forced to read 1984 in high school therefore none of it stuck in their brains, probably shouldn't use it as a metaphor.

      1984... that was the reagan administration, right?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    37. Re:You mean parallel construction by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      1) . Though this was once true of cash, any bundle of money can now be presumed to be crime-related if the cops deem it profitable to make this declaration.

      Although I fundamentally believe it is wrong for a cop to think this way (without any other evidence to back it up), you can understand why cops could jump to the conclusion that wad of cash = crime.

      With the exception of older men, few people hold on to large amounts of currency in this day and age. 90% of people with a large wad of cash probably are criminals or engaging in criminal activity...

      don't remember what tv show it was, (True Crime?) but last year, they had the cops nab some guy with a suitcase full of money; they count it and the one cop says "damn, it's just under the limit for automatic forfeiture on suspicion of blah blah blah" so the other cop reaches in his pocket, pulls out a twenty and tosses it into the suitcase,, says "You sure? count it again"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    38. Re:You mean parallel construction by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Not always. Jared Fogle was suspected because the head of his charitable foundation had already been found with child porn and probably turned on Jared. I don't remember the story and too lazy to look it up. Anyway, they already suspected him when they got the valid warrant, and the dog was used to find his SD cards where he kept his stash of kiddy porn. As far as I know Fogle never tried to claim that he was framed or anything like that.

      so it's nothing to do with the sandwiches then? ok, maybe i'll go back to subway.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  10. eeuh no.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a porn sniffing dog...please, stop parroting crap that other parrots say. It can sniff out the chemicals/materials used in storage devices.

  11. Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    It wouldn't matter. Police dogs "alert" (sit down, or scratch, or something - anything the dog does can be an "alert") whenever and whenever the handler wants them too.

    In one test, the researchers told the cops they wanted to test the dogs. They set up eights cans and told the handlers "there are drugs in can #1 and can #4, let's see how the dogs do". The dogs consistently alerted on can #1 and can #4. The drugs were in #6 and #8 - the officer's expectations matter more than where the contraband actually is.

    See also:

    http://illinoistimes.com/artic...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    1. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So they're basically polygraphs on 4 legs with fur?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So they're basically polygraphs on 4 legs with fur?

      It's much worse than that.

      Polygraph evidence is not readily admissible in court. Dog noses on the other hand...

    3. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A dog is easier to influence and does not have to be attached to a suspect. So for the police dogs beat polygraphs 9 out of 10 times.

    4. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dogs have been selectively bred, if unintentionally, to pick up on human signals. They are very, very good at it. They are among the few animals who are able interpret hand signals, and they know what pointing means without even needing training. They can follow a human gaze with ease. They can react to slight shifts in position of speed of motion that no human notices, including the person making them.

    5. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point. If everything the dog touches is now a trigger, just how effective from a legal in court standpoint, is 'URL'.

      Can you say any evidence tossed from the start?

    6. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

      I thought that It's what the dog actually found that was admissible in court as evidence, not the dogs opinion of what might be found.

    7. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dogs have been selectively bred, if unintentionally, to pick up on human signals. They are very, very good at it. They are among the few animals who are able interpret hand signals, and they know what pointing means without even needing training. They can follow a human gaze with ease. They can react to slight shifts in position of speed of motion that no human notices, including the person making them.

      Yup. I fully expect that the search proceeded by telling the suspect that they had a USB-drive sniffer here, and the USB-drive sniffing dog then took to its business while the suspect watched. Whether the information available to the dog was also filtered through its handler watching the suspect is a detail: dogs can pick up a human reaction before the human itself is actually aware of it. In that respect it may not act as much as a polygraph than as a dowsing rod: it doesn't actually do anything by itself but provides a focus for the handler's subconscious reaction.

    8. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Basically it's both. The search would be illegal without due process, which typically requires something other than a hunch. The dog's "nose" is used to meet due process but in reality while the dog may have a fantastic nose, he's just using his sense of reading commands from his handler.

    9. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So it's just the Clever Hans effect?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    10. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by dublin · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has ever hunted with a really good bird dog knows how true this is... That incredible nose is useful, for sure, but it's really only a part of what makes dogs great at finding things. The best dog I've ever had (a Springer Spaniel) would sometimes (if she wasn't bounding up over the grass to see for herself) take her last cue of where the bird fell from where I was looking, since I'm taller. The work between hunter and a good bird dog is incredible teamwork - I learned to keep my gaze on the spot of the fall for an extra second so that she could process that along with what she saw herself - then she was stamping her feet waiting for me to tell her, "Back!" so she could go and retrieve.

      Dogs *really*, *really* want to please their masters, so I'm pretty skeptical that all these search dogs are really doing the work entirely on their own and not picking up (even subconcious) signals from their owners/trainers.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    11. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter. Police dogs "alert" (sit down, or scratch, or something - anything the dog does can be an "alert") whenever and whenever the handler wants them too.

      In one test, the researchers told the cops they wanted to test the dogs. They set up eights cans and told the handlers "there are drugs in can #1 and can #4, let's see how the dogs do". The dogs consistently alerted on can #1 and can #4. The drugs were in #6 and #8 - the officer's expectations matter more than where the contraband actually is.

      See also:

      http://illinoistimes.com/artic...

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      don't know about that, but.. the estimate of police dogs' efficacy suffers from the obvious flaw of all such evaluations; you never know how many people don't get caught. Could be they only catch 1% of the targets. And as your example points out, estimates from experiments can never be 100% certain to replicate actual real life numbers.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    12. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      So they're basically polygraphs on 4 legs with fur?

      It's much worse than that.

      Polygraph evidence is not readily admissible in court. Dog noses on the other hand...

      see also the recent revelations over "hair identification" in court.
      even in things like fingerprint or dna identification, although the underlying physical situation might be individually identifying, in real life of course the analysts only identify a few key features, they don't really do an overlay of the suspect's prints over what was found on the crime scene and get an absolute identical line by line match, like on crime TV shows.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    13. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Dogs have been selectively bred, if unintentionally, to pick up on human signals. They are very, very good at it. They are among the few animals who are able interpret hand signals, and they know what pointing means without even needing training. They can follow a human gaze with ease. They can react to slight shifts in position of speed of motion that no human notices, including the person making them.

      people with dogs or with close friends who have dogs can always tell you stories about the dogs picking up the message that you're going to take them out or conversely you're going to go to the vet before you move or say anything; related is their ability to recognize people they know approaching the door by their individual footsteps, before a human can even detect any footstep at all. I wonder if we would have the same abilities if we hadn't diverted a lot of them to language processing, to serve a similar function. I suspect yes.
      even cats get to recognize when a trip to the vet is coming and make themselves scarce.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    14. Re:Wouldn't matter, the dog is just an excuse by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Quite possible. The handler might be glancing at places that look good for hiding devices.

  12. What kind of dog is it?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to read the submission twice to determine it's actually talking about a real dog and not a bunch of snarky metaphors for porn scanning software that reads USBs.

    1. Re: What kind of dog is it?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Came here to say this also, but you beat me too it. You're not alone. We fell for the shitty click bait.

  13. Catchy name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they would have called their porn sniffing dog PornHound, but that name was already taken. URL is a bit weak.

  14. NAND gates smell different in Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeh, the dog can tell the difference between a NAND gate in a flash card and a NAND gate in.... wait.... that's bollocks, the dog just smells electronics. All digital chips, it has no way of telling even Flash from other devices.

    IT CANNOT EVEN NARROW IT DOWN TO STORAGE DEVICES.

    There's nothing special about a flash card vs any other electronic/plastic device. The odors are not different, the dog cannot tell transister schema using its nose!

    This is "lie detector" level scam used to justify blanket searches.

    1. Re:NAND gates smell different in Flash? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Which means that in my apartment they would be busy for a week because I have stuff all over the place.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:NAND gates smell different in Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is "lie detector" level scam used to justify blanket searches.

      Your hypothesis seems pretty implausible to me. If the police have a warrant to search for child porn, that's already justification for a "blanket search" of anywhere a flash drive could be stashed. If the dog thing actually works, it's just a more efficient way of finding those little drives.

  15. Awesome! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now I can finally find out what device my porn is on and what contains my presentation! It's always so embarrassing to plug in that USB stick and hear my boss mutter "Say, didn't we see that last week... no wait, that was last night..."

    Unfortunately the subject line is as usual completely bogus and the dog simply finds electronic devices. Which is essentially useless. Yes, you might find the odd hidden USB device, but since it's not the device but its content that is "dangerous" when found, criminals will adapt and store incriminating evidence off site and encrypted.

    So what is that story, essentially? A heads-up for criminals?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the subject line is as usual completely bogus and the dog simply finds electronic devices. Which is essentially useless.

      How can you call that useless? Say you're executing a search warrant on a child porn suspect. How can you be sure you've found all the electronic media (which can be pretty tiny) in his cluttered home? I think the usefulness of this is pretty obvious.

  16. How easy it would be to... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... a police officer decides that he does not like your face and "magically" find a hidden USB drive in your luggage in places where you would never think of putting one? Where I live no one trusts the police (for good reason), and if the possession of something small and easy to plant as a USB stick becomes a crime so will be even more reason for me to avoid the US as one avoids a city infested by ebola.

    P.S: No, I not a international terrorist or something like that (only the Dark Lord of Hell, but this is not a crime right?). But I'm not willing to test my chances facing a TSA gorilla and ruin my vacation because he had not liked my face.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:How easy it would be to... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Doughnuts are best enjoyed in moderation, that leaves cops with plenty of free time

    2. Re:How easy it would be to... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      I'd rather eat donuts than protect "TheDarkMaster" sitting in his Moms basement.

    3. Re:How easy it would be to... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I see what they say here on Slashdot about you being a rude jerk is very well deserved. No my dear moron, I'm not narcissistic. I'm just another person worried about being accused of crimes for not obeying like a puppy the commands of a person who usually is in a powertrip or who simply did not like my face. Now go back to your basement okay? Since your rude behavior shows that it is you who can not live out of a basement.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    4. Re:How easy it would be to... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      not "you" or "me". But "somebody". That somebody usually isn't "you" or "me", but someday it just might happen that you or me is the poor bastard that that some cop in a bad mood thinks is in need of a "lesson". The sad thing is that this behavior isn't just seen in some corrupt third world countries anymore. Or how would you call that "rough ride" thing that hit news a while ago.

      Or to quote "Broken Arrow": I don't know if it's more shocking that it happens or that it is so common that there is an actual name for it.

      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re:How easy it would be to... by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 1

      Well... No one cares about you, until THEY DO. Like a lot of people, it's not my problem so who cares.. Until it IS my problem..

    6. Re:How easy it would be to... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      The 110010001000 is just yet another asshole, just ignore him. He lives into a fantasy world.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    7. Re:How easy it would be to... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Just ignore him, he is too stupid to understand the implications.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    8. Re:How easy it would be to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats just a way americunts have to get you to buy their stuff, you will need to get an apple laptop so no one will beleive the usb drive is yours because your laptop has not enough connectors to reasonably imply you actually use it, since the thing has like, what, one port? half a port? no ports at all?

      i tell you is all a conssspiracy

    9. Re:How easy it would be to... by operagost · · Score: 1

      0xc88 thinks nothing he ever does could possibly arouse suspicion. Or that he could never have an obsessed enemy in a position of authority.

      Or he's just a compulsive troll. Either one.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:How easy it would be to... by PPH · · Score: 1

      USB drives are illegal in your country?

      I imagine that, because of the false positive rates of using a dog for random searches, they already have cause to search you, your house or luggage for porn. So, bring in the dog. It's going to find a sh*t-load of innocent USB drives, SD cards and other assorted memory devices in my house. None of which contain contraband in my case. But it's going to find all (most?) of them. And then they'll check them and find out that all I have is vacation pictures and bootable Linux images. At the neighborhood perv's house, they'll likely find his kiddie porn stash.

      Sure, one could claim that the cops planted the USB stick on you. And in some countries, if they "don't like your face" that's a possibility. But then they wouldn't need a dog to "find" it either. Here, they would already have traced your porn downloads from the TOR exit node. And finding that USB stick in your mason jar just undermines your possible defense that someone parked in front of your house and used your open WiFi.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:How easy it would be to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all likelihood your problem would be with Customs and Border Patrol, not the TSA. The TSA is doing searches for security contraband, not general contraband. If you were to get hassled on entry to exit, it would be CBP. They're also much more detailed if they do bother to search you.

    12. Re:How easy it would be to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the possession of something small and easy to plant as a USB stick becomes a crime

      It's already a crime, as is the possession of illegal narcotics. Some cops around here actually carry drugs with them for the purpose of planting on people. I've heard anecdotes of hackers who put child porn on an enemy's hard drive and then called the cops. This is why possession crimes are stupid.

    13. Re:How easy it would be to... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      let's be more specific. The problem I'm seeing on the issue is that it leaves open the possibility that the mere possession of an USB stick would be reason to suspicion, and if the police wants you to be "suspect" would be simple to him put some crime evidence inside your pendrive or exchange it for another. In fact it does not have virtually nothing to do with the subject of the topic (flash drive sniffing dogs), which have to do is what the police will do with them.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    14. Re: How easy it would be to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I killfile this troll? Every one ofvtheir comments is laced with ad-homineum.

    15. Re: How easy it would be to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple laptop has a cloud. And you will like using it!!

    16. Re:How easy it would be to... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It would actually be slightly amusing, in a twisted way, to see the police search my storage. There's no CP (Though plenty of regular porn and copyright infringement), but the sheer quantity and complexity would bog down the digital forensics team for years. Some of it is stored in a filesystem of my own design, some of it is in an IPFS MerkleDAG. I run a crawler than auto-archives and sorts images from a number of sites, so I'm in the millions now - they'd have to look at each and every one to be sure there isn't something hidden in there. Most of it is duplicated two or three times as part of the backups.

      They might plant something just so they can get the case finished within a reasonable time.

    17. Re:How easy it would be to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a police officer decides that he does not like your face and "magically" find a hidden USB drive in your luggage in places where you would never think of putting one? Where I live no one trusts the police (for good reason), and if the possession of something small and easy to plant as a USB stick becomes a crime so will be even more reason for me to avoid the US as one avoids a city infested by ebola..

      Why are you talking about random searches and usb possession being a crime when none of those are even hinted at in the real story? The police can use these dogs when executing a search warrant for child pornography. Even then they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by "planting" a usb drive laden with porn on you.

    18. Re:How easy it would be to... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Implications, implications... In this case the dog would be just another way to accuse you of having a "suspicious pendrive", as another Slashdotter noted the dog's reaction needs to be interpreted by the police and this can interpret what he wants when his goal is to plant a false proof. And for reasons? Well, a fascist not need a lot of reasons. You do not having the correct skin color and the right clothes can be reason enough for him.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    19. Re:How easy it would be to... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume this is about the poster.... maybe you are someone, running for Mayor. Or perhaps own a company bidding on a large construction contract.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    20. Re: How easy it would be to... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      How do I killfile this troll? Every one ofvtheir comments is laced with ad-homineum.

      Use Slashdot's "Enemy" feature to give him an automated down-mod. As I recall it can be as much as a -5 down-mod. It requires you to be signed in.

      110010001000 is a very angry little boy. He has never denied he was touched inappropriately as a child.

    21. Re:How easy it would be to... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      ... a police officer decides that he does not like your face and "magically" find a hidden USB drive in your luggage in places where you would never think of putting one? Where I live no one trusts the police (for good reason), and if the possession of something small and easy to plant as a USB stick becomes a crime so will be even more reason for me to avoid the US as one avoids a city infested by ebola. P.S: No, I not a international terrorist or something like that (only the Dark Lord of Hell, but this is not a crime right?). But I'm not willing to test my chances facing a TSA gorilla and ruin my vacation because he had not liked my face.

      uh, any cop or customs inspector or anybody similar anywhere can always plant something on anybody. the health inspector can plant a dead mouse in the restaurant kitchen. the traffic cop can attest to your dangerous driving. for that matter, your boss can always claim you suck at work. you are always at the mercy of the honesty of authority figures.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    22. Re:How easy it would be to... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      not "you" or "me". But "somebody". That somebody usually isn't "you" or "me", but someday it just might happen that you or me is the poor bastard that that some cop in a bad mood thinks is in need of a "lesson". The sad thing is that this behavior isn't just seen in some corrupt third world countries anymore. Or how would you call that "rough ride" thing that hit news a while ago.

      Or to quote "Broken Arrow": I don't know if it's more shocking that it happens or that it is so common that there is an actual name for it.

      you guys see that video a month or two ago of the black woman getting stopped by a traffic cop? after the usual license and registration, she says she isn't going to answer any more of his questions. "You are required to answer my questions!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" so he decides to arrest her. And, of course, what is the first thing he says while arresting her? "You have the right to remain silent"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  17. Note to operatives by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Before deploying a "porn finding" dog, make sure to leave your collection in the police car.
    The last thing you'd want to happen is the dog detects your thumb drive, or your phone - which given it's proximity is much more likely.

    Or, worse: it detects your supervisor's phone / tablet / sd-card which then has to be taken in as evidence.

    Yes, I know this mutt only detects residual fumes off electronics - if it actually "detects" anything at all that it's not pointed at. But the possibility of it grassing up its owner is too amusing.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Note to operatives by HBI · · Score: 2

      You'd think a porn sniffing dog might detect the faint scent of jizz on the usb sticks. Would probably start hitting on the cop's crotch and hand.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Note to operatives by swb · · Score: 1

      I was kind of wondering if that was part of the training protocol.

      Ideally they would have a collection of actual child porn storage devices minimally handled by third parties during evidence collection. It wouldn't surprise me at all if these had some unique scent profile identifiable to dogs, possibly due to either semen from masturbation or from arousal pheromones accumulated during repeat handling while sexually stimulated.

      A scent cocktail comprised of bodily fluids, pheromones and electronics might actually be more useful than just electronics themselves, at least if you were specifically targeting child porn.

      My guess, though, is that cops probably see some broader utility in finding portable electronic media generally, and dogs trained for this could be used in tax investigations or other types of things where hidden information is involved but sexuality isn't. I mean, "think of the children" is the excuse, rousting anybody is the real rationale.

  18. Oh, the headlines of old media by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    Ye olde "main stream" media and their headlines.
    I thought you were dead.

  19. Humph by DougOtto · · Score: 2

    Man's best friend, my ass. Hahahaha

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    1. Re:Humph by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Your ass is not man's best friend. Don't be narcissistic.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Humph by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Your ass is not man's best friend. Don't be narcissistic.

      not so fast. some donkeys are as good as dogs.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  20. URL or Url? by Comboman · · Score: 2

    I assume the dog's name is pronounced "Earl" and not "You-Are-El" so it probably shouldn't be all caps (unless his name is actually "Uniform Resource Locator" which actually would be clever since he locates "resources" for people in uniforms).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:URL or Url? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume it's pronounce "Earl"? You know how I know you didn't read the SECOND SENTENCE of the story summary?

    2. Re:URL or Url? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      it's slashdot. nobody reads the articles, few even read the summary.

    3. Re:URL or Url? by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

      Given this quote from the story: "He actually found a USB that was in this jar that was closed, and the jar was in a box, and the box had stuff in it. The jar itself had stuff in it."

      If the dog's name is pronounced "Earl" then I'd guess what he found would be pronounced "uhhhsb".

      --
      My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
    4. Re:URL or Url? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of naming a dog "Uniform Resource Locator"

      Since he's a police dog that's almost a pun. He's working for the uniforms and he's a "resource locator".

    5. Re:URL or Url? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      it's slashdot. nobody reads the articles, few even read the summary.

      most people apparently don't even read what they are posting.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  21. It is about sniffing the hand who touched them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i do not think dogs are smelling the pron, but the dirty hands that touched the drives.

  22. Finally! by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    dogs in the United States that hunt the unique chemical compounds emitted from flash drives, memory cards, cell phones, iPads and other similar devices.

    Now the police have no excuse to avoid helping out with lost/stolen cell phones. (Ha ha, just kidding, no profit in doing that).

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  23. Encryption? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    It's like they don't know how to encrypt things.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  24. Finally, a way to find my porn by mveloso · · Score: 1

    I have terabytes of storage, and it's impossible to find anything. Can I borrow that dog for a day or so?

  25. Meet Porn the URL-sniffing bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that's a power couple.

  26. Meet URL... THe URL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weber County Sheriff's office... meet URL... The hyperlink that allows people to download data from somewhere else on the planet's surface.

    Is the USA really full of clueless "hillbilly" cops as portrayed on the Dukes of Hazard etc. ?

  27. Not my vacation maybe by phorm · · Score: 2

    About the average slashdot user, this is true they most likely don't care at all.
    But how about:
    * Somebody who they suspect is a criminal but they haven't been able to find real evidence of a crime
    * (key) members of protest groups
    * Reporters who cover stories they don't like
    * Informants to reporters
    * Pretty much anyone else they don't like, or - as the OP said - "he had not liked my face"

    Now maybe it's not your face they don't like, but the fact that they were already having a pissy day and you decided to be firm in your choice to go for the pat-down rather than get backscatter X-rayed, or whatever other things sets off they "you do not respect my authoritay" vibe...

  28. New cars and unboxing videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better keep that dog away. The smell will give him a heart attack.

  29. Hide it in the haystack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1 blend some USB drives
    2 sprinkle USB dust everywhere
    3 PROFIT

  30. Better solution... by camg188 · · Score: 1

    Encryption.

    Problem solved.

    1. Re:Better solution... by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      It solves one problem but creates many more since case law isn't settled on if you have a right to be silent regarding encryption keys.

    2. Re:Better solution... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It solves one problem, but creates others. For one, refusing to decrypt your stick is strong evidence you are up to no good - not proof in itsself, but more than enough to turn a jury. Many countries also have laws by which police can compel you to supply the keys, with refusal an imprisonable offence.

    3. Re:Better solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law enforcement operates consistently with the end justifies the means method.
      If they find an encrypted drive they will be convinced that you are guilty of whatever they are looking for that day.
      Once they are convinced of it they are not beyond planting evidence to get you off the streets.
      Encrypting your drive only means that the law enforcement will find two drives, one encrypted and one "that you didn't have time to encrypt yet due to their timely intervention".

    4. Re:Better solution... by tbuddy · · Score: 1

      Just a matter of time before the dogs get smart enough to break encryption.

    5. Re:Better solution... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It really depends on the local laws. In the UK you can get two years in jail if they can show that you know the key and are just holding out. Two years is preferable to many more years and a lifetime on the sex offenders register for paedophiles, or a lifetime in jail for terrorists.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  31. box, maybe? by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "He actually found a USB that was in this jar that was closed, and the jar was in a box, and the box had stuff in it. The jar itself had stuff in it."

    Maybe, just maybe, he didn't smell the USB flash drive that was in a closed jar inside a box. Maybe, just maybe, he smelled the residue that the owner had left on the outside of the box when putting the flash drive away.

    It's very, very challenging to completely isolate something from ordor-based detection. You need to work with clean instruments and put the item in a clean container, operating ideally in a clean environment. Then, because you probably slightly contaminated the outside of the bag, you need to do it again, with a completely new set of clean instruments, in a new, clean environment. And then you probably need to do it again. And probably again.

    Otherwise, the owner might as well have just rubbed the flash drive on the outside of the box.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:box, maybe? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, the owner might as well have just rubbed the flash drive on the outside of the box.

      Well, then the obvious solution is to rub the flash drive everywhere, and then put it in the jar. The problem with this is that 1) electronics are everywhere, and 2) unlike something like an illegal substance, it's not illegal to have electronics or flash memory. So if I want to hide an electronic device from this dog, I'll just make sure that everything smells like an electronic drive.

      Of course, the other way to hide it is to place it someplace that already smells like electronics, not in a jar with other stuff. I'd probably tape it to the bottom of the microwave or something. Another possible good hiding place would be in a car which nowadays is crammed full of electronics.

  32. HIPPA protection by camg188 · · Score: 1

    All my usb drives contain my "medical data", protected by HIPPA privacy regulations.

    Seriously, HIPPA regulations are probably the strongest data privacy regulations we have in the US. I'm surprised that they haven't been used by shady lawyers in cases like this that require large scale privacy intrusion with no probable cause.

    1. Re:HIPPA protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...contain my "medical data", protected by HIPPA...

      Sorry, no donut. HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, not HIPPA,) and HITECH have specific exemptions for legal and law enforcement uses of such data. HHS FAQ on the matter. And HIPAA refers only to how providers and other covered entities secure your data, not when the data is turned over to you, the patient. Double no donut.

      To the main meat of the matter: What gives law enforcement the right to use dogs to detect otherwise legal items? It's not the USB or SD card whose possession is unlawful. Now you show me a dog who can hit on child pornography data, or terrerism evidences, consistently.... That would be some dog.

  33. How do you hide an elephant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have one, you have thousands of each type of media. All of the "red herrings" are full of /dev/random and your one real one is encrypted with something that doesn't leave headers, etc. Always put one of the random ones in the computer when you're not using it and that'll be the one they target. The rest go in a pile and the one you use is special in a way that only you know about. I'll let the reader figure that out for themselves.

    We should all note, this isn't JUST about porn by any means and we all know it. They'll use this to hunt for your Kali Linux install or whatever their criteria is.

  34. Chemicals? by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    So the dog can probably detect common chemicals used in soldering flux and/or solder paste, and probably the resins impregnated in PCB material? Whatever it is, I doubt it's unique to the devices they mentioned in the article, that just makes the story seem more intriguing.

    So he's not a "porn" sniffing dog, he's a dog trained to find electronics, which may or may not having ANYTHING to do with pornography.

  35. wonder dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll just train dogs to signal when kiddie porn is stored off-site...and actually, since they can't locate the kiddie porn but just the electronics, they'll get a warrant and have the dog visit all the off site storage places, then do a search of all the electronics found at those sites to look for kiddie porn. Needless to say, they'll find some at all of those sites. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, get ready for a visit from the wonder dog.

  36. Wait, what? by jpatters · · Score: 2

    I was skimming the summery and about halfway through I was thinking they were talking about some device that they plug your thumb drive into and it detects weather it contains porn or not, which is dubious enough; but then I suddenly realized that it was a literal dog named URL (in all caps) and suddenly I couldn't decide which of those two things is stupider.

    I'm sure the dog is happy, it doesn't know that its job is total bullshit. Ignorance truly is bliss.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    1. Re:Wait, what? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I was skimming the summery and about halfway through I was thinking they were talking about some device that they plug your thumb drive into and it detects weather it contains porn or not, which is dubious enough; but then I suddenly realized that it was a literal dog named URL (in all caps) and suddenly I couldn't decide which of those two things is stupider.

      I'm sure the dog is happy, it doesn't know that its job is total bullshit. Ignorance truly is bliss.

      the dog watches the video and is trained to bark if it sees kiddy porn. that way there is no real violation of the owner's privacy, and the authorities don't have to see the child porn and get contaminated.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  37. Uh-huh by Hizonner · · Score: 1

    Every room in my house is full of electronics. I have a box of proably 20 random USB flash drives in my office. None of them have child pornography or whatever on them, but most of them are encrypted. And I legitimately don't know most of the passwords, because who remembers the password they used for a scratch drive?

    The dog is either totally useless, or just an excuse to ransack your house and/or confiscate everything you own.

    1. Re:Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe the dog is an excuse, then you must not believe in search warrants at all.

    2. Re:Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dog is a good tool for parallel construction. The cops get the info about the thumb drive by other means, but don't want to disclose how they got that information (illegal means, witness protection, other reasons). So they get a warrant for the storage devices and the dog "finds" the drive. That will be the story for the jury.

    3. Re:Uh-huh by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      I think the dog can truly find the drives in a lot of cases... and not just "find" them. But what justified the warrant for the dog to be there in the first place? Where does the parallel construction come in? You could only use the dog to "parallel construct" after you were already conducting an invasive search, and at that point you wouldn't actually need any parallel construction. So what does it do for you?

      Anyway, suppose I'm a guilty person, and you're the cop, and you get a warrant for whatever reason, and your dog finds the drive with the details of my scheme to sell drugs to buy child porn for terrorists. Well, if I'm not an idiot, said drive is going to be encrypted. And the number of idiots of the non-drive-encrypting variety is dropping rapidly, partly because of stories like this.

      So my drive is encrypted, and I tell you that I don't know the password.

      I have total deniability, because it's not uncommon for an actual innocent person to have an encrypted drive lying around and not know the password. In fact, my original point was that I am an actual innocent person in real life, and I do have many encrypted drives with unknown passwords, some of them probably in places I don't even remember. So what have you proven by finding the drive?

      So how could you actually use the dog? Well, it would in fact help you to find good evidence against true idiots if you already had a good reason to search them. But the number of available idiots is probably small and is probably going to crash to insignificance. And you'd probably nail the idiots some other way anyway, because they're idiots and they've already screwed up something else to get you there in the first place.

      As for using the dog as probable cause, the way they do with drug dogs at traffic stops, I don't think even today's supine US courts would swallow a hit from this dog as probable cause for anything. Flash drives are as common as dirt. 99.99 percent of them are totally innocent. Probably 99.9 percent of encrypted drives are totally innocent. So even if the dog were perfectly reliable, the hit wouldn't mean anything about crime and wouldn't justify anything further. And I think this is more a house search thing than a traffic stop thing anyway.

      Which means I'm still not seeing the use of this dog even if you assume the cops are corrupt. Drug dogs are magic search authorizers for corrupt cops, but this one won't help them. And on the non-corrupt side, I bet the dog rarely actually finds usable evidence, and still less often finds decisive evidence, and I bet that becomes even less common within a few years. People will encrypt the drives, and they will have total deniability. The whole thing is a waste of time.

      On reflection I was wrong about the "excuse to ransack your house", though. The dog might clue them in to tear open something they otherwise wouldn't, but I suspect that in most cases, once it gets to the point of executing a warrant, they're just going to tear everything up anyway. And as I said the standard "traffic stop" dog abuse won't work here the way it does for drugs.

  38. Re:I want one!!! -- side benefit by Camel+Racer · · Score: 1

    As there are electronic components in automotive keys, URL can do part time contracting in finding lost keys."URL! Find Daddy's Keys!" . . .

    --
    Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
  39. Obligatory Defcon link by scorp1us · · Score: 1
    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  40. So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another bitch that can sniff out porn. My ex could do that just fine.

  41. You forgot 3 and 4 by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    3) People who did not commit the crime, but were bullied into taking a plea bargain because you can't trust the jury.
    4) People who did not commit the crime but were convicted on questionable, made-up, or circumstantial evidence.

  42. How it really works... by gachunt · · Score: 1

    Rather than searching for electronics, dogs are actually trained to sniff for three odors:

    1. 1. Musty smell of basement bedroom
    2. 2. Mom's home cooking
    3. 3. Presence of unrelated human female

    If 1 and 2 are present, but not 3, then the dogs barks to alert the police that porn is present.

  43. Interesting. Your sig is 2 1/2 years out date by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Thanks for that perspective. It seems your signature link is past its "use by" date. Maybe time for a fresh one.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog...

  44. Duplicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duplicate from 2 years back:
    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/07/06/2121248/police-using-dogs-to-sniff-out-computer-memory

    Also very similar:
    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/03/18/218248/dogs-trained-to-sniff-out-piracy
    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/04/1620225/anti-piracy-dog-uncovers-huge-cache-of-discs
    https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/10/2331237/mpaa-training-dogs-to-sniff-out-dvds

    Pretty sure I also submitted this story, but from a different source some months back, but I don't know how to search old submissions.

  45. What they are "smelling" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the comments on what a dog is trained for, clues from the handler or actual smells.

    If they are smelling something. It must be the cleaning solutions or the flux. If a no-clean flux is used, probably likely given its commercial electronics.

    It's the flux.

  46. Use Coffee Grounds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I though drug dealers used coffee grounds to mask out the scent?
    Or is that only in the movies? lol.

  47. url? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Should name the dog Wonder. He does all kinds of wonders. Smells evidence inside of sealed jars. Anyone else think this is BS? I have a feeling they did a toss, of everything and happened to find the drive.