New police radars can 'see' inside homes

[n2doc]

WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.

The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.

Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concerned about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars — and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.

more

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. Nice.

[kentauros]

2. Hmm, now where have I heard of that before...?

Oh yeah:

[2naSalit]

3. Indeed.

[Revanchist]

40. I pictured the scope from the railgun from Eraser

[kentauros]

42. I'm not familiar with that movie.

I've seen 5th Element more times than I can remember!

I may have to rent Eraser. Minus the Russian dubbing, of course

[octoberlib]

4. Seriously, wtf

[Octafish]

5. It might be useful when searching for Enemies of the State.

We the People, like. Little people.

[mindwalker_i]

6. Oh that's never going to get abused

Just not ever going to happen in this upstanding world.

[Baclava]

7. what if I have 100 mice breathing in my house - can they read that?

FLIR equipped choppers have been outlawed from spying on us - why this?

[lpbk2713]

39. They go from one loophole to the next.

When one strategy is outlawed they move on to something else.
Or, they continue to use the old prohibited stuff and claim the
bust came from an "anonymous tip" or confidential informant.

[JonLP24]

8. That is some scary shit

[cstanleytech]

11. Scary but probably legal as long as they dont use it without a warrant on someones house.

[JonLP24]

15. Cops will often break laws to find out what you're up to

then go to collecting evidence. They'd keep the first part to themselves because of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" but the article mentions its use hasn't been revealed for public scrutiny so it appears they even kept the device existence itself to themselves.

[cstanleytech]

22. Well then maybe the law needs to change so that they are required to reveal

the purchase of any new technology to the public within 90 days.

[JonLP24]

26. Its not that or the laws that are the problem

For the most part we have great laws, great court system (though most misdemeanor courts are set up inherently unfair), great for of government, freedoms, rights, etc. The problem is we have humans behind all those things, running all those things.

Unless there are robots that never make mistakes, never cut corners and really wouldn't work anyway, I'm relegated to that's some "scary shit".

[cstanleytech]

27. So you would rather put them under control of robots???

[JonLP24]

30. I said it wouldn't work

but there is a good reason why you wouldn't trust a human that is a judge, or human that is a police officer, or a human on a jury, etc. Am I saying all our like this, no. I'm just fully aware of the potential of abuse but more laws or this or that won't fix the human aspect of this. Just because someone can't doesn't mean they won't.

On edit - Even if I was serious, humans would still be in charge of programming the robots so that wouldn't work on that point either.

[zeemike]

9. Well now we know what they meant about Total information awareness.

they really did mean total.

[Major Nikon]

10. I've heard a few first hand accounts of cops who drive around trying to bust people fucking in cars

I guarantee something like this will be abused.

[cstanleytech]

13. I'm kinda "meh" over the abuse angle to be honest mainly because its possible for

anything to be abused be it computer records to something simple like fire.

[Major Nikon]

18. Except the difference is this type of a device is boon for peeping toms

And I'm pretty sure there's going to be cops using it in just that way and almost certainly already have.

[cstanleytech]

20. Everything is a potential boon for peeping toms though.

The technology though has some good potential benefits that outweigh those negatives imo though.
For example it could be used to tell if someone is say trapped somewhere like in building after an earthquake or in an avalanche even potentially trapped in a burning building.

[Major Nikon]

21. So limit its use to disaster response teams

There is no way I would trust cops with something like this.

[cstanleytech]

24. Umm cops are first responders to. nt

[Major Nikon]

31. Search and rescue teams are the ones who look for people in buildings

Cops can be on such teams, but most are firemen.

[cstanleytech]

33. Ya but the problem is time is key in such situations and other first responders might not get there

for awhile.

[JDPriestly]

28. Warrants are easy to maintain, hardly a barrier at all.

But a warrant means that if police officers are using this to say, spy on their ex-wives or their neighbors or someone they find attractive or just for fun, then they could be subjected to internal review, maybe even dismissal.

The warrant guarantees that there was a reason for invading someone's privacy and tbat there is a record of the privacy invasion.

That's why there should be a warrant.

We fought our Revolution in part over taxation without representation and in great part over general warrants that gave the British the authority to just enter our homes and businesses and snoop and take as they wished.

The Fourth Amendment will eventually be interpreted to prohibit all these invasions of privacy. We cannot have human dignity when a few of us are given the authority to hover above the homes of the rest of us, watch us brushing our teeth, preparing for bed, doing whatever we do in bed, etc.

This is a serious assault on our human dignity.

The benefits of this technology can be obtained with a warrant.

We have helicopters overhead a lot in our neighborhood. They are a disturbance of the peace, and an intrusion on our privacy and liberty. We don't need them. We aren't doing anything against the law.

[IDemo]

12. How long until

The inside of your home is deemed to be part of "the public space, where one should have no expectation of privacy"?

Not at all long, I'll bet.

[daleo]

14. I seem to recall this being developed for the Iraq war

There is a lesson in there, somewhere.

[LiberalElite]

34. Well, wasn't the internet at first

just for the military?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

[daleo]

49. Yes, and it has led to some serious concerns

About invasion of privacy too.

I was getting at the idea that techniques used against an enemy in a questionable international "police action" can soon become part of the equipment of domestic police. And when a state develops a taste for ignoring international law, it is a relatively small step before it begins to ignore its own laws.

[Ed Suspicious]

16. I'm getting sick and tired of this shit being trotted out and implemented in the name of their

safety.

[cstanleytech]

25. Well we could all just move to the land of lollipops and rainbows where nothing bad ever happens and

where we wouldnt need any technology at all.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. Here's what Bill the Cat says about your post

[Downwinder]

17. That should do away with the excuse

that someone might be injured for not needing a warrant.

[yuiyoshida]

19. Next... BLUETHUNDER

[DallasNE]

23. I Could See Where Fire Departments Could Use This

When called to a burning building. They could go straight to the location and save time during a rescue effort.

[Historic NY]

50. But they might abuse it...

It radar it tells you an object is there, its not a picture its a radio signal bouncing off a person and back to the unit. They function that same way traffic radar works.

[DallasNE]

51. It's Anything That Moves

It could be a pet or a person with no way to tell the difference unless it somehow shows size or shape.

[Historic NY]

29. So I went to the manufacturers site...

RANGE-R applications include:

Police / SWAT — Determine the presence and location of assailants or hostages in a building
Search & Rescue — Locate injured people inside buildings
Firefighters — Quickly determine whether people are trapped in a building.

RANGE-R complies with Part 15 rules and is certified by the FCC for operation in an urban environment (FCC ID: YKD-25TWD3000).

http://www.cyterra.com/products/ranger.htm

They makes a second version only for the military. Which means it doesn't work on the frequencies allocated for police radar.

[Ilsa]

32. Helium balloons, fans, ceiling fans with

Lightweight objects attached, pets, etc... I wonder if items like this could obfuscate their detection system.

(I've had to deal with a peeping tom before. This seems as bad.)

[Trillo]

35. But having cameras on cops and having them on ALL THE TIME

is so unreasonable, there are so many privacy concerns. Won't people think of the nearly naked folks in hospitals and their sacred privacy?

[7962]

36. Well, if I knew they were looking, I'd give 'em something to see. nt

[ReRe]

38. Add this to the...

... police state list. Hey, if they can make those things, why can't someone come up with the opposite technology: A detection device with an alarm, or a danger sign lit up in red in every room, that will make the resident know when someone is pointing one of those contraptions from outside. Or make the alarm a foghorn that goes off on the exterior of the house: scare the shite out of them.

[Revanchist]

41. I think I might be safe!

[B Calm]

43. Officers will soon discover they have cancer. . .

[Scuba]

44. Kyllo v. United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.

[woo me with science]

45. Just a goddamned piece of paper.

[KG]

46. i forsee a run on tin foil....

[Savannahmann]

48. I foresee a run on jammers

Radar uses radio waves on a specific frequency. So now, the hostage takers who are smart (the scenario in which the Federal Agencies say they absolutely need the thing) will have jammers installed. They'll broadcast the radio frequencies on a more powerful signal, and blanket the thing until it is worse than useless.

[Kermitt Gribble]

47. Guess we're all going to have to apply stealth technology to the outsides of our homes :/ n/t