NYPD working to develop gun sensors

S

sigcurious

New member
On one hand, I'm all for technology and technology like this being pushed forward in development. On the other I see the abuse of technology like this almost unavoidable in a domestic capacity. This kind of technology would be useful for fighting the types of war we currently engage in where combatant and civilian are hard to distinguish often until it is too late. However at home, even with "restrictions" something like this would be nearly impossible to even prevent casual unintentional misuse let alone purposeful violations of our privacy and constitutional rights.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
The new scanners pick up the body's natural radiation and then spot what is blocking it, Kelly said
Click to expand...
I can only imagine what it would take to power and attenuate such equipment, particularly in crowded places. The potential cost beggars the imagination.

It won't work. It'll be tested, and by the second day the system is live, people will have found ways to circumvent and spoof it. In the end, it'll be a boondoggle and a massive waste of taxpayers' money.

From a 4th Amendment standpoint, I despise it. From a practical standpoint, I'm not worried.
 
C

Crosshair

New member
It's junk tech like that which makes images like this possible.

118020322_f5132e3fba_o-408x336.jpg


and then they have the balls to tell us that we arn't spending enough.:rolleyes:
 
R

rebs

New member
In this country the more the government spends the more kick backs and corruption they can get away with.
 
P

Patriot86

New member
Talk unreasonable search and seizure, so If I have something metal like a cell phone or a insulin pump under my clothes i'm going to be subject to search because the machine thinks it is a gun? This just goes too far, in Airports I can understand, to get into certain high profile events like new years eve @ time square, or federal buildings I can understand but just to walk down the street is too far. This is a bad idea, because unless it someone JUST sees guns and bomb vests the police are going to be dealing with a lot of false positives and a lot of lawsuits because of it.



If this system ever does go live i would love to organize a protest where about 10,000 people took metal objects vaguely but not really shaped like guns, stuck them in their coats and then walked around NY just causing havoc with police responces. Knowing the NYPD they would probably just open fire, shoot first ask questions later.
 
M

Musketeer

New member
Reminds me of when they started doing bag checks to ride te NYC subway. The official position was if you volunteer to ride you give implied consent to be searched. Nobody has to ride the subway...

Then, while listening to the Li
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
There was a law review article a few years ago, titled something like Superman's X-Ray vision and the 4th Amend.

So issues like this have been in discussion for quite awhile. I'm sure that the differential use of such according to ethnicity and race would start quite the firestorm eventually.

Of course, for some of you it would be quite legit if store owners or employers deployed these to guard their private property castles.
 
M

Musketeer

New member
Reminds me of when they started doing bag checks to ride te NYC subway. The official position was if you volunteer to ride you give implied consent to be searched. Nobody has to ride the subway...

Then, while listening to the Lionel show on local talk radio in NYC a NYPD office called in and was asked about what was justifiable cause for a search. His answer was "anyone who turns around and not ride rather than be searched.". So you decide not to undergo a voluntary search and that act justifies an involuntary search... That is exactly how this technology would be implemented on a day to day basis.

This technology may not work well now but I bet enoug money is being injected to develop it that this will be common within 20 years. Legislators and Presidents will side with it as "Public Safety" no matter what party they come from. No elected official wants to be known as having voted against a measure which would have spotted a rampage killer. If the SCOTUS doesn't clearly smack this down as an illegal search be prepared for it to become a part of life in a generation.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
musketeer said:
Then, while listening to the Lionel show on local talk radio in NYC a NYPD office called in and was asked about what was justifiable cause for a search. His answer was "anyone who turns around and not ride rather than be searched.". So you decide not to undergo a voluntary search and that act justifies an involuntary search... That is exactly how this technology would be implemented on a day to day basis.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my problem with search procedures today. TSA uses the same general argument. Police in a traffic stop use the same argument. You have the right to refuse a search but your refusal is reasonable suspicion for a non-consensual search. "I can't look in your car? We'll just call for the sniffer dog then..."

You're right, same thing will happen here.

They'll ask permission and do the search if you consent and consider your refusal to be suspicion for a non-consensual search.
 
M

MLeake

New member
PK, it's a valid concern. However, all things being equal, if it comes to the police finding anything your lawyer would probably prefer it if you had not granted permission. It might give him an angle for getting the search thrown out. Giving permission because you feel like it's pointless to say no will nullify any such defense attempt.
 
K

KLRANGL

New member
I actually wrote a paper for my "Image Processing for Homeland Security Applications" class on the subject of these new scanners that are in development to detect concealed bombs/weapons. You'd be surprised how accurate the newer millimeter-wave detection systems are at decent range and with low power constraints. Some of the active ones actually create impressive 3D images, and can even use the electromagnetic resonance of an object to determine what the object is made of.
Problem is they are possible to foil, especially the passive systems mentioned in the OP. There are also a few health risks involved that would need to be worked out first.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
MLeake said:
PK, it's a valid concern. However, all things being equal, if it comes to the police finding anything your lawyer would probably prefer it if you had not granted permission. It might give him an angle for getting the search thrown out. Giving permission because you feel like it's pointless to say no will nullify any such defense attempt.
Click to expand...

Beyond violating rights, the problem on a practical level is that they're not going to find anything in my car anyway so if I refuse and they call the sniffer dog, I'm just wasting time. I consider it compliance under coercion. Not that I've ever been searched but if I were to be asked I would probably give consent rather than wasting time waiting for the dang dog.
 
M

MLeake

New member
PK, not sure how I'd react. I'm not worried about the search, either. I guess it would depend on how much of a hurry I was in that day, as to whether I felt like standing on a principle.

On a sort-of related note, another technological Big Brother-ism that bothers me is the taking of mobile devices to check GPS history, and whatever else they feel like checking. I have not personally encountered the practice yet, but have read about it in newspapers. Seems like an awful lot of power to give somebody, without a warrant.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
Speaking of dogs, I'm not sure how this new-fangled machine is all that different anyway.... the police already randomly walk the subways, airports and train stations with sniffer dogs, constantly searching all around. Who consented to THAT search?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top