New police radars can 'see' inside homes

[American]

New police radars can 'see' inside homes

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 idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what's inside is problematic," said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union's principal technologist. "Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have."

There's no doubt in my mind this will be abused. Police safety my ass. Next thing these peeping pervs will be peering in people bedrooms.

 

[Unrepresented]

As usual, I'm in agreement with the ACLU.

 

[Ikari]

New police radars can 'see' inside homes


There's no doubt in my mind this will be abused. Police safety my ass. Next thing these peeping pervs will be peering in people bedrooms.

If it is true, it's truly a disgusting attack against the Constitution and freedom. If true, all those who had anything to do with the creation and execution of this order should be fired and barred from public service.

 

[CMPancake]

I can see a practical use for this kind of technology for SWAT teams. But not for the beat cops. This kind of tech needs to be monitored closely and kept under watch.

 

[Declan]

If it is true, it's truly a disgusting attack against the Constitution and freedom. If true, all those who had anything to do with the creation and execution of this order should be fired and barred from public service.

The Constitution just prevents the information from being used against you in court. It doesn't keep people from doing it.

 

[Ikari]

The Constitution just prevents the information from being used against you in court. It doesn't keep people from doing it.

Nope, search and seizure require warrants or sufficient probable cause too. We mostly ignore that, but this would be a search and subject to the restraints of the 4th. Remember that amendment? Most don't.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

New police radars can 'see' inside homes


There's no doubt in my mind this will be abused. Police safety my ass. Next thing these peeping pervs will be peering in people bedrooms.

If we have this type of technology then why in the hell do kids still get killed during drug-raids, hmm?

I mean - gesus - they could at least pretend to try to use something for good.

 

[Paschendale]

Requiring warrants and the idea of privacy is pretty much over, huh?

 

[Ikari]

Requiring warrants and the idea of privacy is pretty much over, huh?

Pretty much, yes.

 

[Slartibartfast]

They should only be able to use this with a court order or search warrant

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Requiring warrants and the idea of privacy is pretty much over, huh?

In the article it states the Supreme Court already ruled that they need a warrant for such technology.

So they're just not following the established law.

 

[Ikari]

In the article it states the Supreme Court already ruled that they need a warrant for such technology.

So they're just not following the established law.

Bringing us back to the aged old question of "who polices the police"?

 

[Declan]

Nope, search and seizure require warrants or sufficient probable cause too. We mostly ignore that, but this would be a search and subject to the restraints of the 4th. Remember that amendment? Most don't.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Technically one could sue the officer in common law tort but they would have trouble knowing who was watching them, when, or be able to prove it if they are inside their home. The exclusionary rule is the only meaningful 4th amendment violation remedy in this situation unless states enacted laws against it and would then prosecute the cops who did it (but they won't)

 

[Paschendale]

In the article it states the Supreme Court already ruled that they need a warrant for such technology.

So they're just not following the established law.

The supreme court has also spent the last several decades carving out endless exceptions so that police can do nearly anything they like without needing a warrant and with barely any oversight at all.

 

[Ikari]

Technically one could sue the officer in common law tort but they would have trouble knowing who was watching them, when, or be able to prove it if they are inside their home. The exclusionary rule is the only meaningful 4th amendment violation remedy in this situation unless states enacted laws against it and would then prosecute the cops who did it (but they won't)

The cops are but the ones following orders, it's the politicians issuing the orders that are at fault. Violations of rights are just that, and we have the right to secure our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Declan]

The cops are but the ones following orders, it's the politicians issuing the orders that are at fault. Violations of rights are just that, and we have the right to secure our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Well if you want to secure your house by wrapping it in tin foil, go ahead. In the meantime, not a lot you could do to stop it or remedy it. Hell even if it criminalized if the police did it they would still get away with it because they would have a good faith argument along the lines of "Well they gave me the x-ray vision gun so I felt I had a right to use it".

 

[Ikari]

Well if you want to secure your house by wrapping it in tin foil, go ahead. In the meantime, not a lot you could do to stop it or remedy it. Hell even if it criminalized if the police did it they would still get away with it because they would have a good faith argument along the lines of "Well they gave me the x-ray vision gun so I felt I had a right to use it".

Ahh yes, might makes right. Never been a believer in that logic, sorry.

 

[Thrilla]

In the article it states the Supreme Court already ruled that they need a warrant for such technology.

So they're just not following the established law.

that's the thing about this kind of technology... they can still use it as long as they don't tell you they did.

physically searching your house can't really be hidden from you (in most cases)... but they can search your place while you watch TV and you'll never know it.

 

[Declan]

Ahh yes, might makes right. Never been a believer in that logic, sorry.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Reality is what it is. If they find cocaine in your house, you can bet that the Supreme Court will carve out the Ikari exception to the 4th amendment, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna carta, and the Marquess of Queensberry rules if that is what it takes to keep you in the clinker.

 

[Ikari]

Doesn't matter what you believe. Reality is what it is. If they find cocaine in your house, you can bet that the Supreme Court will carve out the Ikari exception to the 4th amendment, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna carta, and the Marquess of Queensberry rules if that is what it takes to keep you in the clinker.

Yes yes, an argument of tyranny. Don't accept it. Appeal to authority is logical fallacy.

 

[Declan]

Yes yes, an argument of tyranny. Don't accept it. Appeal to authority is logical fallacy.

Appeals to reality are not.

 

[Ikari]

Appeals to reality are not.

That's false dichotomy, it suggests there is nothing which can legitimately be done to protest, work for, or resist such actions against our rights.

 

[VanceMack]

Bringing us back to the aged old question of "who polices the police"?

Who polices government in general? Presidents use executive orders to usurp the rule of law...hell...they even crow about it and people that like what they are doing embrace and support it. How should anyone expect law enforcement to abide by laws when the highest office in our country demonstrates the rule of law is irrelevant?

 

[radcen]

New police radars can 'see' inside homes

There's no doubt in my mind this will be abused. Police safety my ass. Next thing these peeping pervs will be peering in people bedrooms.

If I remember correctly, something similar came out 15-20 years ago. Then it was thermal imaging to catch marijuana grow lights. Also, if I remember correctly, that was eventually struck down by the SC. I'm sure they'd claim this is different, but I fail to see any significant difference.

If I remember correctly.

 

[jamesrage]

New police radars can 'see' inside homes


There's no doubt in my mind this will be abused. Police safety my ass. Next thing these peeping pervs will be peering in people bedrooms.

Other than lead I wonder if these is anything homeowners can line the inside of their walls with to render these technology useless?