So, you don't think we iive in a full-blown police state? Think again.

[99th_Monkey]

New police radars can 'see' inside homes
USA Today * Brad Heath * Jan. 19, 2015

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies quietly deployed radars that let them effectively see inside homes, with little notice to the courts or the public.

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 concern 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.

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

[tblue]

1. Stick a fork in us.

We are done as a country. As a republic anyway.

[grasswire]

2. it appears that technology is the boiling pot of water.

We are in the stew.

I wonder how they differentiate a dog breathing from a human.

[sabrina 1]

3. Yes, it seems that way! We have people even here who don't think we need due process

anymore, just a declaration of guilt before administering the Death Penalty, by the POTUS.

Stick a fork in us, puts it very succinctly.

[jeff47]

4. It's rather amazing to watch them destroy their own lede in two adjacent sentences.

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.

They could look inside a house!.....except they have to get a search warrant, just as if they were physically looking inside the house.

[randome]

10. But how do we know they are getting warrants?

And if they get warrants, how do we know they were signed?
And if they were signed, how do we know if they were signed properly?
And if they were signed properly, how do we know the person signing them wasn't being blackmailed?
And...and...and...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

21. Because they have to in order to use anything that comes from the search.

We still have trials. The police would have to present their evidence, including the search warrant that allowed them to gather it.

[frylock]

15. it says no such thing..

"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."

If they were using warrants, then there wouldn't be any legal and privacy issues being raised. Moreover, I don't believe for a damn second that officers are using it without first obtaining a warrant. How on earth would anyone know if the police used that device to detect whether someone was home or not?

[jeff47]

20. They're using warrants or they can't use anything that comes from the search.

This came up back when police tried to use FLIR devices to look for houses growing pot. They flew around in helicopters, looking for unusually hot basements and other interior rooms, and then raided the houses.

SCOTUS said the police can't use the FLIR cameras without a search warrant, resulting in those convictions being thrown out.

How on earth would anyone know if the police used that device to detect whether someone was home or not?

If they're checking to see if someone's home, they're hoping to do something with that information. Such as search the house - hey look, they already have a warrant.

Not saying police can't abuse these devices. I'm saying the privacy issues were raised in the 90s, and the SCOTUS ruled using these types of devices is a search. The SCOTUS ruling was not restricted to the infrared wavelength.

[Luminous Animal]

28. It usually is a good practice to click on the link...

More from the article…

Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."

[jeff47]

29. Except that still isn't the case.

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

They are required to treat using the devices as if they are conducting a physical search. There aren't Fourth Amendment questions. The SCOTUS already ruled on using devices like this, and their ruling wasn't restricted to the infrared wavelength.

[MohRokTah]

5. I have absoluely no problems with this technology, so long as use is limited and monitored.

It's outstanding technology for hostage situations, IMO.

The potential for abuse is ENORMOUS, though. Which simply goes to say, it's already been horribly abused.

[nilesobek]

6. It would be easy to defeat such a system.

Modify the house into a Faraday cage. Also, there are jammers that would probably mess up the radio signals.

[JackRiddler]

22. Yeah, an obvious option for most everyone.

Just own your own house and be ready to expend a sum of money equal to the expenses of this modification, with a reserve ready for whatever countermeasures follow in the technology. Constitution fixed! Everyone's free! No problem!

[nilesobek]

24. Noted.

One could be made out of foil though. Doesn't seem too outrageous a price for privacy but it would be really weird living there.

[Scuba]

7. 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.

[99th_Monkey]

25. Nice find. nt

[KauaiK]

8. Does anyone remember this type of audio device in the movie ET?

I don't know about the visual, but "law agencies" have had the ability to hear inside homes for years..

[Ykcutnek]

9. Jimmy McNulty:

"The patrolling officer on his beat is the one true dictatorship in America, we can lock a guy up on the humble, lock him up for real, or say fuck it and drink ourselves to death under the expressway and our side partners will cover us, No one - I mean no one - tells us how to waste our shift!"

[dissentient]

11. Some cops are going to be getting off using this to spy on people in their homes at night

No need to surf the internet for porn anymore when they are bored during night shifts, just go to the nearest neighborhood and use this tech.

[RoverSuswade]

12. Time to consider moving to.....

....Mars!

[randome]

13. Oh, really? You think it's just a coincidence that the Martian rover is still working?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[RoverSuswade]

27. Oops. I forgot about that.

Probably has a telescreen installed behind those dishes!

[Orrex]

14. I predict a big spike in the sale of lead sheeting for installation in the home.

[Spooky69]

16. Is this the same technology used in the Boston bomber case ?

When they found the younger brother hiding in the boat
they used an imaging system that could see him hiding inside .
The level of detail was pretty impressive and I remember thinking it
was like nothing I had ever seen before . . .

[Octafish]

17. C'mon, 99! Everybody knows for this to be a Police State requires summary execution of citizens.

Oh.

[Initech]

18. Why am I reminded of Futurama just now?

[mythology]

19. Overactive surveillance isn't sufficient to make a police state

We don't have to block people in like they do in North Korea or did in East Germany. You can go outside and hold up a sign that says the president sucks and you won't get tossed in prison like you would in Russia or China. We have elections that have consequences. For example, no anti-abortion laws were passed at the federal level when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. When Republicans took the House, that was one of their first bills.

I get that it gives one cred to claim that we are living in a police state, and I even agree that we need to scale back the power of the police/NSA etc. But we are a long way from a police state. All calling us a police state does is devalue the term.

[JackRiddler]

23. Yay! Still miles away!

Been to any demonstrations lately, by the way?

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Last time I pointed out we lived in a "de facto" police state

the deniers were out in full force. I wonder how you'll do?