• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NYPD to start using portable x-rays on you regular folks out there

SandEagle

SandEagle

Lifer
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...lly-article-1.1007456?localLinksEnabled=false

The NYPD is developing a new way to seek people toting guns on the street by using radiation scanners that can detect those packing heat, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly announced Tuesday.
The technology — which works similar to infrared imaging — includes a mechanism that can detect a natural energy, known as terahertz radiation, that emits from a person’s body, Kelly said during his State of the NYPD address.

​
Click to expand...

image.jpg



D:
 
The technology — which works similar to infrared imaging — includes a mechanism that can detect a natural energy, known as terahertz radiation, that emits from a person’s body, Kelly said during his State of the NYPD address.
Click to expand...

404 Error: X-rays not found.

This reads radiation naturally emitted FROM your body. It does not expose your body to any external source of radiation.
 
I'd almost be willing to bet that the ACLU will fight this as an illegal search. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already been ruled that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home - they can NOT use infrared sensors, etc., to monitor what people are doing inside a house. Likewise, I'd think there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in what's not visible that you're carrying in your pocket, or purse, or whatever. No probable cause = no search.

In other words, if you were a female who carried a purse, do you believe that the police have a right to search your purse for no reason? What's in pockets, under the clothing, etc., is no different. The police already can't just go up to people and say (without cause) "show me what's in your pockets" in an attempt to find people carrying pot. This is no different.
 
DrPizza said:
I'd almost be willing to bet that the ACLU will fight this as an illegal search. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already been ruled that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home - they can NOT use infrared sensors, etc., to monitor what people are doing inside a house. Likewise, I'd think there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in what's not visible that you're carrying in your pocket, or purse, or whatever. No probable cause = no search.

In other words, if you were a female who carried a purse, do you believe that the police have a right to search your purse for no reason? What's in pockets, under the clothing, etc., is no different. The police already can't just go up to people and say (without cause) "show me what's in your pockets" in an attempt to find people carrying pot. This is no different.
Click to expand...

This will never fly... I agree with DrPizza.
 
DrPizza said:
I'd almost be willing to bet that the ACLU will fight this as an illegal search. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already been ruled that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home - they can NOT use infrared sensors, etc., to monitor what people are doing inside a house. Likewise, I'd think there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in what's not visible that you're carrying in your pocket, or purse, or whatever. No probable cause = no search.

In other words, if you were a female who carried a purse, do you believe that the police have a right to search your purse for no reason? What's in pockets, under the clothing, etc., is no different. The police already can't just go up to people and say (without cause) "show me what's in your pockets" in an attempt to find people carrying pot. This is no different.
Click to expand...

This is the other thing I came to say. This is clearly an illegal search if used without a warrant/probably cause. More likely this technology will be used in lieu of a pat-down or similar on arrested suspects.
 
alkemyst said:
sadly people are voting for this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
Sadly, our lawmakers are hiding laws like this by wording the intent of the laws very carefully. It takes a legal degree to make heads or tails out of them. If they were in plain English they would never pass. :thumbsdown:
 
I'm not certain, but it seems like this would be incredibly easy to circumvent. In fact, it would be amusing to sell something that circumvented this; a big LOL toward the people who spent probably a LOT of money for this technology; defeated with a simple water bottle or something.
 
Last edited:
Guess lead lined man bags will suddenly become popular.

How will this work exactly though, for an xray don't you need a capture device (such as a film) on the other side of the target? An xray machine is not like a camera... or is it? I always thought the way xray worked is the xray machine sends a beam of radiation and it penetrates more/less depending on what it's going through, and the beam then modifies the film.

Or do I have that completely wrong? Maybe I'm thinking of another technology?
 
Red Squirrel said:
Guess lead lined man bags will suddenly become popular.

How will this work exactly though, for an xray don't you need a capture device (such as a film) on the other side of the target? An xray machine is not like a camera... or is it? I always thought the way xray worked is the xray machine sends a beam of radiation and it penetrates more/less depending on what it's going through, and the beam then modifies the film.

Or do I have that completely wrong? Maybe I'm thinking of another technology?
Click to expand...

RTFT
 
So its just passive infra-red, albeit at the lowest frequency end of IR?

I'm not sure, personally, what the political/moral rules are on passively observing people, whether its in the visible range or somewhere else on the spectrum. If all they are doing is looking at radiation that you are giving off, then what's the basis for objecting to it? Once you've emitted the radiation, its not yours any more!

How can you ban the authorities from looking at it?

Kind of different from active TSA-type scanners, surely?

Edit - I don't mean the legal rules, I guess those are what they are, I was just wondering what the moral basis for those rules is.

Also, I'm irked to find I'd never before heard the term 'terrahertz'. Have they started sub-dividing the EM spectrum more since I was at school?
 
Last edited:
DrPizza said:
I'd almost be willing to bet that the ACLU will fight this as an illegal search. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already been ruled that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home - they can NOT use infrared sensors, etc., to monitor what people are doing inside a house. Likewise, I'd think there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in what's not visible that you're carrying in your pocket, or purse, or whatever. No probable cause = no search.

In other words, if you were a female who carried a purse, do you believe that the police have a right to search your purse for no reason? What's in pockets, under the clothing, etc., is no different. The police already can't just go up to people and say (without cause) "show me what's in your pockets" in an attempt to find people carrying pot. This is no different.
Click to expand...

As far as I know they still fly over houses in helicopters using infrared to find pot growing operations.
 
skull said:
As far as I know they still fly over houses in helicopters using infrared to find pot growing operations.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court says its a violation of the 4th if done without a warrant.

Fine with a warrant. Without a warrant, a infrared/thermal imaging flyover would mean a huge lawsuit for the PD and a non conviction for the alleged criminal.
 
I welcome this because since 911 I've had constant anxiety over terrorists and with approximately, last count, 5 billion terrorists in the United States alone, we can never be too safe!
 
Yep. Soon we'll be getting arrested for thought crimes. 3 strikes and your felonious ass is in for life.
 
DrPizza said:
I'd almost be willing to bet that the ACLU will fight this as an illegal search. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already been ruled that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home - they can NOT use infrared sensors, etc., to monitor what people are doing inside a house. Likewise, I'd think there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in what's not visible that you're carrying in your pocket, or purse, or whatever. No probable cause = no search.

In other words, if you were a female who carried a purse, do you believe that the police have a right to search your purse for no reason? What's in pockets, under the clothing, etc., is no different. The police already can't just go up to people and say (without cause) "show me what's in your pockets" in an attempt to find people carrying pot. This is no different.
Click to expand...

honestly its all how you articulate why you went in her purse. most statements begin with "based on my 20 years of narcotics experience and training....."

just saying.....i agree with your point though.

edit*
didnt see your "without cause". thats a very BROAD statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top