Could technology redefine the boundaries of search and seizure?

[So fist]

LONDON (Reuters) - A British company has developed a camera that can detect weapons, drugs or explosives hidden under people's clothes from up to 25 meters away in what could be a breakthrough for the security industry.

The T5000 camera, created by a company called ThruVision, uses what it calls "passive imaging technology" to identify objects by the natural electromagnetic rays -- known as Terahertz or T-rays -- that they emit.

The high-powered camera can detect hidden objects from up to 80 feet away and is effective even when people are moving. It does not reveal physical body details and the screening is harmless, the company says.

The technology, which has military and civilian applications and could be used in crowded airports, shopping malls or sporting events, will be unveiled at a scientific development exhibition sponsored by Britain's Home Office on March 12-13.

"Acts of terrorism have shaken the world in recent years and security precautions have been tightened globally," said Clive Beattie, the chief executive of ThruVision.

"The ability to see both metallic and non-metallic items on people out to 25 meters is certainly a key capability that will enhance any comprehensive security system."

While the technology may enhance detection, it may also increase concerns that Britain is becoming a surveillance society, with hundreds of thousands of closed-circuit television cameras already monitoring people countrywide every day.

ThruVision came up with the technology for the T5000 in collaboration with the European Space Agency and from studying research by astronomers into dying stars.

The technology works on the basis that all people and objects emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Terahertz rays lie somewhere between infrared and microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum and travel through clouds and walls.

Depending on the material, the signature of the wave is different, so that explosives can be distinguished from a block of clay and cocaine is different from a bag of flour.

Story Link

Now the dilemma.  Let's pretend that this piece of tech becomes compact and cheap enough to be standard issue to police officers.  Do they need consent to a search to point this baby at you?  Would there even be a way to prevent them from acting on such information if they didn't get consent to search?  Would probable cause be necessary?  How do you see this piece of technology's impact on the fourth amendment (US Constitution)?  Is it a violation of privacy for the police to know exactly what's in your pockets before you've done anything wrong? Is to be treated as a radar gun or as a legally limited investigative tool?  Where do you think the line ought to be.

 

[kaidus]

Sounds good to me. Your privacy should only have to stay private if you have something to keep private. By that, I mean the only people who can rationally object to this are those who have something to hide. If people are concerned about a random person that they will never meet again noticing they have something embarrasing on them, who really cares at the end of the day? Chances are you won't be confronted about it, and even on the rare occasion that a police officer chooses to; you don't know this person, their opinion on you is worthless and will most likely never impact you again. If you have something incriminating, then the tool is doing it's job so that's tough shit to you. If you have a dildo, then who gives a fuck. At the end of the day you have to weigh your pride against the potential loss of thousands of lives. Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.

Reminds me of the UK's ID card fiasco.

 

[Dissonance]

Sounds good to me.

Is it a violation of privacy for the police to know exactly what's in your pockets before you've done anything wrong?

Not at all.  What can you actually hide in your pocket that is private, but not some kind of danger to people around you?  The only thing I can think of is a photo, and I'm not sure if they can actually see the images on the photo or just the photo itself.

 

[Ellie]

It's like speed cameras - if you're not planning on doing anything wrong, then it wont affect you. If you want to do something in your private life you don't want people to know about, keep it at home rather than in yer pockets.

 

[___]

To me, this question goes back to whether or not we can trust a government that has absolute power and absolute knowledge.  Personally, I would not object if I knew, for a fact, that no government agent could or would use this or any other technology in an abusive way; that I as a citizen had 100% oversight and control over the laws they were enforcing via the democratic process; etc. 

However unfortunately government agents, and governments themselves, are made of people.  People are fallible, people are self-motivated, people are more than willing to do things that are against the rules if they know they won't get caught and that they will definitely benefit from it, as a rule.  Government agents are not special or especially moral compared to your common person or even your common crook on average; in my experience, working directly for the government and law enforcement for several years, there were about the same number of good, apathetic, lazy, selfish and purely evil people in government as in any other walk of life in about the same proportions. 

I do not trust average, normal people with complete control and power over my life, period, even when/if I like all the laws, support all the laws, and am more than happy to follow all the laws.  In anything less than that Utopian ideal, that kind of power and control in the hands of an authority figure is completely terrifying to me.  I haven't broken a criminal law that I can name in at least a year, but I can't think why I would ever want someone to be able to positively verify that.

All that said, the march of technology is inevitable.  Once something is invented it will get used; if the question can occur to anyone "how could anybody exploit this for their own personal gain at the cost of another?" someone is already thinking about it and coming up with some ideas; odds are some of those people have positions of power that will allow them to get away with it.  The only thing that comforts me is the idea that invading privacy is incredibly cheap and easy, and that technology works for anyone, not just the government.  For every cop who abuses his privileges, there are a hundred guys on the street with a cell phone, an audio recorder, a web cam, who can potentially catch that cop in the act, red handed, without him even knowing it till he gets called in to talk to Internal Affairs one day.  So it's a double-edged sword and it can just as easily be turned against corruption as used for it.

Here's a closing thought: I've seen and heard of a lot more cops getting busted by cell phone cameras lately, personally, than I have of people getting sent to jail for committing crimes thanks to the help of some new law enforcement gadget.

 

[Fido]

The camera extracts a sort of 3D model that identifies what is being hidden, right?  So the only real thing I could see someone being pissed off about is that they are emotionally insecure about who there are and what they do that they don't want ANYONE knowing they are on some type of medication or something like that that could be in their pocket, which isn't a very legitimate case considering the cameras have the potential to save thousands of peoples' lives. 

The next thing for the bad guys will be belts that put a cloak around the person that make their belongings invisible to the cameras or something.

 

[___]

Most likely, and then those will be banned like radar detectors.

 

[So fist]

The camera extracts a sort of 3D model that identifies what is being hidden, right?

No its a camera that sees things in the terahertz spectrum of light.  Many materials has a particular terahertz fingerprint that is reflected back.  The imaging tech likely colorcodes these fingerprints.  Skin would likely have its own color, metals, explosives, ect.  I'm sure the imaging tech has some kind of filter to close off some of these colors on a particularly noisy image.  Terahertz can't penetrate metal or water to a certain depth, but it would certainly be able to tell you that someone is carrying a metal case or has wrapped the interior of their clothing with tin foil. 

I wouldn't compare this to a speed camera.  A speed camera does not give you any information that couldn't be obtained by a pursuing officer who is merely observing, not searching.  It just gets you that info more efficiently.  The question is what defines a search to the Constitution.  It used to be obvious, because there was no other way of doing it--I.E.  you are physically stopped by an officer or related authority figure and made to concede to being frisked and having your stuff looked through.  Now they don't need to do that to know you have contraband of some kind.  Does a beat cop pointing this thing at a citizen constitute a search action?

Here's some reading on the Fourth Amendment:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

 

[skirtboy]

This is  a complex issue. While it has the potential to save a few lives, it would cause severe issues. For one thing, it cannot tell you if a person is liscensed to carry concealed, which is legal in a large number of states. Second, it detects shapes, so it would have trouple distinguishing between, for example, a switchblade and an electric razor. The only way for it to do any good in either situation is for the cop to search anyone it flags, in most cases people who have done nothing wrong and are not behaving in any manner remotely justifiying a search. In fixed installations, however, such as airports or schools, the added security may be worthwile, especially in places where a concealed carry does not authorize weapons.

 

[So fist]

Second, it detects shapes,

No it does not merely detect shapes.  Various materials have a terahertz fingerprint.  Which means an object an be identified based on what it is made of as well as shape.  A switch blade has a lot more steel on it than a shaving razor.

You've mentioned as a tool for gathering probable cause.  But isn't it more of a search without searching?  I'm really curious how the supreme court will handle this when this next gen equipment becomes law enforcement vogue.

 

[Fido]

I think it won't be considered a search, since the personal has not been physical subjected to having anything searched.  I think this will just give the "probable cause" for the search, but not definitive evidence.

 

[rmxp_dev]

I'm usually a fan of Technology but the rapid pace of Technological progress is getting scary. This camera is just one example of how we are truly approaching Sci-Fi. For example, work is being done right now on invisiblity cloak. Imagine this technology in the wrong hands. say a criminal? A mass murderer?

Technology undoubtedly will and can redefine everything in our lives. And the incredible progress will raise more and more complex moral dilemmas.

One thing I'd like for scientists to develop is to solve the Emerging Fuel crisis. Peak Oil is very real, and the cause of our rising gasoline prices. I'd feel a lot better when we can come up with an alternative fuel.

 

[Fido]

Correction, greedy bastards are causing the raise in oil prices.  Just htouhgt I'd clear that one up for everyone.

 

[rmxp_dev]

Correction, greedy bastards are causing the raise in oil prices.  Just htouhgt I'd clear that one up for everyone.

Nope, world global production has already peaked in 2006. Demand is increasing due to China, and India. Supply is slightly decreasing. THis is the cause of the high price of Oil, combined with the weak dollar.

Oil is a finite resource, and we've already wasted a big chunk of the Earth's crude oil. Until we find another energy source that can supplant Oil, our way of life cannot be sustained.

 

[Fido]

Why is there a limited supply of oil is the question here, and the answer is The United States of America.

 

[Legendary]

No. The answer is that oil is a fossil fuel, which comes from *gasp* dead bodies in special conditions. Since only so many dead animals are in the right conditions, only so much oil exists. There's a limited supply of everything. There always has been. America's existence didn't make God go, "Oh F**K I hate these people, let's screw up the universe."

 

[rmxp_dev]

Why is there a limited supply of oil is the question here, and the answer is The United States of America.

Fido, you really are clueless about the natural resource called Oil, that is the foundation of Modern Civilization. America while the biggest consumer, is not the reason why our way of life is in danger.

I'd say if anyone should be blamed, it's the criminally negligent politicans who ignored the 70's Oil crunch ( I realize that was political and not an actual shortage ) opportunity to get this country off of foreign Oil, and onto a new  sustainable energy resource.

If I was the President, I would immediately ramp up Solar, Wind and other renewable energy. Give huge-er tax breaks on Electric and Hybrid vehicles. If nothing is done within 20 years, I'm afraid America will be ill-prepared for a post-Oil age, and a Mad Max scenario is possible.

 

[Fido]

I meant because America is blowing up the Middle East, which is why oil prices have gone up.  I agree with your idea about the fact that America will not be prepared for the post-Oil age.

 

[kimpoy2006]

America is prepared for most situations and that i think includes the post-Oil age. Their military has reserves that they think should be enough to keep order in their territory and well anywhere else that they have a military base on. Plus what country even prepares a special congressional bunker for a nuclear holocaust? America....

Anyway, this technology is a real breakthrough but i still think limits must be imposed on this thing. And NONMETALLIC? hmmmm... sounds a bit fishy!

 

[___]

There's nothing fishy at all about that if you accept the first assertion that all materials have a signature at the terrahertz frequency, which apparently they must if this technology works.  Think about when you get an x-ray at the dentist, the x-rays go through most tissues in your body but they are blocked by denser bone matter.  Same kind of deal.  Different wavelengths will penetrate different materials.