kimpoy2006
Member
Ohhh, I thought it was something that i've watched before (It could actually see through clothes, and kinda see you naked).
Could technology redefine the boundaries of search and seizure?
- Thread starter So fist
- Start date
Nah that was a special low-light filter on some camcorders that when used in daylight basically enhanced light passing through partially transparent clothes to make it much more visible to the eye. It's nothing spectacular, really; things like sun dresses that use really thin fabric are just fairly transparent, if you've ever seen a woman who wore a black bra behind one of them it's the same thing except the filter could pick up and enhance much more subtle differences, allowing lame pervs with too much time on their hands to see certain people in their undies on sunny days. 
Aere it is the same thing as a regular camera only it is working on a different spectrum of light. A regular camera works with the narrow spectrum of visible light. Different materials reflect back different wavelengths of visible light. That's how we perceive color in the first place. The light is imprinted on a storage medium (film). I'm over simplifying but that's the gist of it. This camera operates on the terahertz frequency of light, and just as objects reflect back specific frequencies of visible light, they do the same for the terahertz band.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the authority doesn't have the right to use anything they find as evidence unless they have a search warrant. Now, I don't remember the specifics, and this could very much be just for house searches. This, or something similar, should be used when the device is used in a non-security area (areas other than airports, schools, etc.) without a search warrant.
As for the mass distribution of the device - I don't see any major problems if the above is implemented and a log is kept of its use (so cops can't just scan random people for fun). The only concern I'd have is if it is captured by criminals or terrorists. Just like it can be used to detect things on people, it can be used against the creators. To prevent this, I would suggest a link to a central point so the device can be deactivated if it is lost as well as track its use after the incident.
As for the mass distribution of the device - I don't see any major problems if the above is implemented and a log is kept of its use (so cops can't just scan random people for fun). The only concern I'd have is if it is captured by criminals or terrorists. Just like it can be used to detect things on people, it can be used against the creators. To prevent this, I would suggest a link to a central point so the device can be deactivated if it is lost as well as track its use after the incident.
Utterly wrong. Anything found during a search action can be used as evidence so long as fourth amendment rights were not violated. The major standard of that legitimacy is "probable cause." Police are required to have probable cause for a search: Suspicious activity has been witnessed, Terry frisk, suspect has been detained for other violations, or contraband has been perceived by the officer. Terry frisk is the most murky one but it is limited in practice. Essentially it gives the officer the right to Frisk on a hunch when he witnesses activities not commonly considered suspicious. Terry in practice is a gang busting addendum to probable cause:
You see a bunch of kids walking in a neighborhood in a small group. Not suspicious on a superficial level. The officer can see that they're gangsters and not on their turf. They would be Terry frisked and sent packing, but without the Terry standard the cop's understanding of gang culture of his area wouldn't fall into the normal realm of probable cause. For a Terry frisk to be done the officer must witness activity he believes to be "unusual" and that the activity may present a clear and present danger to himself or other officers and he is suspicious that the suspects may be armed. A Terry frisk is essentially a pat down search for weapons.
To expand on what Sophist just posted, there's a standard for probable cause that states that objects in "plain sight" - i.e. observable without conducting a search - can become probable cause for search.
For instance if an officer pulls you over and observes a water bong strapped into the passenger seat, or the barrel of a concealed weapon poking out from under a chair (in a state where that is illegal), or anything that would violate a parole if you're one one, he has cause to search your vehicle, even though he didn't have consent to search or cause to look for such an object.
There's still discussion going on whether use of thermal imaging (which is used to detect cannabis incubators among other things) constitutes a search; the same would apply to this technology. If it doesn't constitute a search, then it may fall under the "plain sight" rule. Note that the standard is higher to enter someone's home, but a plain sight observation might be enough to justify a search warrant - and in any case cops have a habit of trying to obtain consent to search, at which point whether or not they had cause is irrelivent. If a cop says, "Do you mind if I look around" and you consent he doesn't need cause; I know people that have been busted like this a bunch of times because they're convinced if they say no that will just further incriminate them (which is untrue, but really what they maybe aught to do is stop breaking the law ;/).
For instance if an officer pulls you over and observes a water bong strapped into the passenger seat, or the barrel of a concealed weapon poking out from under a chair (in a state where that is illegal), or anything that would violate a parole if you're one one, he has cause to search your vehicle, even though he didn't have consent to search or cause to look for such an object.
There's still discussion going on whether use of thermal imaging (which is used to detect cannabis incubators among other things) constitutes a search; the same would apply to this technology. If it doesn't constitute a search, then it may fall under the "plain sight" rule. Note that the standard is higher to enter someone's home, but a plain sight observation might be enough to justify a search warrant - and in any case cops have a habit of trying to obtain consent to search, at which point whether or not they had cause is irrelivent. If a cop says, "Do you mind if I look around" and you consent he doesn't need cause; I know people that have been busted like this a bunch of times because they're convinced if they say no that will just further incriminate them (which is untrue, but really what they maybe aught to do is stop breaking the law ;/).
Oh yeah on your other point, I actually think controlling devices like this from public use is a horrible idea. Not only does a criminal gain very little from knowing a police officer is carrying a concealed weapon, I just don't like the idea of any government who can keep a better eye on me than I can on it. If they want to devote resources toward obtaining the device and I don't that's one thing, but telling me I can't have it strikes me wrong.
Well, using it to detect hidden recording devices and such while infiltrating organized crime and such is potentially a hazard, but biometrics is liable to render that kind of thing impossible in the near future anyway, and organized crime itself operates on a simple principle of information advantage that's not likely to last long in our world of diminishing privacy. Eventually it's going to get to the point where, like it or not, anyone is going to be able to find out anything they like about anyone or anything else, and that's going to have such a huge impact on the way we live and act discussing it in terms of "this is good" and "this is bad" doesn't even begin to grasp the scope of the paradigm shift we are winding up for. The only thing likely to put a stop to it is a regression into another dark age and the complete abandonment of modern technology; it's just too cheap and too easy to regulate and too ubiquitous already to naively protest. Best start adapting, and fast. Sorry if that's a rant.
Well, using it to detect hidden recording devices and such while infiltrating organized crime and such is potentially a hazard, but biometrics is liable to render that kind of thing impossible in the near future anyway, and organized crime itself operates on a simple principle of information advantage that's not likely to last long in our world of diminishing privacy. Eventually it's going to get to the point where, like it or not, anyone is going to be able to find out anything they like about anyone or anything else, and that's going to have such a huge impact on the way we live and act discussing it in terms of "this is good" and "this is bad" doesn't even begin to grasp the scope of the paradigm shift we are winding up for. The only thing likely to put a stop to it is a regression into another dark age and the complete abandonment of modern technology; it's just too cheap and too easy to regulate and too ubiquitous already to naively protest. Best start adapting, and fast. Sorry if that's a rant.