New camera "sees" through walls!

[unpossibles]

Camero, a company out of Israel that has developed a camera that can "see" things through solid walls, has raised $14 million, bringing the total is has raised to $20 million.

...
The Xaver800 doesn't technically capture images directly. Instead, it issues ultrawideband signals and the data harvested is then used to create 3D models of things the signals bounced off of. The trick is that the camera can capture the signals in cluttered environments or through solid objects. Researchers at U.S. universities are working on similar projects.

The camera is only sold to military and police agencies.
</snip>

great! Because you can't spell "Police State" without "see through walls." Well, you can, but you know what I mean. On the bright side, it's a good thing that technology has never been abused by those in power... </sarcasm>

http://news.com.com/2061-11128_3-6149531.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

[bryant69]

1. How many inventions over the year havne't been misused by those in power?

Penicillian I guess.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Not even penicillin.

They feed it to overcrowded livestock to hold down the level of infection.

[Rex]

5. Good point.

Antibiotics in the food supply? Good for developing super-resilient viruses. Good for the ownership crowd.

[Atman]

2. A judge has already ruled that such devices constitute a 4th amdnmt violation

Just because technology allows you to "knock down doors" and sneak into a house without actually doing so, it is STILL an illegal intrusion.

.

[Fovea]

3. I fear that ruling will have all the power of FISA.

And will stop nothing with the current administration, who will stop at nothing.

[Occulus]

6. Wasn't that a SCOTUS decision? n/t

[Atman]

10. I believe it was, yes.

Not sure...I can't remember the case.

.

[Book Lover]

25. Kyllo V. United States

And you will note that Scalia (scutta malocchio, ptu, ptu, ptu!) wrote the opinion

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html

<snip>
Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 3—13.
<snip>
It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been entirely unaffected by the advance of technology. For example, as the cases discussed above make clear, the technology enabling human flight has exposed to public view (and hence, we have said, to official observation) uncovered portions of the house and its curtilage that once were private. See Ciraolo, supra, at 215. The question we confront today is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy.
<snip>
Limiting the prohibition of thermal imaging to “intimate details” would not only be wrong in principle; it would be impractical in application, failing to provide “a workable accommodation between the needs of law enforcement and the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment,” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 181 (1984). To begin with, there is no necessary connection between the sophistication of the surveillance equipment and the “intimacy” of the details that it observes–which means that one cannot say (and the police cannot be assured) that use of the relatively crude equipment at issue here will always be lawful. The Agema Thermovision 210 might disclose, for example, at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath–a detail that many would consider “intimate”; and a much more sophisticated system might detect nothing more intimate than the fact that someone left a closet light on. We could not, in other words, develop a rule approving only that through-the-wall surveillance which identifies objects no smaller than 36 by 36 inches, but would have to develop a jurisprudence specifying which home activities are “intimate” and which are not. And even when (if ever) that jurisprudence were fully developed, no police officer would be able to know in advance whether his through-the-wall surveillance picks up “intimate” details–and thus would be unable to know in advance whether it is constitutional.
<snip>

[MidwestTransplant]

7. Hasn't gone before the Bush judges yet!

[hashibabba]

12. Yes, and Herr Busch would never do anything illegal!

:sarcasm:

[tularetom]

8. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I'm sure there is no chance that "military and police agencies" would never misuse this technology, or that black market versions of this camera would never wind up in the wrong hands.

I think I'm very close to becoming a luddite.

[global1]

9. Wow - There Oughta Be Some Interesting Pics On The Internet......nt

[stevedeshazer]

11. That technology has been around since I was a kid.

[rpgamerd00d]

13. I fail to see the problem with this device.

Its not like it can read printing on paper, or see what is on your harddrive (or even your monitor).

At best, they can see the shape of you (but not you directly), and all your furniture and crap.
They could see a desk, but not a paper on the desk (and likely not even a pen on the desk).

Worst violation would be to see you and your mate "doing it", but in shape only (no details).

Its not like they could use it to read your mail or your internet cookies or favorites list.

[annabanana]

14. A thief could see if no one's home.

A murderous ex could see if someone IS home.

sorry, don't like it

[rpgamerd00d]

16. Um.... They could do that without the device, too, you realize...

[WinkyDink]

30. Hardly. Unless they can leap up to my second story.

[Ezlivin]

15. You don't see "a problem with this device"?

Let's assume that your assumptions about the clarity of images is perfectly correct.

This is version 1.0.

So you let these guys deploy this technology and use it everywhere.

Then there is version 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and so on.

Do you think that the resolution and clarity would never improve?

[rpgamerd00d]

17. Its not an issue of resolution and clarity. Its a matter of science.

Seeing print on a page requires reflection of light. Light does not pass thru solid objects. Therefore, they cannot use this tech to see print on paper, ever. Not even in version 13948545.0.

[Ezlivin]

19. "Seeing" print on a page implies the use of human eyeballs, not software

You can discover what is printed on the page without using visible wavelengths of light. Heat waves are invisible to the unaided human eye, but if you can "see" in IR they are plainly visible.

When working with ancient texts or artwork scientists often shift to different wavelengths to discover what is hidden; they don't restrict themselves to visible wavelengths of light.

So it goes with this. Refinements, improvements and upgrades will occur.

[rpgamerd00d]

21. IR does not pass thru solids.

You cant combine this with IR.

[Ezlivin]

26. IR is just an example

My point was simply that you can use other wavelengths to "view" objects.

Can microwaves pass through solid objects? Can ULF waves pass through objects?

And you and I are merely speculators anyway. :)

[MadHound]

27. No, but you can combine this with various other spectrum bands

X-ray, ultra violet, etc. This technology is going to become increasingly more sophisticated, and the resolution will be continously refined to the point where you might as well live in a glass house.

But let's say it doesn't even go that far, that for whatever reason the technology remains at this level. Let's see what could possibly happen, both in the hands of the police and in other hands, as this technology will certainly spread beyond such a limited group(as such technology always does)

In the hands of the law, it is an abuse of the fourth amendment. A scenario for you. The government concludes from the many, many corporate and government databases that I'm not a smoker. But they fail to take into consideration that on occaission I like to roll and spark up some Three Castles tobacco. I've rolled one up, sparked it, and the police roll along outside. They use this device, and see that I'm smoking something. Since in their minds I don't smoke tobbacco, and the image on their machine sure makes it seems like I'm smoking a joint, they decide to come busting in with one of their no-knocks or one knocks. In the process they destroy my door and a few other items, rough me up, shoot my guard dog, raise hell, and then discover upon further investigation that I was indeed smoking tobacco. Ooops doesn't even begin to cover this.

And frankly, I'm not comfortable with having a complete stranger watching through the walls observing my every move, especially the more personal moments. Do you actually like the idea of living in a glass house? I certainly don't.

Now let's turn to the criminal element and this device. Not only can they see whether or not anybody is home, and what animals, like dogs, that they have, but they can use this for blackmail, casing a place, all sorts of mischief.

You may be comfortable with the continued erosion of the Fourth Amendment, but I'm certainly not. It was put in place to guard against abuses such as this, and to protect the privacy of American citizens.

Why are people such as you so willing to give away our rights? Why are you welcoming the coming police state, which this technology is but a part of? Sorry, but I find your position despicable, and frankly UnAmerican, since it goes against both the law and the spirit of this country.

[unpossibles]

18. well, maybe I don't want people watching me through my walls

isn't that enough?

And as for reading your computer or mail, they already can do that, so I fail to see how that is related to this.

[Richard Steele]

20. I am increasingly amazed by the things you don't see any problem with. nm

[rpgamerd00d]

22. Yeah, I know, common sense on this board is rare. -nt

[Richard Steele]

24. So, you ADMIT that you consider most DUers to be fools. HONESTY feels good, dunnit?

[WinkyDink]

29. So your "President Evil" there is a sham for you to fool us ignoramuses into

thinking you're a Democrat?

[Book Lover]

23. If you have no desire for privacy in your home

why don't you live in a glass box?

[WinkyDink]

28. That WAS sarcasm, no?

You don't MIND the local police knowing how many people are in your home? Or in which rooms they're in? Or what you might be doing in your bathroom?

You have no problem with your actual physical self being watched, but you DO have a problem with a piece of paper's being read?