Police Nation-Wide Use Wall-Penetrating Radars To Peer Into Homes 290
mi writes 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. The device the Marshals Service and others are using, known as the Range-R, looks like a sophisticated stud-finder. Its display shows whether it has detected movement on the other side of a wall and, if so, how far away it is — but it does not show a picture of what's happening inside. The Range-R's maker, L-3 Communications, estimates it has sold about 200 devices to 50 law enforcement agencies at a cost of about $6,000 each. Other radar devices have far more advanced capabilities, including three-dimensional displays of where people are located inside a building, according to marketing materials from their manufacturers. One is capable of being mounted on a drone. And the Justice Department has funded research to develop systems that can map the interiors of buildings and locate the people within them.
With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:2)
Is not it great, how much civilization you can buy with your taxes [governmentisgood.com] today?
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh, controversial use of tax dollars (and a very small percentage of tax dollars) implies that all taxes are bad? I didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.
Like Bernie Madoff proved that capitalism didn't work? Or that plane crash in San Fran meant planes were dangerous? Or a particularly cold winter means global warming isn't real?
And even then, when used with a warrant, I see this as preferable to a bunch of cops rounding corners, getting scared and shooting.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:5, Interesting)
plain and simple, any "search tech" should require a court order (clear, not FICA) to be used and if the tech is used without one, the cops who carried it out, the superiors and the department as a whole should be held accountable to the highest extent possible. Last I checked we still have a 4th amendment
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:4)
No police anywhere in the world can be "trusted" to stick to legal methods in doing their jobs.
Such is their job:
If anything, American police are, probably, well above your average bribe-taking empty uniform...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
but that was infrared. You see, when it was visible light we didn't need warrants then a document was written that said they did. Then this infrared thing came along and they said that the constitution didn't cover infrared because it didn't exist when the constitution was written. Then the courts said that infrared requires a warrant. The interpretation is not infrared requires a warrant because a search is a search but because a court said so. Now we have this radar thing and it doesn't require a warrant
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:5, Insightful)
True. I'd like to add that another problem that is quickly ramping up in the U.S. is the militarization of the police force. We are heading down a path where the civilian police force will have near equal capabilities, technology, and weapons of the military. And if you don't think that's bad news, just ask Admiral Adama:
There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Ow, good quote.
Re: (Score:3)
I am well aware of — and generally agree with — the sentiment, but, in my opinion, the current concerns are misplaced.
Until these civilian police are also placed under the same command as the military, the police — along with their advanced weapons — will remain a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course! And that's a perfectly normal — as long as the country remains at peace with itself.
Should another civil conflict unravel, however, these arsenals distributed nation-wide and under control of local authorities (each with his own agenda and loyalties) will be part of a problem for any usurper of central power, not part of his solution.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful here. Real careful. There is some truth to that statement but the implication is overbroad. It is the military structure that puts it's command away from local government. What you want is local civilian governmental control of the police, not federal control. Weapons and tactics are of little import and have been more than a little hyped.
It's the feds coopting local police by offering money, equipment, communications and help that is very concerning. Of course, it can work both ways - we have seen where local control of police causes real harm to members of the community and those harms don't get addressed locally. The entire civil rights movement would have been dead in the water if the US Federal government hadn't been there to 'overwhelm' the entrenched southern interests. No clear winner either way and checks and balances are crucial.
But guns and trucks are only a small part of this.
Re:With taxes you buy civilization, remember? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
plain and simple, any "search tech" should require a court order
First, I would amend that to say "requires the same standards for judging the reasonableness as any other search." Searches don't require warrants, just reasonableness, and a warrant is one way of demonstrating reasonableness. Searches can be reasonable without a warrant, such as "hot pursuit." When the cops see the murderer flee into your home, they don't have to sit outside waiting while he butchers you until the court order comes through.
As far as the restrictions on this tech go, their use is already go
Re: (Score:3)
The NRA and 2nd amendment "crazy types" as you call us, make the argument that regardless of what technology (surveillance or gun related), existed back when the Constitution was written and what exists now is irrelevant. It is what the spirit of the law written in the Constitution that matters. When it comes to guns, it means that citizens should be able to own modern weapons that are similar in spec to what the military of the time uses. Back then, the
Re: (Score:3)
So why can't police do it?
Because the police have the power to put you in jail
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here...
The problem, of course, is not the warranted use of such devices — it is the routine unwarranted (as in "without a warrant") usage, which gives me creeps.
But nice to see Illiberals confounded by the dilemma of "taxes are good" vs. "government surveillance is bad"...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem, of course, is not the warranted use of such devices -- it is the routine unwarranted (as in "without a warrant") usage, which gives me creeps.
What is the "routine uwarranted use"? Is it similar to the "routine uwarranted use" of pat-downs for weapons during initial contact that the courts have ruled are justified? Is it similar to the "routing unwarranted" search of a room subsequent to arrest of an occupant? Is it "routine unwarranted use" if the devices are used to determine whether a space is occupied prior to executing a search warrant?
I notice you made a great leap from "fifty police agencies" to "police nation-wide". The latter implies la
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about "stop and frisk" then the courts are certainly not okay with that. A pat-down of someone who's being detained for probable cause is okay. Being black, young, or poor is not probable cause.
Re: (Score:2)
According to this [blogspot.com] chart the 50 largest police departments cover some 51m people or 16% of the countries entire population. If you don't consider nearly 1 in 5 people being covered by such technology large-scale then I'm not sure what to say.
Re: (Score:2)
An arrest warrant is NOT a search warrant, unless the weapons were in plain sight or the arrestee made some move towards them that would indicate immediate threat of harm to the officers then yes, a search warrant was needed to conduct a search, and if the marshals service wants to use these devices as a part of servicing an arrest warrant then they need to file for a concurrent search warrant.
Look, it's not like there are too many judges that are going to fail to issue a warrant for Marshalls to observe a
Re: (Score:3)
And if YOU had read the first link, you'd see that it includes the FBI & US Marshal Service.
So, yes, nationwide is an appropriate descriptor. So would 'large-scale use'.
Re: (Score:2)
The unwarranted use is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled warrants (or exceptions to the need for warrants, like exigent circumstances) applies to radar like this a while ago. Like over a decade.
It's no dilemma. I never said "every government program is perfect." I said, "cherry-picking the dumbest e
Re: (Score:2)
> Huh, controversial use of tax dollars (and a very small percentage of tax dollars) implies that all taxes are bad? I
> didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.
Not sure standard case works either. Non-controversial uses of tax dollars should not be allowed to justify or excuse the less standard and more abusive ones. If taxes pay for abusive uses then taxes are bad. This is a standard that is appropriate and every single person whose actions are representative of the people w
Wrong issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the ability of the device. The problem is the lack of due process.
For instance, if we know we've got a hostage situation, this kind of thing is entirely appropriate, and no judge should hesitate to enable it via a proper warrant. That doesn't mean the police should be free to use it at any time, at their own discretion.
Same thing goes for any other search tech that enables normal privacy boundaries to be crossed on a whim.
Search is like any other weapon in this way: a critical issue is how it is to be used, both in what the rules are, and in how well the rules are obeyed.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not. The Supreme Court ruled in the early 2000's that the police require a warrant for FLIR and wall-pentrating radar.
I suppose that doesn't make for a good headline: Police acquire new tech for performing searches; searches still require warrant!
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, they regularly act like they don't need a warrant, and they will act on that basis. Just as they are... casual... about other restrictions, and manipulative in escalating confrontations. These things illuminate a severe problem with our present police culture. You may rest assured that these technologies will be misused, and not to the citizen's benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mission creep, while a real thing should never be an excuse to not use something worthwhile.
What's the difference between this position, and mission creep, while a real thing, should just be ignored?
Re: (Score:3)
However, knowing that "mission creep" is inevitable, and will rapidly overwhelm legitimate uses, we must consider any authorization of new powers to be an authorization of their abuse as well. At least until such time as proper checks and balances are imposed on the system.
Any other perspective is hopelessly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly. And once we start seeing regular convictions of officers that abuse their existing powers, then we can talk about giving them new ones. Until that time, however, any grant of new powers is a de-facto blessing on their abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about your precious tax dollars. I am sure they mostly paid for these things with civilly forfeited assets.
How lucky we are to live in a society where the police can just take money and property from people they don't like on some thin pretext of drug involvement. The best part is since there is expensive overhead associated with review or due process 100% of the revenue can be directly reinvesting in to further civil rights abuses ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ additional policing even more greatly reducing
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are a necessary evil. They are both necessary, and evil.
They are also always regressive.
The greatest reason though is an implied "right" of government to tax its populace to its breaking point.
Therefore, it is my conclusion, that taxes should be the LAST resort of raising revenue.
RTLSDR? (Score:2)
Maybe some kind of software defined radio contraption in a flying platform.
Aluminum Foil Wallpaper? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aluminum is not the greatest conductor, copper is better and then silver and gold
Actually silver and copper are better conductors than gold. But depending on the usage, gold can be a better choice because it doesn't oxidize (easily).
Umm.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely not. When the burglers get these they will be able to see if there is anyone at home before breaking in.
This means I need to be able to create ambiguity or block things completely, without interfering with my mobile phone's reception. Stopping drive-by WLAN eavesdropping is not really something I'm bothered about.
Didn't we have this discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a police dog is considered equipment, and cannot be used without a warrant when dealing with homes, and if other law-enforcement devices whose specific purpose is to detect into homes have been ruled in the past to need warrants, then wouldn't it follow that once this does reach the courts, it'll be found inadmissable because of a lack of warrant?
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... (Score:5, Insightful)
The radar will never come up in court, they'll use it to uncover things they can use without needing a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
They tried this in Canada with thermocams. The supreme court hit them so hard on that being a warrantless search that crown attorneys and police services across Canada are still smarting over it. There is precedent, and legal justifications are often carried from other countries on things like this.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Supreme Court did the same thing in 2001.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... (Score:4, Informative)
Katz v. United States [wikipedia.org].
There is a subsequent ruling that essentially allows a drone to spot what's in plain view in the backyard of a home, even if that stuff is within the curtilage behind a fence, but Katz seems to establish the right to privacy where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, so long as there isn't a warrant.
Any technology that could see into someone's home through an opaque barrier would seem to be in violation of that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can show that the cops used one without a warrant, your case gets tossed.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the cops never try to use the radar scans as evidence, how will you show that they scanned you at all? In fact, how you will ever suspect that they scanned you so you can try to show they did?
Re: (Score:2)
See, there's the problem. If something so invasive is used without a warrant it should be the cops who get tossed - into mandatory jail time.
I mean come on, we've already had mandatory minimum sentencing for low-level drug possession - if a cop knowingly and willfully violates the US Constitution they should be personally punished and barred from ever serving in law enforcement again. No exceptions.
Re:Didn't we have this discussion... (Score:5, Informative)
No, we already have a ruling, Kyllo vs U.S. [findlaw.com] where the court quite clearly stated the limits of extra-sensory detection equipment:
"Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, it's clear the use of these without a warrant provides inadmissible evidence today.
So if an open source version becomes available, and people can just print one on their 3D printer so lots of people start using them, that somehow makes warrantless use of these legal for evidence gathering tomorrow? Go, Open Source, go!! ??
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really get around Kyllo since there were civilian thermal imaging cameras available (commonly used in energy audits) but were not in widespread use by the general public. A better analogy might be detecting the name of a WiFi access point from the street that says "drug den", since the police could use commonly available equipment that are in general use to detect the AP it would not constitute a search.
Re: (Score:2)
That was written by Antonin Scalia, who is usually a total douche, but occasionally gets things right.
Re: (Score:2)
Majority: Scalia (right), joined by Souter (center left), Thomas (right), Ginsburg (left), Breyer (center left)
Dissent: Stevens (center-left), Rehnquist (right), O'Connor (center right), Kennedy (center)
If you read through the decision, nearly every justice had their own reasons for voting the way they did. That's usually a sign of a bad decision (bad as in likely to be overturned in the future). The good decisions tend to have strong central theme
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you assuming a warrant hasn't already been obtained by the time this technology is being used? In some places it is ridiculously easy to obtain a search warrant.
In this case, considering that the method of search does not involve entry into the home or even setting foot on the premises, should a warrant once obtained even need to be delivered before this method of search can begin?
Re: (Score:2)
With some dangerous exceptions like NSLs you as the accused are to be informed of any warrants used to gather information against you at the time of arraignment as a normal part of discovery. If the police were actually obtaining warrants for the widespread use of such technology you'd think that defense attorneys would be made aware of it and would be talking to the media. We already know that with the stinger cellphone interception technology that police forces used the technology in an unconstitutional m
Re: (Score:2)
No, the conclusion was that the headline is using hyphens incorrectly. It should read: "Police-nation wide-use, wall-penetrating radars to peer into homes."
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, dogs shouldn't even be used except in certain situations, for the post part, their findings should be as inadmissable as a polygraph because; and I want to be clear IN THE WAY THEY ARE COMMONLY USED they are little more than a prop.
The reason for this is while, they have excellent snouts, they are even better at playing clever hans.
So if you have an endless line of luggage to check, or lines of random cars waiting.... that is, situations where the handler himself has no reason to suspect anything
I reckon (Score:3)
Have they tried ringing the doorbell? I could supply them with a device to do that at, what, half the price of these doohickeys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they tried ringing the doorbell?
"Gosh, guys, we rang the doorbell and shouted 'Federal Marshals' and nobody opened the door. The guy we've got the warrant to arrest must not be here. Let's go get some donuts and come back tomorrow..." If only it should be that simple to avoid an arrest warrant. A well-stocked larder and pizza delivery could delay a federal arrest by months.
Re: (Score:2)
Another example of trying to impose a technical solution on a human problem.
You're supposed to shout "Candygram".
Don't worry, they can only see inside the homes of (Score:5, Interesting)
... of innocent law-abiding civilians.
Because the criminals will have these www.instructables.com/id/Radio-Jammer/ [instructables.com]
Nothing to see here... move along, SNAFU.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How will a radio jammer stop radar?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't "see" into shit. Read the summary. All it does is inform the officer if there's movement inside, which doesn't really tell them much.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. It seemed like nobody realized that someone vegging out in a chair, or lying quietly in a bed won't be picked up by this shit. Or, on the other hand, there is SOMETHING radar reflective moving inside. Could be a dog or a robot.
So it really doesn't tell them anything useful whatsoever.
Yay for timothy! (Score:3)
Title: "Police Nation-Wide Use Wall-Penetrating Radars To Peer Into Homes"
Summary: "it does not show a picture of what's happening inside"
P.S. Layout's still fucked. If you're too dumb to fix it just revert to the old one already.
And let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
If that one fails (sadly, this can be rated as only 'moderately' probable), its utility against Drugs, Terrorists, Pedo-terrorist-drugs, and similar threats to the community will be trotted out. If (again, sadly, this can be rated as only 'moderately' probable) the judge points out that 'utility' is actually orthogonal to 'legality' we will move to argument three:
The devices will be transferred to the jurisdiction of an entity with substantial clandestine activity(DEA, say) and all information pertaining to its use will be classified, and all information derived from its use will be laundered by 'parallel construction'; and any FOIA requests, evidence requests by defense attorneys, and similar uppity behavior will be referred to a blank denial on the grounds of 'potentially compromising classified sources and methods'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Argument one will be that these devices are in no way in contradiction with the fourth amendment because nobody with RF-permiable walls can have a reasonable expectation of privacy
The Supreme Court already ruled that you DO have an expectation of privacy against wall-penetrating infra-red cameras. Prior to that, police helicopters would fly around looking for indoor pot growers.
Re: (Score:2)
And preemptively said the same applied to wall penetrating radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, two out of three is pretty good.
The government has gotten so far with the terrorist thing that Congress had to have a hearing investigating why Congress had two previous hearings about whether the American Muslim community is a terrorist threat to national security and what they should do about them (remember FDR putting all the Japs and Krauts in concentration camps?). The pedophile-childporn angle is working so well we can't get proper care for these people: in Europe, broad-age-range attracti
Last laugh? (Score:2)
Mwa. Ha. HaHa!
Funny though, my cell phone doesn't work inside the house anymore. Damned AT&T and their crappy network!
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember: the chicken-wire salesman got the first laugh when he cashed your check.
Re: (Score:2)
Now who gets the last laugh?
Everyone who knows that the openings in the Faraday cage have to be smaller than the wavelength of the signal you're trying to block.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't hard to find chicken wire that goes down to 1/2" gaps. Wavelengths of 20GHz and below are more than 1/2".
Thanks...Justice Scalia (Score:5, Interesting)
The cops need a warrant to use these things is because of an interesting Supreme Court decision from 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
The traditional "liberal" and "conservative" wings fell apart and Ginsburg joined Scalia in the majority. Scalia's decision specifically addressed future technologies like this. It's strange how he's really good on privacy issues and really bad on everything else.
Re:Thanks...Justice Scalia (Score:5, Funny)
Not so strange. He doesn't want anyone to find out about the hookers chained to the wall in his basement, so he's big on privacy.
Already requires a warrant (Score:2)
Discussed earlier
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... (Score:2)
10 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of IR devices, that, although they were passively observing, government needed to get a warrant to use them. Technological adgancements shall not obviate expected constitutional protections. People expect privacy and advances that did not exist then cannot take advantage of loopholes like that.
So, I hope these people are getting warrants, or I expect to see hundreds of law enforcement officials going to jail.
By the way, as people move more and more of the
Re:Well, the king wouldn't abuse it, so... (Score:4, Interesting)
> I expect to see hundreds of law enforcement officials going to jail.
If that is what you expect, then you are going to have a very bad time. Police only occasionally go to prison and it really takes extraordinary circumstances. We know incidents of illegal searches happen, we know that because evidence gets excluded at trial, yet, only 10% of people who are convicted actually even go to trial.... yet in that sampling, we find illegal searches.
Now, do police get charged with a crime for an illegal search? The constitution itself garauntees us freedom from searches without due process, not freedom to have the evidence tossed out in court, so far, only part of that is being upheld....where is there ANY attempt being made to ensure that illegal searches NEVER EVEN HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I see no attempt being made. If anything, all I see is attempts to do end runs around our rights and limit exposure of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I fully agree, in no way did I mean to imply that throwing out the evidence was wrong..... its the best thing you can do under the circumstance and the only proper way to handle in within the context of the original case.
My comment is 100% aimed at the lack of followup and the lack of any even attempt to prevent the issue beyond hiding the truth of the matter and avoiding dealing with it.
Its correct to toss out such evidence, its incorrect to not treat the criminal searches as a crime.
chickenwire & radar cross section (Score:3)
I understand that chicken-wire has an extremely high radar cross section, as it's a regularly spaced array. I wonder how hard it is to see behind such a screen. Of course the attenuation varies by the spatial dimensions, A fun bit of calculation would be to find what the right size(s) of chicken-wire you need to block such instruments given their frequency ranges (assuming ISM band?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
I first read about how strong a return you get from chicken-wire from Stimson's book "Introduction to Airborne Radar" ..which is a pretty easy to read with a lot of colorful graphs, and is mostly targeted to fighter pilots, with blue boxes around the more complicated math for the more interested students. Most books ether have no math/calculus, or are geared toward graduate students. This particular one is a good mix between the two that gives you intuition when reading the graduate books..
Not all. (Score:2)
Metalized low-E glass really limits that stuff as well as aluminum siding. The magnetic paint sold for kids rooms also will create a very high reflective barrier to significantly hamper this tech.
Get a warrant first and I'm ok with this (Score:2)
As others have said, this definitely seems to be a warrant required device -- cops should in NO WAY be able to just run around willy nilly doing this. The opportunity for abuse is too great.
I think in the case of a say a hostage situation (or something along those lines), you could argue it's an exigent circumstance and could exclude a warrant. But the exclusion should only in extreme circumstances.
Wire mesh upgrade (Score:2)
My plan is to install a 15ft high wire mesh completely surrounding my yard and gate and underneath my roof to block IR, Radar, X-Rays, and other RF signals.
Within my yard, I will generate disruptive signals which the mesh will fully contain but prevent the usage of any kind of drone or bug or other wireless device inside the shielded area.
Surely that should help discourage this kind of privacy invasion?
Secret police behavior? (Score:2)
> At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices
I can't think of anything wrong with secret police behavior. I mean, has that led to any problems in the past? What could possibly go wrong?
They had this back in the '80s (Score:2)
Hudson: 9 meters. 7. 6.
Ripley: That can't be; that's inside the room.
Hudson: It's reading right man, look!
Hicks: Then you're not reading *it* right.
Hudson: 5 meters, man. 4. What the hell?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't work on my walls. I have an older drywall that was plastered over. I think my walls are somewhere between 3/4" and 1" thick and nothing I've tried will find the studs.
Re: (Score:2)
or to keep you from driving picture nail denting and then through duct right behind drywall that you didn't know went to upper floor...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Highly concentrated beams of radio waves are known to cause cold pizza to become hot.
FTFY.
It takes a lot of RF exposure over a very, very long time to increase your chances of getting cancer by a statistically detectable amount. Despite decades of data, (and several very poor quality, highly-biased studies) there is still not a clear correlation between cell phone exposure and brain cancer*. During the course of a police action, the device will likely be on for a few seconds while they recon the inside of the building. For that to cause harm over that short amount of time, it would have
Re: (Score:3)
Your looking at the wrong studies.
Look at the studies of military radar operators from the 50s and 60s. They would stand in front of the radar dishes to stay _warm_ north of the arctic circle.
They have no detectable increase in cancer rates beyond what all electronic techs have. They can statistically see the cancer caused by flux, but see no increase from massive exposures to RF energy. Even better they are mostly dead by now, so the study is final. They were tracked to the grave.
The cops and a bunc
Re: (Score:2)
A firefighter has a reason to be there if there is a fire to fight. As the SCOTUS already said, police using this sort of thing without a warrant is an illegal search.
Re: (Score:2)
And the NSA COULD use mass surveillance to help catch actual terrorists... but the ends don't justify the means. Get a warrant or screw off.
And finding indoor pot farms isn't even a good thing; the war on drugs is garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
That can already be done with FLIR. Which is actually better because the radar only detects movement. It would not detect someone sitting, watching tv and not moving.
Re: (Score:2)
Radar does NOT "only detect movement". It can detect stationary objects just fine. If the particular equipment being used by police only detects movement, that says nothing about what radar can and cannot do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little hard to hide inside the water heater. Otherwise, you have to pick to hide on one side or the other.
This thing detects movement. Not moving will work - whether you're behind the water heater or not.