X-rays are the same as infrared now?

PC LOAD LETTER: dramboxf: They also have the Sullivan Act, which is a mandatory 1 year (no plea) in Rikers for carrying an unlicensed handgun.

My correction officer brother in law says "everything you have heard about Rikers is completely 100% true"

I haven't heard anything about Rikers....so that's a good thing. Right?

maybe i'll get green balls from this, instead of my normal blue balls

does infrared reach all the way to california?

just posting cuz i can..for the moment

not really, posting cuz i'm wrecked on demon weed and vodka, and bored

The Supreme Court has already ruled that police could not use an infrared camera to scan the heat emanating from a house without a warrant. Something tells me that this is pretty much the exact same thing and that it will never hold up in court.

gaslight: Guess what, I never need to visit the US. I just decided.

Let me know how it works out for you, cousins. No, seriously, randomly throwing sievert at people 'just because'? Maybe you'll find that Habeas corpus you seem to have misplaced.

Good. We did not want you coming here anyway.

It's not news
It's
FAIL ONLINE.

Luthien's Tempest:
Also, if I'm reading correctly, it is a passive sensor and doesn't do anything other than detect electromagnetic radiation given off by other objects. So it's not even giving off infrared (more than any other object, that is) let alone x-rays.

That's what I gathered, but this throws me: "The device will be mounted on the top of NYPD vans and will shoot rays at a suspect or scan the streets for weapons."

Seems to me that this is a good way to keep warm in the winter. I can just see all the homeless crowding around this van-mounted giant heater.

Just when TSA is considering the goodwill of radiation badges for its workers since there is no law to force protection.

Imagine insurance not paying for cancer treatment for anyone in Manhattan since the police irradiate the streets and staying or visiting Manhattan is an avoidable health risk. However they could turn the machines on snow clogged side streets to melt the snow during blizzards and even run the machines as convenient microwaves in winter like the fire hydrants are for cooling in summer.

NYPD decides to use a new device that beams x-rays at random people to see if they have guns. Well what could go wrong with beaming x-rays all over the place when people are legally allowed to have guns

Try again, bucko. Regular folks in NYC are not allowed to have guns because fark YOU, CONSTITUTION!

Mock26: gaslight: Guess what, I never need to visit the US. I just decided.

Let me know how it works out for you, cousins. No, seriously, randomly throwing sievert at people 'just because'? Maybe you'll find that Habeas corpus you seem to have misplaced.

Good. We did not want you coming here anyway.

Real friendly 'merican hospitality like that is why so much of the world just loves the U S of A.
/sarcasm

This is meant only as a method of frisking suspects for fireams at a distance before you actually have to aproach them and do a manual pat down, risking getting shot in the process.
If I was a cop I'd want one of these.
Of course there is potential for abuse here.
And like it was said it uses infrared (non ionizing radiation), not x-rays.

Wodan11: That's what I gathered, but this throws me: "The device will be mounted on the top of NYPD vans and will shoot rays at a suspect or scan the streets for weapons."

Yeah - I read pretty much every journalist's take on it and not a single one got it even close to right.

I'm moderately to fairly certain they're talking about the ThruVision T5000, which doesn't "shoot rays" of any sort, it's a passive imager. No x-rays, no shooting beams of radiation.

NY, the land of the formerly free.

Ow! My sperm!

dramboxf: They also have the Sullivan Act, which is a mandatory 1 year (no plea) in Rikers for carrying an unlicensed handgun.

Did you know the Sullivan Act was originally enacted to protect Tammany Hall thugs?

This is just creepy. What about the possible health risks?

AbbeySomeone: This is just creepy. What about the possible health risks?

Pretty much the same health risks as having someone take a picture of you with a cell phone.

erewhon: AbbeySomeone: This is just creepy. What about the possible health risks?

Pretty much the same health risks as having someone take a picture of you with a cell phone.

That's not true: I've never been held at gun point, arrested, and thrown into jail because someone took a picture of me with a cellphone. All those things have some health risk to them.

erewhon: AbbeySomeone: This is just creepy. What about the possible health risks?

Pretty much the same health risks as having someone take a picture of you with a cell phone.

Bullsh&t.

So the NYPD can effectively search you at will without any reasonable suspicion?

mr_a: At least it will give fans of the 2nd amendment a chance to meet fans of the 4th amendment.

I think you will find, for the most part, that Second Amendment advocates like myself tend to cherish all of the Bill of Rights.

FTFA:

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it currently only works at a short range - from around three to four feet away from a person... The device will be mounted on the top of NYPD vans...


I see absolutely no flaw in this.

THX 1138: FTFA:

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it currently only works at a short range - from around three to four feet away from a person... The device will be mounted on the top of NYPD vans...


I see absolutely no flaw in this.

Those 2 lines completely contradict each other. Mounting them on vans would put them out of useful range, right?

Kyllo v. US

I'd post a link but its SOPA day. The supremes say you can't drive down the street and look into houses with infrared so would they see people on the street differently?

Day_Old_Dutchie: [dvdmedia.ign.com image 450x338]
Ow! My sperm!

It only hurts the first time.
/much like sex at Rikers.
//Or so I've been told.

Surveillance of your own citizens is a pretty scummy thing to do, invasive surveillance of your citizens is probably illegal.

AbbeySomeone: erewhon: AbbeySomeone: This is just creepy. What about the possible health risks?

Pretty much the same health risks as having someone take a picture of you with a cell phone.

Bullsh&t.

Considering it's a passive imager, not at all.

Cheron: Kyllo v. US

I'd post a link but its SOPA day. The supremes say you can't drive down the street and look into houses with infrared so would they see people on the street differently?

Possibly, because you are "in public". It's a stretch, but they might consider it akin to a "Terry stop", where a cop can frisk you without any justification for 'officer safety' reasons.

dramboxf: It's infrared, not X-rays, first.

And second "legally carry a gun in NYC" does not farking compute. I grew up there. Aside from cops, peace officers and the politically connected (maybe .01% of the population,) it takes a note from GOD cosigned by Jesus to get a carry permit in NYC. They also have the Sullivan Act, which is a mandatory 1 year (no plea) in Rikers for carrying an unlicensed handgun.

I lIve in NYC and it is not that hard, hard but not as hard as you describe. All you need is a clean record, a home gun safe, File about half a dozen form plus several hundred dollars in fees, Hand Gun safety course, waiting period, etc. And then you can get it. Its hard but I know people who have done it (one of them owns a jewelry store and needs it for protection). Link (NYC Gun Laws new window)

Also Rikers only holds local offenders who are awaiting trial and cannot pay or were denied bail and those those serving sentences of one year or less, and those temporarily placed there during transfer to another facility. It is not a regular prison complex, hasn't been in over 30 years

erewhon: Considering it's a passive imager, not at all.

We have people in BC up in arms about smart power meters because they transmit using microwaves, once a day, for like a second, when people usually are not home, with microwaves.

These same people will put a baby monitor from the 70s next to their infant's crib then piss and moan about cell phone towers and smart meters. There is no logic and no point in debating with them.

Until more real details come out about this scanner (i.e. how the range will be increased, etc.) I'll be skeptical. Scientific measurement > NYPD press release.

I also wonder if the people defending this new device as safe are the same sycophants who were parroting the TSA on the safety of the backscatter scanners.

That whole Whittman/EPA/Ground Zero debacle still sticks in my craw...