If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   NYPD to deploy new, portable high-tech devices that can scan people walking down the street for concealed weapons   (nydailynews.com) divider line 334
    More: Scary, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, N.Y.P.D., New York Civil Liberties Union, London Metropolitan Police, concealed weapons, Waldorf-Astoria, assault weapons, false positives  
•       •       •

10095 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 3:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



334 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 04:23:14 PM

Silverstaff: Rincewind53: WalkingCarpet: In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that warrantless use of thermal imaging cameras when used to see if a house is emitting too much heat (indicating a grow operation) is a 4th Amendment violation. Does the NYPD really think the warrantless use of terahertz scanning technology to detect metal items hidden in people's clothing is constitutional?

The NYPD doesn't really care what any authority other than the Mayor of New York says.


Considering that the NYPD actively works with and in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF etc and has officers working overseas I would imagine they get their marching orders from much higher up than just Bloomberg.

This is the same dept that thinks it has the authority to walk up to any individual on the streets of NY and frisk them without probable cause. They actively argue that this is a needed crime stopping tool.

They were getting heat from the pot smokers so Cuomo decided to give them shelter by offering to decrim small amounts (which in NYC is already a non arrestable offense). The police were finding people with weed on them during these stop and frisks. The issue is that Terry stops only allow an officer to check for WEAPONS everything else is off limits. They were basically forcing people to turn out their pockets, if you had weed they would arrest you for having weed in public which is arrestable vs. a bench ticket for simple possession. That quietly went away and the NYPD continued their stop and frisk.

How anyone can look at stop and frisk and not call it unconstitutional is BEYOND me. It is the very epitome of unlawful search. Walking down the street minding your own business and the police jump out and throw you against the wall and tell you to empty your pockets. The police command that authorized this should all be put behind bars for the 1000s of civil rights violations.

The NYPD is where laws and procedures are tired and honed before being exported to police dept all over the country.
 
2013-01-23 04:25:07 PM

LasersHurt: dittybopper: "Illegal guns may be a problem, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to run roughshod over the Constitution. You still have to follow the rules."

redmid17: You're not very good at this whole constitution thing are you?

I didn't say a word in support of this did I? Or against the constitution?

It's just a hard argument. People want to push off the burden of gun crime onto "aaaah illegal handguns in the cities hurbleflerb" but there's never a suggestion on how that can get better. I'm not convinced that passively scanning everyone is the right way to go, but here we are.


Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.
 
2013-01-23 04:25:22 PM

Skyd1v: I've never been to New York (although I hope to visit next fall sometime just to check it out), but it's very interesting to me reading the type of relationship the NYPD has with the public - at least how it is reported in the media. Things seem calmer up here in the frozen wastelands.

Anecdotal example: A few months ago I wasn't paying attention to my speed and got pulled over by the Highway Patrol. (dumb, I know) Trooper came up to my window to get my license/insurance and I told him I was carrying a concealed weapon - as required by law.

He thanked me for telling him, took my information back to his car, did...whatever they do, then advised me to slow it down and be on my way. No dramatics, no roadside frisking, no putting me in handcuffs "for safety", nothing.

/I still kept my hands well away from that side of my coat though. Didn't want any misunderstandings.


And had you been in NYC, you would have been hauled off to jail. Even with a CC permit, that has a reciprocating agreement with New York.
 
2013-01-23 04:25:40 PM

Tanthalas39: Same idiots upset about this are okay with infringing on other constitutional amendments.


It's funny you mention this. I have many of the anti-gun crowd farkied in yellow and sure as sh*t there are several of them in here complaining.
 
2013-01-23 04:26:28 PM

redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.


That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"
 
2013-01-23 04:29:04 PM
Oh here we go with the "literal interpretation of the Constitution" crap again.
 
2013-01-23 04:29:12 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.

That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"


Not anymore than you typing it in the first place with zero context or further explanation in a thread where it's grossly obvious that rights would be violated.
 
2013-01-23 04:30:10 PM

blatz514: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x446]

Oh yeah, that's pretty stealthy.

It looks like a very tall voting machine.


More reason for the GOP to get up in arms about it ;P
 
2013-01-23 04:31:28 PM
my.stauffersafety.com

/hot
 
2013-01-23 04:32:17 PM

MylesHeartVodak: [my.stauffersafety.com image 147x260]

/hot


...and HEAVY.
 
2013-01-23 04:32:18 PM

weiserfireman: Dimensio: Stone Meadow: Every part of a fully functioning handgun can be made from plastic, tho Federal law requires a minimum magnetic metal content (about 3 ounces, iirc).

I await reference to a fully functional firearm made entirely of plastic, including the barrel, any incorporated springs and the ammunition.

Yeah, I am waiting for that too. I would expect some sort of all ceramic gun before we see a plastic one.


All-plastic guns are illegal under Federal 'undetectable firearms' statutes, so you won't see any on Gunbrokers, but GIS for 'carbon fiber barrels', 'plastic pistol frame', 'caseless ammunition', etc., to see what the state of the art is in parts on sale now to the general public. Also, google 'CIA ceramic gun' for lots of discussion of their black-ops capability.
 
2013-01-23 04:32:46 PM

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.

That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"

Not anymore than you typing it in the first place with zero context or further explanation in a thread where it's grossly obvious that rights would be violated.


Honestly I think I just like stirring up shiat about peoples' rights.

If this was used in places where carrying handguns is illegal, then fark the rights. You's a criminal. Everyone else walks by untouched.

I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.
 
2013-01-23 04:34:29 PM

Stone Meadow: weiserfireman: Dimensio: Stone Meadow: Every part of a fully functioning handgun can be made from plastic, tho Federal law requires a minimum magnetic metal content (about 3 ounces, iirc).

I await reference to a fully functional firearm made entirely of plastic, including the barrel, any incorporated springs and the ammunition.

Yeah, I am waiting for that too. I would expect some sort of all ceramic gun before we see a plastic one.

All-plastic guns are illegal under Federal 'undetectable firearms' statutes, so you won't see any on Gunbrokers, but GIS for 'carbon fiber barrels', 'plastic pistol frame', 'caseless ammunition', etc., to see what the state of the art is in parts on sale now to the general public. Also, google 'CIA ceramic gun' for lots of discussion of their black-ops capability.


I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer
 
2013-01-23 04:37:37 PM

Stone Meadow: Also, google 'CIA ceramic gun' for lots of discussion of their black-ops capability.


I did as you recommended. An entirely unconfirmed rumour is not logically equivalent to a technical demonstration.
 
2013-01-23 04:38:01 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.

That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"

Not anymore than you typing it in the first place with zero context or further explanation in a thread where it's grossly obvious that rights would be violated.

Honestly I think I just like stirring up shiat about peoples' rights.

If this was used in places where carrying handguns is illegal, then fark the rights. You's a criminal. Everyone else walks by untouched.

I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.


So my initial assertion that you aren't very good at the whole constitutional aspect of life was right? I don't particularly care for law breakers either, but if police or other government officials can arbitrarily define who receives due process it will be abused.
 
2013-01-23 04:38:52 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: Your Boobies more or less said it. No reason to type that if you don't believe it.

That's kind of absurd, isn't it? "It means what I think it means! Why did you type it if it doesn't mean what I think it means?"

Not anymore than you typing it in the first place with zero context or further explanation in a thread where it's grossly obvious that rights would be violated.

Honestly I think I just like stirring up shiat about peoples' rights.

If this was used in places where carrying handguns is illegal, then fark the rights. You's a criminal. Everyone else walks by untouched.

I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.


That you personally endorse authoritarian fascism does not alter Constitutional protections.
 
2013-01-23 04:40:13 PM

LoneDoggie: [www.wired.com image 640x310]

/see you at the party Richter.


Get your ass to Mars
 
2013-01-23 04:40:59 PM

redmid17: I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.

So my initial assertion that you aren't very good at the whole constitutional aspect of life was right? I don't particularly care for law breakers either, but if police or other government officials can arbitrarily define who receives due process it will be abused.


I don't feel like this is an infringement on due process, though. It's a passive method of detecting contraband. Those who get caught are already guilty.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some "law and order" type by nature. I just don't like the absolute interpretation of the rights, because respectful and reasonable limits can do a lot of good without doing a lot of harm.

Some would argue a slippery slope argument, but those are fallacies. Sometimes a slope is slippery, but most of the time it's a half-inch drop in the sidewalk.
 
2013-01-23 04:41:21 PM

kindms: Considering that the NYPD actively works with and in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF etc and has officers working overseas I would imagine they get their marching orders from much higher up than just Bloomberg.

This is the same dept that thinks it has the authority to walk up to any individual on the streets of NY and frisk them without probable cause. They actively argue that this is a needed crime stopping tool.


NY, hell. They think they can do it in NJ!
 
2013-01-23 04:41:35 PM

Dimensio: you personally endorse authoritarian fascism


That's absurd and you're a fool.
 
2013-01-23 04:44:05 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: I get that the idea of proactively looking for criminals is a violation of a strict and absolute interpretation of "search" rights. I don't fail to understand that. I just don't really care that much.

So my initial assertion that you aren't very good at the whole constitutional aspect of life was right? I don't particularly care for law breakers either, but if police or other government officials can arbitrarily define who receives due process it will be abused.

I don't feel like this is an infringement on due process, though. It's a passive method of detecting contraband. Those who get caught are already guilty.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some "law and order" type by nature. I just don't like the absolute interpretation of the rights, because respectful and reasonable limits can do a lot of good without doing a lot of harm.

Some would argue a slippery slope argument, but those are fallacies. Sometimes a slope is slippery, but most of the time it's a half-inch drop in the sidewalk.


Even if it's passive it's still unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already ruled on a case like this against the police, and this is definitely a slippery slope.
 
2013-01-23 04:44:05 PM
Honestly, the only place this could be appropriately used is in high volume areas, like transportation depots and event venues, or in high security places, like at locations with the President giving a speech, for instance.

But these constitutionally should not be deployed, as it seems to be a massive violation of the 4th Amendment. If I was pistol whipped and arrested because I had a small object on my person that "looked like a concealed weapon," there'd be hell to pay.
 
2013-01-23 04:44:50 PM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: you personally endorse authoritarian fascism

That's absurd and you're a fool.


I would expect an authoritarian fascist to attempt to dismiss criticism through ad hominem.
 
2013-01-23 04:45:29 PM

redmid17: I don't feel like this is an infringement on due process, though. It's a passive method of detecting contraband. Those who get caught are already guilty.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some "law and order" type by nature. I just don't like the absolute interpretation of the rights, because respectful and reasonable limits can do a lot of good without doing a lot of harm.

Some would argue a slippery slope argument, but those are fallacies. Sometimes a slope is slippery, but most of the time it's a half-inch drop in the sidewalk.

Even if it's passive it's still unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already ruled on a case like this against the police, and this is definitely a slippery slope.


Well SCOTUS can rule again. But eventually technology is going to obsolete the idea, and so if we're really serious about this shiat we need to update the amendment to be more specific and thorough.
 
2013-01-23 04:46:10 PM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: you personally endorse authoritarian fascism

That's absurd and you're a fool.

I would expect an authoritarian fascist to attempt to dismiss criticism through ad hominem.


I didn't know that was a feature of Authoritarian Fasciststm.
 
2013-01-23 04:46:17 PM
The NYPD will soon deploy new technology allowing police to detect guns carried by criminals without using the typical pat-down procedure, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Wednesday.

Good luck with that. I think that the term "illegal search" would be brought up right off, and all your nazi machines ordered to shut down. You can't just "scan" anyone walking down the street, see a weapon, and arrest them without due cause. And "finding a weapon" this way isn't due cause, as the search is illegal, and thus poisonous fruits. Nice try though.
 
2013-01-23 04:47:30 PM

g4lt: Stone Meadow: weiserfireman: Dimensio: Stone Meadow: Every part of a fully functioning handgun can be made from plastic, tho Federal law requires a minimum magnetic metal content (about 3 ounces, iirc).

I await reference to a fully functional firearm made entirely of plastic, including the barrel, any incorporated springs and the ammunition.

Yeah, I am waiting for that too. I would expect some sort of all ceramic gun before we see a plastic one.

All-plastic guns are illegal under Federal 'undetectable firearms' statutes, so you won't see any on Gunbrokers, but GIS for 'carbon fiber barrels', 'plastic pistol frame', 'caseless ammunition', etc., to see what the state of the art is in parts on sale now to the general public. Also, google 'CIA ceramic gun' for lots of discussion of their black-ops capability.

I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer


Do you know what you just did?
 
2013-01-23 04:48:03 PM
Um, no. NYPD does not need this. If there is an opposite of needing things, this and the NYPD just created that definition. I don't care if there's mass murders mandated for every elementary school; no f**king way is this safe or anything resembling a good idea.
 
2013-01-23 04:48:10 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: nazi machines


See this is what I mean, how do you people even get out of bed in the morning. It's like everything is Nazis forever. Anything is everything. A 1 on the scale is a 100.
 
2013-01-23 04:48:15 PM

g4lt: I'm just waiting for the enterprising young idiot that can actually figure out how to make most of a gun with a 3D printer


You mean like this one?

www.digitaltrends.com
 
2013-01-23 04:48:47 PM
And when this technology is put on drones, and drones are then armed and authorized to shoot anyone who may or may not be carrying a concealed weapon...
 
2013-01-23 04:48:59 PM

PsiChick: no f**king way is this safe


On what basis do you make this claim? Or rather: safe how? Medically?
 
2013-01-23 04:49:01 PM

Frank N Stein: BUT IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT AM I RIGHT GUYS?


Why don't we get it over with, agree to forgo this whole freedom thing and lock ourselves away preemptively.

Do it for the children!
 
2013-01-23 04:50:42 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: I don't feel like this is an infringement on due process, though. It's a passive method of detecting contraband. Those who get caught are already guilty.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some "law and order" type by nature. I just don't like the absolute interpretation of the rights, because respectful and reasonable limits can do a lot of good without doing a lot of harm.

Some would argue a slippery slope argument, but those are fallacies. Sometimes a slope is slippery, but most of the time it's a half-inch drop in the sidewalk.

Even if it's passive it's still unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already ruled on a case like this against the police, and this is definitely a slippery slope.

Well SCOTUS can rule again. But eventually technology is going to obsolete the idea, and so if we're really serious about this shiat we need to update the amendment to be more specific and thorough.


No we don't. We rely on case law. SCOTUS already ruled that using infrared scanners to find grow operations was illegal without a warrant. This is identical except they target people, not houses. There is a reason we don't "update" amendments.
 
2013-01-23 04:51:27 PM

Arn_Dee: And when this technology is put on drones, and drones are then armed and authorized to shoot anyone who may or may not be carrying a concealed weapon...


Nah, drones are only used to kill brown people
 
2013-01-23 04:51:46 PM

LasersHurt: Bit'O'Gristle: nazi machines

See this is what I mean, how do you people even get out of bed in the morning. It's like everything is Nazis forever. Anything is everything. A 1 on the scale is a 100.


/well..how do i get out of bed? first thing, i generally roll off your mom first..then....
 
2013-01-23 04:52:07 PM

redmid17: No we don't. We rely on case law. SCOTUS already ruled that using infrared scanners to find grow operations was illegal without a warrant. This is identical except they target people, not houses. There is a reason we don't "update" amendments.


I would argue that using a passive system to detect weapons on an individual is sufficiently different to warrant review.

And the only reason we don't "update" amendments is because we're stupid. A stagnant government will fail EVERY time.
 
2013-01-23 04:52:17 PM

Frank N Stein: BUT IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT AM I RIGHT GUYS?


I think you're catching on.
 
2013-01-23 04:52:48 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: I don't feel like this is an infringement on due process, though. It's a passive method of detecting contraband. Those who get caught are already guilty.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some "law and order" type by nature. I just don't like the absolute interpretation of the rights, because respectful and reasonable limits can do a lot of good without doing a lot of harm.

Some would argue a slippery slope argument, but those are fallacies. Sometimes a slope is slippery, but most of the time it's a half-inch drop in the sidewalk.

Even if it's passive it's still unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already ruled on a case like this against the police, and this is definitely a slippery slope.

Well SCOTUS can rule again. But eventually technology is going to obsolete the idea, and so if we're really serious about this shiat we need to update the amendment to be more specific and thorough.


No. The 4th Amendment was specifically written to prevent authoritarian bullshiat like this.

If this means a few illegal handguns slip through the cracks, so be it. You want to live in a world like Gattaca?
 
2013-01-23 04:52:56 PM

LasersHurt: PsiChick: no f**king way is this safe

On what basis do you make this claim? Or rather: safe how? Medically?


The NYPD's track record with civilian safety. And by 'civilian safety' I mean 'number of civilians shot dead because of Officers Twitchy, Racist, and Asshole'.
 
2013-01-23 04:53:37 PM
payload.cargocollective.com
 
2013-01-23 04:53:38 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: No we don't. We rely on case law. SCOTUS already ruled that using infrared scanners to find grow operations was illegal without a warrant. This is identical except they target people, not houses. There is a reason we don't "update" amendments.

I would argue that using a passive system to detect weapons on an individual is sufficiently different to warrant review.


In what way is it sufficiently different?
 
2013-01-23 04:56:17 PM

oldfarthenry: guns
[i1151.photobucket.com image 320x240]
legal
[i1151.photobucket.com image 338x218]
LEGAL!
[i1151.photobucket.com image 400x604]
LEGAL!!
[i1151.photobucket.com image 250x200]
LEEEEEGAAAALLL!!!
[i1151.photobucket.com image 285x285]
MY RIGHT AS A 'MERIKUH!!!!
[img1.dressycostumes.com image 750x526]
HELP, MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!


Oh, for God's sake, henry! Give your brain a chance!
 
2013-01-23 04:56:48 PM

redmid17: There is a reason we don't "update" amendments.


Agreed. It makes it so there are less loopholes.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
not
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless you can find a way to do it with technology, except for infrared scanners, or backscatter x-rays, etc"

or
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
not
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless they are scary moooslems; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless it is horribly unpopular speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances unless the people in positions of power find it inconvenient."

or
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
not
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the guns are scary looking."
 
2013-01-23 04:57:44 PM

joness0154: No. The 4th Amendment was specifically written to prevent authoritarian bullshiat like this.

If this means a few illegal handguns slip through the cracks, so be it. You want to live in a world like Gattaca?


I think you have no perspective whatsoever if you think this is just a skip and a jump from a dystopian police state.

PsiChick: The NYPD's track record with civilian safety. And by 'civilian safety' I mean 'number of civilians shot dead because of Officers Twitchy, Racist, and Asshole'.


That... is a legit concern. They're not known for their quality work, as a group.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In what way is it sufficiently different?


For one, these machines are more likely to be used to scan individuals while they are in public places or government property, not in their homes. Looking at me is different than looking into my house.

Additionally, whether or not this carries weight with the law or not I won't speculate, but one is looking for deadly weapons, and the other weed.
 
2013-01-23 04:58:30 PM

LasersHurt: redmid17: No we don't. We rely on case law. SCOTUS already ruled that using infrared scanners to find grow operations was illegal without a warrant. This is identical except they target people, not houses. There is a reason we don't "update" amendments.

I would argue that using a passive system to detect weapons on an individual is sufficiently different to warrant review.

And the only reason we don't "update" amendments is because we're stupid. A stagnant government will fail EVERY time.


You would argue incorrectly. The reason we don't update amendments is because we have case law and precedents. It would be a waste of time to try and amend the BOR for every case and the constitution itself would become a bloated mass of legal decisions and laws. The current system works fine.
 
2013-01-23 04:59:30 PM

dittybopper: Weaver95: Ivo Shandor: Weaver95: that's ok, I wasn't using my freedom anyways. I wonder if you can sterilize people with this thing? crank it up, zap sperm from 10 meters out and go cruising around the streets with it.

It appears to be a passive device, like a thermal imaging camera but looking at a different section of the electromagnetic spectrum. The privacy concerns are valid, but the only health risk is an indirect one from high-velocity lead poisoning.

well that takes all the fun out of it.  I wonder if there's a way to manufacture underwear that'd scramble the scanner?

Just wear wet clothes. Terahertz waves are blocked by liquid water.


I usually pee my pants 2 or 3 times a day anyway...so i'm cool.
 
2013-01-23 04:59:33 PM

redmid17: The current system works fine.


Do we live in the same country?

It's ALWAYS a good idea to revisit ideas. Just going "we talking about something similar once, let's never do it again" is lazy and horrible.
 
2013-01-23 05:00:03 PM
FTFA: "The department just received a machine that reads terahertz - the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects - and allows police to view concealed weapons from a distance."

Stupid reporter is stupid. Why didn't he just say "infrared radiation", which is what it is. This is nothing more than a thermal imaging scanner with a new fancy name. It probably is scanning a different range of IR frequencies than the traditional thermal scanners, but it's still basically the same thing.

And, as Rincewind53 has already mentioned, unwarranted thermal scanning of houses is unconstitutional; it seems that unwarranted scanning of people's bodies would fall under the same Supreme Court ruling.
 
2013-01-23 05:00:54 PM

LasersHurt: joness0154: No. The 4th Amendment was specifically written to prevent authoritarian bullshiat like this.

If this means a few illegal handguns slip through the cracks, so be it. You want to live in a world like Gattaca?

I think you have no perspective whatsoever if you think this is just a skip and a jump from a dystopian police state.

PsiChick: The NYPD's track record with civilian safety. And by 'civilian safety' I mean 'number of civilians shot dead because of Officers Twitchy, Racist, and Asshole'.

That... is a legit concern. They're not known for their quality work, as a group.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In what way is it sufficiently different?

For one, these machines are more likely to be used to scan individuals while they are in public places or government property, not in their homes. Looking at me is different than looking into my house.

Additionally, whether or not this carries weight with the law or not I won't speculate, but one is looking for deadly weapons, and the other weed.


Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.
 
Displayed 50 of 334 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report