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  
•       •       •

10100 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
 
2013-01-23 12:49:55 PM  
In other news, false arrests and harassment of innocent civilians to increase by a brazillion percent.
 
2013-01-23 12:56:02 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 01:01:51 PM  
Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?

assets.nydailynews.com

Sure it's kind of a crappy lo-res pic but just because something's in the shape of a gun doesn't mean it's a gun.

Unless I'm missing something with this technology.

And if they're going to frisk someone that they think has a concealed weapon you can bet it's not going to be a "Hello sir, how is your day going?  Mind if we ask you a few questions?" kind of a stop.
 
2013-01-23 01:37:06 PM  
What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?
 
2013-01-23 02:39:35 PM  

AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?


Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.

WalkingCarpet: Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?


Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.
 
2013-01-23 02:44:55 PM  

BronyMedic: Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.


Yep.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/nypd_can_temporarily_continue_uncons ti tutional_stop_and_frisks/
 
2013-01-23 02:46:27 PM  

AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?


Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.
 
2013-01-23 02:46:42 PM  
BUT IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT AM I RIGHT GUYS?
 
2013-01-23 02:47:15 PM  

impaler: BronyMedic: Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.

Yep.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/nypd_can_temporarily_continue_uncons ti tutional_stop_and_frisks/


Ah. So marksmanship isn't the only thing crappy at the NYPD.
 
2013-01-23 02:47:18 PM  
Those tinfoil hats aren't looking so crazy now, eh folks?
 
2013-01-23 02:48:07 PM  

King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.


Well, if they're not white, doesn't that mean that it's only 3/5ths a tragedy?

/historical joke is antique.
 
2013-01-23 03:04:00 PM  

impaler: BronyMedic: Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.

Yep.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/nypd_can_temporarily_continue_uncons ti tutional_stop_and_frisks/


That may be the most vile and disgusting headline I've read today.
 
2013-01-23 03:05:21 PM  

King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.


Just realized a third risk:

Combining the first two risks with the NYPD's extreme hatred of Occupiers:
"The scanners indicated that several protesters may have been carrying concealed firearms and their behavior indicated they were about to brandish their weapons and open fire. Our officers' orders were to maintain the peace at the protests and defend themselves with any amount of force they deemed necessary, including deadly force; they were not sent in as an execution squad or to quell a civilian uprising of people protesting against the NYPD's most generous donors, our officers were just following orders.

"The fact that well over 95% of the dozens of persons killed in the crossfire and 85% of the thousands arrested were black or Hispanic is purely coincidental; there was a white male among the deceased and not all white arrestees were released without charges, so the NAACP, the ACLU and other civil rights groups claiming this was a case of ethnic cleansing are the real racists."
 
2013-01-23 03:12:18 PM  
Pic of said hi-tech devices:

s9.postimage.org
 
2013-01-23 03:39:57 PM  
This is why I will immediately begin taping the phrase "fark the NYPD" in aluminum foil on my ass prior to leaving the house.
 
2013-01-23 03:41:53 PM  

Ennuipoet: This is why I will immediately begin taping the phrase "fark the NYPD" in aluminum foil on my ass prior to leaving the house.


Well, I for one am proud of your commitment to combatting homophobia in such a manner. Even if I don't really like Party Rock.
 
2013-01-23 03:43:14 PM  

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


Innocent? Innocent of what?
 
2013-01-23 03:43:59 PM  
www.wired.com

/see you at the party Richter.
 
2013-01-23 03:44:40 PM  
Well I feel safer now.
 
2013-01-23 03:44:46 PM  
majorleaguesoccertalk.com
 
2013-01-23 03:46:06 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-23 03:46:42 PM  
I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.
 
2013-01-23 03:47:18 PM  
assets.nydailynews.com

I love how they use a black guy in the demo. Racist much?
 
2013-01-23 03:47:22 PM  
Why exactly is NYC so authoritarian? How can you elect Guiliani and Bloomberg back to back? At least a place like San Francisco, which has some zany laws, is still a chill liberal city that doesn't treat it's citizens like prisoners. I mean, is that racist stop and frisk program still happening? Can you still get arrested for marijuana possession? Can a New Yorker explain what the deal is? Reminds me of France, a supposed liberal land that has some messed up, draconian laws (ie weird detainment rules and a strong anti-drug stance).
 
2013-01-23 03:47:41 PM  
get your ass to mars
 
2013-01-23 03:47:57 PM  
When I read something in a gun thread that is in all caps I automatically translate it in my head to I HAVE NOTHING WORTHWHILE TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION BUT FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS.  I also picture people in the politics threads as kittens chasing balls of yarn.  It helps me get through the day.
 
2013-01-23 03:48:38 PM  
Well, glad that by the time I'm old enough for a metal hip they'll be using mostly polymers.

Albeit "gunned down by the cops due to misunderstanding over joint replacement" would be a much cooler obituary than something boring like "old guy dies of cancer", so actually...
 
2013-01-23 03:49:22 PM  
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
legal
i1151.photobucket.com
LEGAL!
i1151.photobucket.com
LEGAL!!
i1151.photobucket.com
LEEEEEGAAAALLL!!!
i1151.photobucket.com
MY RIGHT AS A 'MERIKUH!!!!
img1.dressycostumes.com
HELP, MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!
 
2013-01-23 03:49:27 PM  
Sales of a new product to skyrocket. Its a piece of metal in a gun shape. Used to harass the fark out of the police scanners and the more skilled individuals can place it into unsuspecting peoples pockets or purses.

/Oh the bump and stuff(opposite of the bump and pull) on the subway is going to be that much more fun.
 
2013-01-23 03:49:34 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 03:50:31 PM  
We should have invaded New York instead of Iraq.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
 
2013-01-23 03:50:32 PM  
Everyone should start carrying L shaped metal plates
 
2013-01-23 03:51:09 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 03:51:10 PM  

russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.


You know things are nutty when Sheriff Joe is cited as a bastion of common sense.
 
2013-01-23 03:52:18 PM  

WalkingCarpet: And if they're going to frisk someone that they think has a concealed weapon you can bet it's not going to be a "Hello sir, how is your day going?  Mind if we ask you a few questions?" kind of a stop.


Depending on what neighborhood you're in, you weren't going to get those kinds of stops anyway.
 
2013-01-23 03:52:33 PM  

BronyMedic: Ah. So marksmanship isn't the only thing crappy at the NYPD.


They have found a way to abuse every right a citizen will ever have, and are researching even more abuse. You can't sit on your front step any more without getting a summons.

Marquis de Sod: Innocent? Innocent of what?


Everything under the sun until the cops can provide a valid reason for a search. The technology in tfa IS a search, not a reason for one.
 
2013-01-23 03:52:34 PM  

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?


Yeah in light of the ruling the feds just laid down about the program, I think this will go nowhere.
 
2013-01-23 03:53:41 PM  

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?
 
2013-01-23 03:54:44 PM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-23 03:54:46 PM  
I hope the pics are put out to the public
/Can't wait to see what people are sticking up their but, being New Yorkers and all
 
2013-01-23 03:55:02 PM  
Not to make this a gun argument (I know, too late) but it is the very mindset that rabidly encroaches on what many may call their Second Amendment Rights that feels that citizens really have no rights whatsoever.
 
2013-01-23 03:55:26 PM  

King Something: King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.

Just realized a third risk:

Combining the first two risks with the NYPD's extreme hatred of Occupiers:
"The scanners indicated that several protesters may have been carrying concealed firearms and their behavior indicated they were about to brandish their weapons and open fire. Our officers' orders were to maintain the peace at the protests and defend themselves with any amount of force they deemed necessary, including deadly force; they were not sent in as an execution squad or to quell a civilian uprising of people protesting against the NYPD's most generous donors, our officers were just following orders.

"The fact that well over 95% of the dozens of persons killed in the crossfire and 85% of the thousands arrested were black or Hispanic is purely coincidental; there was a white male among the deceased and not all white arrestees were released without charges, so the NAACP, the ACLU and other civil rights groups claiming this was a case of ethnic cleansing are the real racists."


Thats there is a whole lot of "all whites are racists" butthurt, man. Don't you know the three most beautiful words in the english language are "I forgive you"? Stop perpetuating that ridiculous victim mindset and get on with your life.
 
2013-01-23 03:56:39 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: I hope the pics are put out to the public
/Can't wait to see what people are sticking up their but, being New Yorkers and all


I dunno man, you have to walk a lot in NYC. It's no so easy with things up your butt, take my word for it.
 
2013-01-23 03:56:41 PM  

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

Innocent? Innocent of what?


Nothing.
They've broken a law, we just have to figure out which one.

/And they can cool their heels in the lockup till we do.
 
2013-01-23 03:56:42 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: I hope the pics are put out to the public
/Can't wait to see what people are sticking up their but, being New Yorkers and all


Congratulations and stay strong, admitting one is curious is the first step to coming out of the closet.
 
2013-01-23 03:57:30 PM  

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?


Most high freq scanners won't penetrate metal mesh, or tin foil...


Did I really just use my tinfoil hat kung fu in a practical manner?... In regard to the government trying to scan me? Holy shiat, maybe I'm not crazy!
 
2013-01-23 03:57:43 PM  
A new scan-inhibiting clothing line is launched in 3, 2, ....

So, will they stop and frisk anyone they can't get a clear scan on? Would that be probable cause?
 
2013-01-23 03:57:47 PM  

russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.


Concealed handgun licenses in New York are reserved for wealthy individuals with connections to politicians. Such individuals are already exempted from police searches for any reason.
 
2013-01-23 03:57:54 PM  
And a rash of new plastic guns hit the market in 3, 2, 1...
 
2013-01-23 03:57:57 PM  
NYPD has something like 35,000 officers. That's bigger than the population of a lot of small towns. There should be an independent 50-member force that arrests NYPD officers for violating people's rights.
 
2013-01-23 03:58:08 PM  
IN MY PANTS!!
i.ytimg.com
 
2013-01-23 03:58:14 PM  

HartRend: Did I really just use my tinfoil hat kung fu in a practical manner?... In regard to the government trying to scan me? Holy shiat, maybe I'm not crazy!


You're crazy.

They're still out to trample your rights though.
 
2013-01-23 03:58:27 PM  

R.A.Danny: Not to make this a gun argument (I know, too late) but it is the very mindset that rabidly encroaches on what many may call their Second Amendment Rights that feels that citizens really have no rights whatsoever.


Honestly, did we ever? I was listening to some George Carlin this morning and he simply brought up the internment of Japanese-AMERICANS. Plenty of other obvious examples (slavery, lack of woman's suffrage, Alien and Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson's presidency, the PATRIOT Act, etc etc etc).
 
2013-01-23 03:58:50 PM  
assets.nydailynews.com

Oh yeah, that's pretty stealthy.
 
2013-01-23 03:59:03 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: A new scan-inhibiting clothing line is launched in 3, 2, ....

So, will they stop and frisk anyone they can't get a clear scan on? Would that be probable cause?


I'm nearly certain they'd argue it would. Probably liken it to wearing a mask.
 
2013-01-23 03:59:07 PM  

Nem Wan: NYPD has something like 35,000 officers. That's bigger than the population of a lot of small towns. There should be an independent 50-member force that arrests NYPD officers for violating people's rights.


Do you really think NYC can afford all that overtime?
 
2013-01-23 04:00:52 PM  
There's about, oh, gee, thousands of different objects someone walking down the street could have on them, or in a bag hanging on their shoulder, that might set this stupid thing off. Unless it can definitively tell what is a gun and what isn't (and I'm guessing it can't) that's pretty stupid.
 
2013-01-23 04:00:55 PM  

Stone Meadow: And a rash of new plastic guns hit the market in 3, 2, 1...


Will these plastic guns utilize plastic springs, plastic slides, plastic magazines, plastic barrels and plastic ammunition?
 
2013-01-23 04:01:04 PM  
Radiation detector....what are they looking for?
cache.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-01-23 04:01:45 PM  

TheJoe03: Honestly, did we ever? I was listening to some George Carlin this morning and he simply brought up the internment of Japanese-AMERICANS. Plenty of other obvious examples (slavery, lack of woman's suffrage, Alien and Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson's presidency, the PATRIOT Act, etc etc etc).


It's sad isn't it? I know no one is gonna use their AR15 to "Water the tree of democracy" or any of that bullshiat, but a lot of gun enthusiasts do see their Second Amendment rights as a canary in a coal mine. Yeah, there are some nuts out there, but can it be said that they have no reason do resent what is and has gone on? The sickening authoritarian mindset is probably the least "American" value that one can come up with.
 
2013-01-23 04:02:12 PM  

topcon: There's about, oh, gee, thousands of different objects someone walking down the street could have on them, or in a bag hanging on their shoulder, that might set this stupid thing off. Unless it can definitively tell what is a gun and what isn't (and I'm guessing it can't) that's pretty stupid.


They'll be happy to harass those people, no sweat.
 
2013-01-23 04:03:12 PM  

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?


'm with you on this one, the bright line for what constitutes a search has always been "in plain view"  so using magnifying optics to peer into a place is okay since you could already see what was thee and the person only had to draw a curtain to protect their privacy.  However using microphones or other devices to hear what you otherwise could not hear  is not okay because the person, in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, can unwittinglyhave that privacy breached.   That's the logic they applied to the use of thermal scanners, seeing into the IR is not "plain" sight, so no go without a warrant.

This has GOT to fall into the same category, even with the reduced expectation of privacy that applies while in public.  I assume the NYPD will claim they only use this device when they already have the level of "reasonable suspicion" that would allow them to do a Terry stop, but we've seen how wantonly they abuse that already, so I think the courts will view this with a high degree of suspicion
 
2013-01-23 04:03:16 PM  
www.paperdroids.com
 
2013-01-23 04:03:39 PM  

WalkingCarpet: Sure it's kind of a crappy lo-res pic but just because something's in the shape of a gun doesn't mean it's a gun.


www.wearysloth.com
Agrees
 
2013-01-23 04:03:54 PM  

Ohlookabutterfly: King Something: King Something: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device?

Greatly increased risk of Sudden Non-White Death Syndrome, for one.

And for another, press releases that read something like this:
"The device indicated that the subject may have been carrying a high-power firearm. The risk to our officers was too great, so they had to eliminate the perceived threat before it could become a real threat."
whenever the NYPD puts a litterer or a jaywalker down like a rabid dog.

Just realized a third risk:

Combining the first two risks with the NYPD's extreme hatred of Occupiers:
"The scanners indicated that several protesters may have been carrying concealed firearms and their behavior indicated they were about to brandish their weapons and open fire. Our officers' orders were to maintain the peace at the protests and defend themselves with any amount of force they deemed necessary, including deadly force; they were not sent in as an execution squad or to quell a civilian uprising of people protesting against the NYPD's most generous donors, our officers were just following orders.

"The fact that well over 95% of the dozens of persons killed in the crossfire and 85% of the thousands arrested were black or Hispanic is purely coincidental; there was a white male among the deceased and not all white arrestees were released without charges, so the NAACP, the ACLU and other civil rights groups claiming this was a case of ethnic cleansing are the real racists."

Thats there is a whole lot of "all whites are racists" butthurt, man. Don't you know the three most beautiful words in the english language are "I forgive you"? Stop perpetuating that ridiculous victim mindset and get on with your life.


I was going for the "The NYPD are a bunch of racist assholes" angle. If you doubt my word, look up Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima or Sean Bell.

Or the cop who was driving drunk and ran over and killed a pregnant Hispanic woman, her two kids and her unborn child. He got convicted on all counts but his sentences were served concurrently instead of consecutively, and he was eligible for parole about halfway through his sentence; had the roles been reversed and the pregnant Hispanic woman run over the cop while driving drunk, she would have long since been executed.
 
2013-01-23 04:04:08 PM  

AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?


The upside is, everyone will be postively radiant - or negatively, as the case may be.
 
2013-01-23 04:04:56 PM  
Wow--two amendments at the same time.
 
2013-01-23 04:05:46 PM  

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 DAY they set one up near MY house is the day I file the lawsuit for health risks.

It's one thing to be scanned once and a while. It's another thing to have the device parked outside your home or business.
 
2013-01-23 04:05:51 PM  

Nem Wan: NYPD has something like 35,000 officers. That's bigger than the population of a lot of small towns. There should be an independent 50-member force that arrests NYPD officers for violating people's rights.


NYPD has more people than the Coast Guard.
 
2013-01-23 04:06:15 PM  

oldfarthenry: guns

legal

LEGAL!

LEGAL!!

LEEEEEGAAAALLL!!!

MY RIGHT AS A 'MERIKUH!!!!

HELP, MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!


Yes, a bunch of people using guns in a non-threating (except for that one suffed rabbit that appears to be in trouble)matter is pretty meh.

And police using litteral farking X-ray machines to scan people just walking down the street is a pretty goddamn horrible infringement.
 
2013-01-23 04:06:36 PM  

BronyMedic: Well, I for one am proud of your commitment to combatting homophobia in such a manner. Even if I don't really like Party Rock.


Yeah that would've better if I'd made it clear it was supposed under my clothing.  Well, this is why I am stuck in the AAA League of Fark Commenting.
 
2013-01-23 04:06:46 PM  

R.A.Danny: HartRend: Did I really just use my tinfoil hat kung fu in a practical manner?... In regard to the government trying to scan me? Holy shiat, maybe I'm not crazy!

You're crazy.

They're still out to trample your rights though.


The sane man, in an insane world IS crazy!
 
2013-01-23 04:07:00 PM  

BronyMedic: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?

Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.

WalkingCarpet: Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?

Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.


This is the NYPD. We can safely assume they'll gun people down based solely on this device. Unlike Philly, where they'll do it without the benefit of any device whatsoever.
 
2013-01-23 04:07:21 PM  
Meh. I just hope it doesn't detect my penis. I have to wrap it in tinfoil or the aliens can control it and ever since the accident it's shaped kind of like a gun. I guess it won't really be a problem unless there is an assault weapon ban.

It's interesting that the gun's rights people are up in arms about the gun's rights issue and not the unreasonable search issue which has been plaguing NYC for a while now. The biggest problem I see with this is that, like all police intervention, it can be enforced selectively. If this was searching every person the car drove past with computer object ID and a little alarm and a log reference and an automatic search of every individual I'd be less concerned than how it will probably be used. Hell, even the alarm version is likely to be driven in certain neighborhoods more than others. As for the unreasonable search issue, if it's a passive scanner, you have to decide if you think that's an invasion of the person or not. If you see someone with an illegal object, you are allowed to confront them. What if you see them because you are wearing prescription glasses? How spotting them down the beach with binoculars? A traffic camera? Night vision glasses (but they are on a public street), hell, or just because they are under a streetlight (put there no doubt to enhance the ability to see).

That said, even although this registers as 'meh' on my radar, I don't think policy like this should be set at a police department level. It should be legislated. We have a 'try it and see if the courts overturn it' policy, which doesn't serve the public well.
 
2013-01-23 04:08:05 PM  

redmid17: Nem Wan: NYPD has something like 35,000 officers. That's bigger than the population of a lot of small towns. There should be an independent 50-member force that arrests NYPD officers for violating people's rights.

Do you really think NYC can afford all that overtime?


Heh, no they can't. Bloomberg is gonna leave NYC over a $100 Billion, yes BILLION, in debt when he leaves office. New Yorkers sure know how to pick winners as their reps.  Link
 
2013-01-23 04:08:07 PM  
Only if the NYPD also stands around with drug sniffing dogs at various points on Wall St.

/yeah I didn't think so
 
2013-01-23 04:08:15 PM  
Wait till somebody packing a dildo with a pistol grip is stopped. I hope it's some religious prude for added lulz
 
2013-01-23 04:09:14 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: oldfarthenry: guns

legal

LEGAL!

LEGAL!!

LEEEEEGAAAALLL!!!

MY RIGHT AS A 'MERIKUH!!!!

HELP, MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!

Yes, a bunch of people using guns in a non-threating (except for that one suffed rabbit that appears to be in trouble) matter is pretty meh.

And police using litteral farking X-ray machines to scan people just walking down the street is a pretty goddamn horrible infringement.


That stuffed rabbit is f*cked. We obviously need gun control, and xray machines.
 
2013-01-23 04:09:22 PM  

R.A.Danny: It's sad isn't it? I know no one is gonna use their AR15 to "Water the tree of democracy" or any of that bullshiat, but a lot of gun enthusiasts do see their Second Amendment rights as a canary in a coal mine. Yeah, there are some nuts out there, but can it be said that they have no reason do resent what is and has gone on? The sickening authoritarian mindset is probably the least "American" value that one can come up with.


Amen.
 
2013-01-23 04:09:45 PM  
"Illegal guns are a huge problem, but there is literally nothing you are allowed to do to search for illegal guns."
 
2013-01-23 04:09:59 PM  

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.


You could in effect blind them by radiating in the same band in which they are looking.

Also, wet clothes would defeat this system, as would clothing made out of metal fibers like lamé.

Plus, you could introduce a *HUGE* number of false positives by simply arranging metal-containing articles like a cellphone and a pen or small flashlight into a "gun like" configuration,

Another thing to consider is that the waves used can penetrate plastics. A gun like a Glock, without the magazine inserted into it, isn't going to look like a gun, just a rectangular blob that could be any number of legal objects.
 
2013-01-23 04:10:18 PM  
Rincewind53


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?


Judging by some of the recent law passed, I don't think the NYPD or NY state/city government care all that much what the constitution says.
 
2013-01-23 04:11:04 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 04:12:20 PM  

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


Its ok dude, they are only going after guns


/its for the children
 
2013-01-23 04:12:32 PM  

LasersHurt: "Illegal guns are a huge problem, but there is literally nothing you are allowed to do to search for illegal guns."


No.

"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."
 
2013-01-23 04:12:46 PM  
I'm going to have to support the NWA's position on this one...
 
2013-01-23 04:13:27 PM  

LasersHurt: "Illegal guns are a huge problem, but there is literally nothing you are allowed to do to search for illegal guns."


You're not very good at this whole constitution thing are you?
 
2013-01-23 04:15:42 PM  
the image is racist, i mean, attacking those green-blood'ed attractive and successful urbanites? so 1980.
 
2013-01-23 04:16:15 PM  
Same idiots upset about this are okay with infringing on other constitutional amendments.
 
2013-01-23 04:17:16 PM  

AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?


it's passive, so the risk is to the operator getting a tv-monitor focus headache / eye-problems.
 
2013-01-23 04:18:20 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 04:18:29 PM  

Dimensio: Stone Meadow: And a rash of new plastic guns hit the market in 3, 2, 1...

Will these plastic guns utilize plastic springs, plastic slides, plastic magazines, plastic barrels and plastic ammunition?


Why not? 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). The real question is, will guns like that get more popular, and would they defeat this detection capability? I was just posting a snarky Fark meme with my 3, 2, 1 crack, but ultimately it will be an interesting question.

I also bet there are lots of easy ways to defeat the scanner without going to those extremes.
 
2013-01-23 04:18:41 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: assets.nydailynews.com

Oh yeah, that's pretty stealthy.


Made me think of this:

mst3kaday.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-23 04:19:21 PM  
images.wisegeek.com
 
2013-01-23 04:20:13 PM  
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.
 
2013-01-23 04:20:25 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 04:22:20 PM  

sheep snorter: Sales of a new product to skyrocket. Its a piece of metal in a gun shape. Used to harass the fark out of the police scanners and the more skilled individuals can place it into unsuspecting peoples pockets or purses.

/Oh the bump and stuff(opposite of the bump and pull) on the subway is going to be that much more fun.


first thing I thought of
 
2013-01-23 04:22:31 PM  

Grapple: I'm going to have to support the NWA's position on this one...


I concur. Straight from the underground.
 
2013-01-23 04:22:40 PM  

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.
 
2013-01-23 04:22:42 PM  

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

Oh yeah, that's pretty stealthy.


It looks like a very tall voting machine.
 
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.
 
2013-01-23 05:01:17 PM  

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


Not just this but everything else going on and has gone on. Just looking at the prison-industrial complex and the abuses done by the police and federal govt types (FBI, CIA, the military), it isn't that far fetched to be fearful of this shiat.
 
2013-01-23 05:02:02 PM  

LasersHurt: 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.


Yes we live in the same country, but apparently you didn't avail yourself of the critical thinking aspect of your education nor the reading comprehension part.
 
2013-01-23 05:02:28 PM  

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


We DO update amendments, it's through a very specific process, and it has happened 28 times already. The Constitution is the supreme law in the land, and parts of it have been changed 28 times. (18 if you want to count the original Bill of Rights as part of the main body of the Constitution.)

Here's the process:

Article V, United States Constitution
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
 
2013-01-23 05:02:53 PM  

LasersHurt: 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.


It is. You have to read the fine print.
 
2013-01-23 05:03:32 PM  

LasersHurt: 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.


Looking at you is different than looking through your clothing too. People don't expect themselves to be hidden when in public, but they expect everything under their clothing to remain concealed. IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.
 
2013-01-23 05:06:09 PM  
I just had a hip replacement and I'm guessing I'd get snagged by this. From 1/2 a block away it would probably look like a sawed off shotgun.

Turrible.
 
2013-01-23 05:07:25 PM  

LasersHurt: 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.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I've bolded the areas that are relevant in this case. Houses are just one part of the 4th. Things on or about your body (effects), your ID and other documents (papers), and yourself (person) are protected against searches without a warrant or probably cause. This scanner does so without either a warrant or probable cause.

Using such a device around a speaking dignitary, such as the President? Sure, I'm okay with that, that falls under probable cause. On the street, minding your own business? No way.
 
2013-01-23 05:11:52 PM  

redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.


You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.


Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.
 
2013-01-23 05:14:54 PM  
Our elected officials justify violating our rights and privacy on the grounds that some people are criminals.

Ok, fine. From now on, the financial information of all elected officials shall be complete open to the public. Every single farking transaction, no exception. Because some politicians have been known to take bribes. And since police officers hold a position of power, we have to be certain they are above repoach. So their financial information shall be public, too. This is fully justifiable because there have been instances of police corruption.
 
2013-01-23 05:15:27 PM  

tgambitg: LasersHurt: 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.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I've bolded the areas that are relevant in this case. Houses are just one part of the 4th. Things on or about your body (effects), your ID and other documents (papers), and yourself (person) are protected against searches without a warrant or probably cause. This scanner does so without either a warrant or probable cause.

Using such a device around a speaking dignitary, such as the President? Sure, I'm okay with that, that falls under probable cause. On the street, minding your own business? No way.


/I couldn't have said it better. This is tantamount to an illegal search without just cause, and any "evidence" that is fruits of said search is poisonous, and therefore inadmissible to any court. They must like lawsuits in NY.
 
2013-01-23 05:15:53 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.

You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.


No you don't understand it. You think that persons and their effects are somehow different than houses with regards to the 4th amendment. They are not. You might disagree, but you're just wrong.

The technology is minimally different. It uses a different part of the spectrum to do the same thing. That's comparable to the people saying that there was no way DC v Heller was going to be applied to the states even though it was incredibly obvious to people who had read the case that McDonald v Chicago was going to incorporate the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-23 05:16:22 PM  
Hahahahha New York, what a bunch of freaking weenies.
Never been there, never will.

NY used to be the badass big brother of the US.
Now it's the France of the United States and instantly surrenders at the slightest sign of trouble...

Should make the Motto "The Lawn Chair State".

Sad day when you see New York get steamrolled by politicians and go under with a tiny little whimper.
 
2013-01-23 05:19:01 PM  

redmid17: No you don't understand it.


Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly noted the idea of revisiting and reforming. Because I think things that are DIFFERENT than the current law.

redmid17: The technology is minimally different.


How is this "minimally different" than trying to use IR to peep at children? Did you see the same screen images I did in the article?
 
2013-01-23 05:20:29 PM  
We've already got random searches in public transportation.  If we're going to go full-on dystopian I hope we go that route, then at least then we get a free grope out of the deal.

FUNFACT!  This is where the phrase "To cop a feel" came from.

FUNNER FACT!  Sometimes I like taking educated guesses about etymology.
 
2013-01-23 05:20:59 PM  

computerguyUT: Hahahahha New York, what a bunch of freaking weenies.
Never been there, never will.

NY used to be the badass big brother of the US.
Now it's the France of the United States and instantly surrenders at the slightest sign of trouble...

Should make the Motto "The Lawn Chair State".

Sad day when you see New York get steamrolled by politicians and go under with a tiny little whimper.


Ya know.. I've been to 40+ countries and I've never stepped foot in NYC and could give a shiat less if I ever do. Your analogy sir is spot on. Bravo!
 
2013-01-23 05:22:47 PM  

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?


That might have been true, once upon a time. But now that younger americans, who didnt experience the assault bans under clinton, have a hardon for removing weapons from society, it will be a breeze to unleash this beast in NYC.


behavior predicting security cameras

Domain awareness system

you do understand that NYC is where DARPA goes live for testing right?
 
2013-01-23 05:23:10 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: Read the fourth amendment in its entirety and then come back to us. We will wait.

You keep acting like I don't understand it. I do. I disagree. That's different.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.


Maybe what we can do is set up a way in which certain people can preemptively give up all of their rights and may therefor be allowed to be scanned in public in any way which the gov't seems fit. You'll get issued a special hat so we all can avoid you.

Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

LasersHurt: Personally, i don't see why people can say what they want about the government without going to jail. I think it is perfectly acceptable to do some jail time if you speak poorly about the people in charge. I'm not trying to be an a-hole about it, i just disagree with the concept of free speech and i think we should revisit on a bi-annual basis so we can get a current list of words and phrases that we can and can't utter in public. You can say what you wan tin your own home as long you don't say it loud enough to be picked up by microphones from right outside the door.
 
2013-01-23 05:23:48 PM  

xynix: computerguyUT: Hahahahha New York, what a bunch of freaking weenies.
Never been there, never will.

NY used to be the badass big brother of the US.
Now it's the France of the United States and instantly surrenders at the slightest sign of trouble...

Should make the Motto "The Lawn Chair State".

Sad day when you see New York get steamrolled by politicians and go under with a tiny little whimper.

Ya know.. I've been to 40+ countries and I've never stepped foot in NYC and could give a shiat less if I ever do. Your analogy sir is spot on. Bravo!


You got me beat, I've only been to a dozen or so.

It's easy to make fun of this situation, but in reality, it's very scary and very sad.

I'm laughing, but you can bet I'm paying attention at the same time.
 
2013-01-23 05:25:19 PM  
But if I'm not walking down the street for a concealed weapon, will the device still scan me?
 
2013-01-23 05:25:47 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: No you don't understand it.

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly noted the idea of revisiting and reforming. Because I think things that are DIFFERENT than the current law.

redmid17: The technology is minimally different.

How is this "minimally different" than trying to use IR to peep at children? Did you see the same screen images I did in the article?


Once again you might disagree with, which is your right, but you are *wrong* about it. Don't frame it as a statement of fact and no one would be calling you out on it.

The Kyllo v US decision, which is the SCOTUS decision everyone is referring to, did not involve infrared cameras and kid diddler wannabes. It involved police using thermal imaging devices to look for marijuana grow houses. SCOTUS ruled that it was an illegal search since they did not have a warrant. NYPD wants to use a device that relies on
terahertz radiation instead of thermal radiation. That's basically saying "Well they said I can't use fuel in my car, but they never said anything about used corn oil (being used as fuel)!" The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment. These are both passive scanning with different types of radiation. Pretty simple stuff to comprehend, no?
 
2013-01-23 05:29:13 PM  

LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.


Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.
 
2013-01-23 05:29:24 PM  

jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.


This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.


Is that stated in the decision?
 
2013-01-23 05:30:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.


Right, but when your comparison point is "filming kids in bathing suits" I think you need something less tenuous. "Identical" concept? Really?
 
2013-01-23 05:31:29 PM  

LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?


No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up
 
2013-01-23 05:34:12 PM  

LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: LasersHurt: BraveNewCheneyWorld: IIRC some people were using infrared cameras to film kids in bathing suits years ago, that didn't go over so well for them in court, and this should be the same kind of violation.

Except that the technology is different from that, and can't be used the same way, which seems important to me.

Different technology only in the fact that it views a different wavelength. Otherwise, it's an identical concept in that you are using technology to reveal something that was concealed from human perception.

Right, but when your comparison point is "filming kids in bathing suits" I think you need something less tenuous. "Identical" concept? Really?


Yeah, nobody likes it when they're caught arguing for the rights of pedophiles, but here you are. Either way, someone's looking through your clothing, their reason for doing it doesn't mitigate the invasion of privacy.
 
2013-01-23 05:34:47 PM  

jtown: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x301]

I love how they use a black guy in the demo. Racist much?


That's just good testing. They don't intend to point it at white folk.
 
2013-01-23 05:35:12 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up


He's going to nit pick it, because the words 'passive scanning' are not explicitly in the decision, even though the concept is well described in the decision.
 
2013-01-23 05:35:18 PM  

redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up


"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.
 
2013-01-23 05:35:54 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, nobody likes it when they're caught arguing for the rights of pedophiles, but here you are.


Ah so you've got no interest in honest conversation, then.
 
2013-01-23 05:37:01 PM  

Stone Meadow: 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 image 850x594]


FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one
 
2013-01-23 05:37:59 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.


For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.
 
2013-01-23 05:38:29 PM  

tgambitg: redmid17: LasersHurt: jaybeezey: Just because you don't care to use your rights does not mean the rest of us are ready to give ours up just yet.

This is the kind of hysterical shiat I've been talking about. Lunacy.

redmid17: The intent was that even passive scanning is a violation of the 4th amendment.

Is that stated in the decision?

No it's not. I have just been spouting off about it for the last hour with nothing to back it up. Try looking it up. God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

He's going to nit pick it, because the words 'passive scanning' are not explicitly in the decision, even though the concept is well described in the decision.


The passive nature of the device is mentioned twice in the decision.

LasersHurt: redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.


Just read the decision. It applies to the entire 4th amendment, not houses. If you're daft enough to think that, then I have a bridge NYC to sell you. You can put passive scanners on it I'm sure.
 
2013-01-23 05:39:23 PM  

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


Fixed that for you.

Are you alive and in the United States of America? Congratulations, you're a criminal.
 
2013-01-23 05:40:22 PM  

Shadow Blasko: 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?


Issued a challenge to one of the most challenge-averse groups of sociopaths in human history? Nope, I have no idea.
 
2013-01-23 05:40:31 PM  

tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.


I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.
 
2013-01-23 05:40:49 PM  

tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: God forbid you educate yourself a bit. Kyllo v US - look it up

"Kyllo v. United States, 533 (2001), held that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the, and thus required a warrant."

"Scalia created a "firm but also bright" line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the "'entrance to the house'". "

I read the Wikipedia article and it seems specific to the home. I can read the decision itself if you think it makes it clearer there.

For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.


Being obtuse is a constitutionally protected right.
 
2013-01-23 05:44:06 PM  

redmid17: Just read the decision.


I just did. It's about houses/the home. Those are the words they come back to in each section. There is no mention of the person.
 
2013-01-23 05:44:49 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.


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


It's not a tenuous tie in. It's explicitly mentioned in the same class.
 
2013-01-23 05:45:44 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: For searching a house, yes. But that line is also drawn around the other things protected in the 4th, being persons, papers, and effects. Please don't be obtuse about this.

I'm not being obtuse, I am asking if that decision specifically mentioned that it should apply to a person outside of the home. The whole point he has been making is hinged on the idea that this decision applied in this instance, to scanning people outside of the home. I'm trying to ascertain if the decision DOES specifically mention it, or is just tenuously tied by their both being 4th amendment issues.

My point is trying to support the idea that this is sufficiently different as to require separate review - as I read it, that decision is centered on the home, and the court might feel differently about the person in public.


A better way of doing it, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit what government could do, is if it is even tenuously connected, it is not allowed. Remember that the people who wrote the document just got out from under an oppressive government and were trying to prevent that from happening again. View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing. The Fourth goes out of it's way to say you can't search a person, their homes, or their stuff (papers and effects) without a damn good reason (probable cause in case of expedience, or a warrant in terms of planned searches).
 
2013-01-23 05:47:25 PM  

tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.


That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.
 
2013-01-23 05:48:40 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: Just read the decision.

I just did. It's about houses/the home. Those are the words they come back to in each section. There is no mention of the person.


Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision? Jesus do you expect these to be all encompassing? The 4th amendment goes out of its way to explicitly list houses, person, papers, and effects together. Ergo, they are the same for all intents and purposes. You are being deliberately obtuse. You want SCOTUS reasoning wrapped up with a nice bow and set down in front of you, opened, and spoon fed into your mouth.

grow up
 
2013-01-23 05:51:25 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.


The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government to do specifically what was mentioned in the document. All other things are reserved for the people and the States.
 
2013-01-23 05:51:47 PM  

LasersHurt: That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.


That's the point, the intent was to limit the power of government.
 
2013-01-23 05:53:55 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: View it like this: If the Constitution does not explicitly allow the federal government (and state and local governments via the 14th Amendment) to do a thing, it is barred from doing a thing.

That's extraordinarily limiting, and I can't imagine how that could possibly be a good thing.


also....

i120.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-23 05:56:06 PM  
That's a clever little device. I'm not sure how the hell it will work in real-world environments though nor why it's being called a "weapons scanner" when it's really just a "anything that blocks your profile scanner."
 
2013-01-23 05:56:35 PM  

redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?


Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.
 
2013-01-23 05:58:46 PM  

g4lt: Stone Meadow: 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 image 850x594]

FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one


Of course it wasn't entirely printed in plastic. No one suggested it was. Plastic barrels (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) are available. Plastic (polymer) frames are available. Plastic magazines are printable. In other words, plastic guns can be made, and will be if legislation does tighten up considerably. Heck, the guy who built that gun first built a plastic .22LR through which he fired 200 rounds without failure to test it. Way back in 1987 the Patent Office issued a patent for a plastic/ceramic .22 pistol. Link

So quit quibbling over the reality of plastic guns. They're here and they will greatly undermine detection technologies like what's highlighted in this thread. Even if the barrel is steel it will just look like a pen in his pocket. Put the bullets or magazine in another pocket and the weapon is undetectable by this technology.
 
2013-01-23 05:59:06 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.


If you're trolling, I have to give you an 11 out of 10. If you're not trolling, well...

static.someecards.com
 
2013-01-23 05:59:31 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.


A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.
 
2013-01-23 06:03:30 PM  

tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.


To prevent good governance?
 
2013-01-23 06:05:31 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?


People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.
 
2013-01-23 06:05:35 PM  
199 posts and not a single colorimeter or spectrometer mention? I don't know if I should be disappointed or impressed.
 
2013-01-23 06:06:28 PM  

Stone Meadow: g4lt: Stone Meadow: 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 image 850x594]

FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one

Of course it wasn't entirely printed in plastic. No one suggested it was. Plastic barrels (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) are available. Plastic (polymer) frames are available. Plastic magazines are printable. In other words, plastic guns can be made, and will be if legislation does tighten up considerably. Heck, the guy who built that gun first built a plastic .22LR through which he fired 200 rounds without failure to test it. Way back in 1987 the Patent Office issued a patent for a plastic/ceramic .22 pistol. Link

So quit quibbling over the reality of plastic guns. They're here and they will greatly undermine detection technologies like what's highlighted in this thread. Even if the barrel is steel it will just look like a pen in his pocket. Put the bullets or magazine in another pocket and the weapon is undetectable by this technology.


I think I was rather clear that I was awaiting the day when MOST of a gun could be printed. The Lower Receiver, while an important part, is still much less than the majority of the gun. I had nothing to say about the state of the art in plastic guns other than I wanted to see a Solidoodle for one. The lower receiver IS a step in the right direction, as you can mail-order all the parts save that one, so you can make a gun BECAUSE of your 3D printer, you just can't make one with it yet. Solidoodle or GTFO, in a nutshell.
 
2013-01-23 06:06:36 PM  

ProfessorOhki: 199 posts and not a single colorimeter or spectrometer mention? I don't know if I should be disappointed or impressed.


Major Mass Spec reporting for duty

fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-01-23 06:07:14 PM  
Somehow I don't find police knowing who is carrying guns on the street the least bit scary.
 
2013-01-23 06:08:06 PM  

redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.


Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.
 
2013-01-23 06:09:23 PM  

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?


I don't think it should be allowed, but there is a difference between using technology like this to find weapons and weed.
 
2013-01-23 06:09:25 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?


You and I have wildly differing definitions of good governance. From what I am gathering from your statements, the end justifies the means. I am strongly against that. The end is important, but using bad means to get to the end is unforgivable. The founders of this country agree with me, you do not. The fact that these things are coded in the highest laws in our land means you had better get a large amount of the populace to agree with you to get it changed (Article V, US Constitution, re: Amendment Process). So our country is agile enough to change things if needed, but not agile enough to slide into tyranny easily.
 
2013-01-23 06:10:29 PM  

tgambitg: LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

You and I have wildly differing definitions of good governance. From what I am gathering from your statements, the end justifies the means. I am strongly against that. The end is important, but using bad means to get to the end is unforgivable. The founders of this country agree with me, you do not. The fact that these things are coded in the highest laws in our land means you had better get a large amount of the populace to agree with you to get it changed (Article V, US Constitution, re: Amendment Process). So our country is agile enough to change things if needed, but not agile enough to slide into tyranny easily.


I love when people just jump to a grand conclusion, then judge you from that viewpoint.

I do not believe that.
 
2013-01-23 06:10:48 PM  
Can we get this in Oakland please? Perfect since robots can't profile.
 
2013-01-23 06:10:51 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.


I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.
 
2013-01-23 06:12:02 PM  
Dear NYC:

You have gone full DERP! That was San Francisco's gig. Now ol' California is conservative, and your insane.

Seriously, WTF.

Signed,
El Capitan

/Gonna go have the lagest soda I can find. Just 'cause.
 
2013-01-23 06:12:08 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.


What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?
 
2013-01-23 06:12:23 PM  
Admitting that I haven't researched this yet, and I haven't read the rest of tFT yet...

I used to consider myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to physics, but this line from TFA: "The department just received a machine that reads terahertz - the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects - and allows [the pigs] to view concealed weapons from a distance" ... kind of threw me. I parse it one of two ways:
* "Use the Force, Luke"
* "Can you scan the gigahertz from my laptop?"

Or, maybe it was a piece from the Onion or the Health Ranger...

Clearly, this dipshiat of a "journalist" left something out...
 
2013-01-23 06:12:54 PM  

liam76: but there is a difference between using technology like this to find weapons and weed


Yes, people have a right to own firearms.
 
2013-01-23 06:13:07 PM  
Another town to stay away from, just like chikencago...
 
2013-01-23 06:14:01 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.

What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?


This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.
 
2013-01-23 06:14:33 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.

I was talking about the founders of the country. You know, the guys who signed the Constitution and wrote the Federalist papers. They decided against your approach because, frankly, it's a piece of shiat idea.


To be more accurate, they put in a mechanism for change, but made sure that it wasn't able to be used on a whim.

LasersHurt: I love when people just jump to a grand conclusion, then judge you from that viewpoint.

I do not believe that.


That is the impression your statements are making. By ignoring the protections set forth in the 4th, you are using the ends (finding people with firearms in public) to justify the means (searching without a warrant or probable cause)
 
2013-01-23 06:14:53 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.

Yes, the ones who want to never, ever change are the wise ones here.


Has human nature itself changed since the beginning of written history?
 
2013-01-23 06:15:12 PM  

liam76: 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?

I don't think it should be allowed, but there is a difference between using technology like this to find weapons and weed.


I guess the scanner would probably show different readings, but it would still be illegal.
 
2013-01-23 06:16:02 PM  

redmid17: What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.


I see, a "wise and agile" government is "a piece of shiat idea." Thanks for weighing in.

tgambitg: That is the impression your statements are making.


No, that's a catchphrase you're reading in because it's easier than trying to understand that I have a real view that you're having trouble understanding.
 
2013-01-23 06:16:59 PM  

BronyMedic: Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.


So there is enough naturally occurring ambient terahertz radiation for this to work?
 
2013-01-23 06:17:51 PM  

Sgt.Zim: Admitting that I haven't researched this yet, and I haven't read the rest of tFT yet...

I used to consider myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to physics, but this line from TFA: "The department just received a machine that reads terahertz - the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects - and allows [the pigs] to view concealed weapons from a distance" ... kind of threw me. I parse it one of two ways:
* "Use the Force, Luke"
* "Can you scan the gigahertz from my laptop?"

Or, maybe it was a piece from the Onion or the Health Ranger...

Clearly, this dipshiat of a "journalist" left something out...


I'm guessing they're trying to describe this.
 
2013-01-23 06:18:10 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

I see, a "wise and agile" government is "a piece of shiat idea." Thanks for weighing in.


You're welcome. I'm glad the men who created this country and myself could get that across. If you think our government is stupid now, how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want? Agile government is a bad idea for a reason, and you'll have a difficult time finding one that is wise.
 
2013-01-23 06:20:37 PM  

ShoeKing: jtown: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x301]

I love how they use a black guy in the demo. Racist much?

That's just good testing. They don't intend to point it at white folk.


Maybe it's like HP's racist webcams that couldn't track black faces. Gotta get the calibration right.
 
2013-01-23 06:20:39 PM  

redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?


I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.
 
2013-01-23 06:21:15 PM  
It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.
 
2013-01-23 06:22:08 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: What is "my approach"? When have I ever laid down an approach? What are you referring to?

This part:

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

I see, a "wise and agile" government is "a piece of shiat idea." Thanks for weighing in.

You're welcome. I'm glad the men who created this country and myself could get that across. If you think our government is stupid now, how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want? Agile government is a bad idea for a reason, and you'll have a difficult time finding one that is wise.


Agreed. A government that can change quickly can turn tyrannical faster than you could stop it. Sure you may have benevolence now, but those same rules that let you change things quickly for the common good can be used to turn things badly just as quickly. If you can't understand that, LasersHurt, you are horribly naive.
 
2013-01-23 06:22:10 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.


Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.
 
2013-01-23 06:23:00 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.qqq

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.


your*qq
 
2013-01-23 06:23:35 PM  

redmid17: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.qqq

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

your*qq


*your

wow I can't even FTFM without a typo. Rough day
 
2013-01-23 06:24:05 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.


I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."
 
2013-01-23 06:24:05 PM  

pciszek: BronyMedic: Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.

So there is enough naturally occurring ambient terahertz radiation for this to work?


Here's a bit about the UK scanner upon which this NYPD effort is based.
 
2013-01-23 06:24:16 PM  
It's Shift zz
 
2013-01-23 06:24:51 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?


Yep. Because from what I can tell, "good governance" is defined by many as "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."
 
2013-01-23 06:25:20 PM  
...

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


Just last year a 3D printer company was browbeat into recovering a printer from a company preparing to do just that.
 
2013-01-23 06:25:20 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."


It seems you're under the impression that we work for our government and not the other way around.
 
2013-01-23 06:25:37 PM  
Why not just require everyone go around naked, or at least have see through clothing?


Problem----------------------->solved.


No fatties or uggies of course.
 
2013-01-23 06:26:11 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."


You don't get how government is supposed to work do you?
 
2013-01-23 06:26:31 PM  

R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.


I'd love to see the modern day attack ads that would be aired against the founding fathers, it would be both hilarious and sad.
 
2013-01-23 06:27:02 PM  

OgreMagi: "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."


I wasn't aware I had advocated this. Because I didn't.

R.A.Danny: It seems you're under the impression that we work for our government and not the other way around.


How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.
 
2013-01-23 06:28:52 PM  

LasersHurt: How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.


Not when they are gathering evidence in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-01-23 06:29:25 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.

I'd love to see the modern day attack ads that would be aired against the founding fathers, it would be both hilarious and sad.


I mean, Jon Adams told the world that if Jefferson won the election:

"... murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."

I don't really see modern ones being any worse.
 
2013-01-23 06:30:18 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

You don't get how government is supposed to work do you?


You don't get honest discussion works, do you? You're using an arbitrary definition of "agile". We both are, there aren't any specifics on the table, it's just an abstract concept. I'm arguing for something slightly more agile than what we have, because our stuff is practically set in stone right now. There's a lot of ground between there and "anything goes."
 
2013-01-23 06:30:53 PM  

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.

Not when they are gathering evidence in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.


That remains to be seen.
 
2013-01-23 06:31:07 PM  

LasersHurt: OgreMagi: "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."

I wasn't aware I had advocated this. Because I didn't.

R.A.Danny: It seems you're under the impression that we work for our government and not the other way around.

How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.


When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.
 
2013-01-23 06:31:34 PM  
tgambitg

Using such a device around a speaking dignitary, such as the President? Sure, I'm okay with that, that falls under probable cause. On the street, minding your own business? No way
Standing w/in 'x' feet of a politician = probable cause? God you're an idiot.
 
2013-01-23 06:31:45 PM  

jtown: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x301]

I love how they use a black guy in the demo. Racist much?


The machine doesn't work on white people.
 
2013-01-23 06:32:17 PM  

LasersHurt: OgreMagi: "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."

I wasn't aware I had advocated this. Because I didn't.


That's exactly what you are advocating if you want to strip away our Constitutional Rights to create an "agile government".

You are arguing government the same way my teenage step-daughter argued it. From a position of pure ignorance and based purely on a mythical outcome that you thought was possible, but ignoring the realities of history and the mistakes made that resulted in misery and death of epic proportions.
 
2013-01-23 06:32:22 PM  

LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

You don't get how government is supposed to work do you?

You don't get honest discussion works, do you? You're using an arbitrary definition of "agile". We both are, there aren't any specifics on the table, it's just an abstract concept. I'm arguing for something slightly more agile than what we have, because our stuff is practically set in stone right now. There's a lot of ground between there and "anything goes."


The amendments are set in stone. Case law is not set in stone.
 
2013-01-23 06:33:04 PM  

LasersHurt: OgreMagi: "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and rights be damned."

I wasn't aware I had advocated this. Because I didn't.

R.A.Danny: It seems you're under the impression that we work for our government and not the other way around.

How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.


What do you mean when you say the government should be "agile"?
 
2013-01-23 06:35:37 PM  

TheJoe03: What do you mean when you say the government should be "agile"?


That it should be subject to whims apparently
 
2013-01-23 06:35:54 PM  

tgambitg: When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.


When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is decided by the court which rules on the issue eventually, not a rabble of message board users.
 
2013-01-23 06:36:46 PM  

LasersHurt: Looking at me is different than looking into my house.


They aren't just looking at you, they might as well be forcing (not asking) you to strip down so they can see under your clothes. To continue your house argument, it's legal to look at your house all day long, but you can't (and the SCOTUS held this up) use even passive methods to bypass your walls and curtains. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your pants, and new technology doesn't change that.
 
2013-01-23 06:37:09 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.

When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is decided by the court which rules on the issue eventually, not a rabble of message board users.


So our opinions are not welcome on Fark, and you're just running the place?
 
2013-01-23 06:38:19 PM  

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: tgambitg: When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.

When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is decided by the court which rules on the issue eventually, not a rabble of message board users.

So our opinions are not welcome on Fark, and you're just running the place?


Our opinions have nothing (thank god) to do with how the country is run. You can say whatever you want here, just as I can, but we're all just wanking.
 
2013-01-23 06:39:33 PM  

LasersHurt: tgambitg: When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.

When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is decided by the court which rules on the issue eventually, not a rabble of message board users.


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were a Circuit or Supreme Court Justice.
 
2013-01-23 06:40:16 PM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: LasersHurt: redmid17: how do you think it would be if it could change the overarching government limitations pretty much whenever you want?

I don't know what you're implying, any time you get a simple majority you rewrite the world? Of course there should be limits on major changes, but those could easily require significant support to do. You can't just assume it would be shiatty because that supports your argument.

Okay then you're government is no longer agile and you are undermining your own point.

I think the case is more that you've set an arbitrary definition of agile right around "wherever makes my point correct."

You don't get how government is supposed to work do you?


I've run out of popcorn watching you two bicker. :-)

Well done, LasersHurt.  You've got him completely off the subject now.
 
2013-01-23 06:41:19 PM  
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
 
2013-01-23 06:43:14 PM  

R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.


Careful. Some folks' brains would sprain if they tried to think about that.
 
2013-01-23 06:43:32 PM  
assets.nydailynews.com


STUPID ON YOUR BRAIN!


Maybe we should start a petition to BAN Assault Tabloid Newspapers?


/No violation of the first amendment
//Consider the ignorance they cause
///Think of the children
 
2013-01-23 06:43:34 PM  
You still think Ted Nugent is crazy?
 
2013-01-23 06:43:38 PM  

LasersHurt: R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: tgambitg: When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.

When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is decided by the court which rules on the issue eventually, not a rabble of message board users.

So our opinions are not welcome on Fark, and you're just running the place?

Our opinions have nothing (thank god) to do with how the country is run. You can say whatever you want here, just as I can, but we're all just wanking.


Yes, but unlike you, we have volumes of decisions about this particular issue saying that the 4th is (supposedly) inviolate without probable cause or a warrant. No matter how you want to put it, anything that is not observable to the average naked eye is found only through searching.
 
2013-01-23 06:44:36 PM  
Countdown to the first false positive that results in a "going for a ____" shooting. Should I even bother starting a clock?
 
2013-01-23 06:44:52 PM  

netweavr: Sgt.Zim: Admitting that I haven't researched this yet, and I haven't read the rest of tFT yet...

I used to consider myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to physics, but this line from TFA: "The department just received a machine that reads terahertz - the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects - and allows [the pigs] to view concealed weapons from a distance" ... kind of threw me. I parse it one of two ways:
* "Use the Force, Luke"
* "Can you scan the gigahertz from my laptop?"

Or, maybe it was a piece from the Onion or the Health Ranger...

Clearly, this dipshiat of a "journalist" left something out...

I'm guessing they're trying to describe this.


Thanks, I think you're right...
 
2013-01-23 06:48:21 PM  

LasersHurt: 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 you are fine with police listening in on your conversation to see if you admit to doing something illegal?

Going through your mail to see if you are sending/receiving anything illegal?

You are pathetic.
 
2013-01-23 06:48:33 PM  

Sgt.Zim: R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.

Careful. Some folks' brains would sprain if they tried to think about that.


Almost as if we were founded by a "long line of frontiersmen and outdoor types."
 
2013-01-23 06:52:37 PM  

redmid17: I guess the scanner would probably show different readings, but it would still be illegal.


I was talking about the difference from potential harm from guns and weed.

I don't think it should or would stand up but I see them making that argument.


LasersHurt: but we're all just wanking


Difference is you are wanking for a society where your protections under the 4th are weakened or removed.
 
2013-01-23 06:54:10 PM  

LasersHurt: R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: tgambitg: When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is not functioning correctly.

When the government violates its own rules of conduct, it is decided by the court which rules on the issue eventually, not a rabble of message board users.

So our opinions are not welcome on Fark, and you're just running the place?

Our opinions have nothing (thank god) to do with how the country is run. You can say whatever you want here, just as I can, but we're all just wanking.


No, numbnuts, that's one of the many points where you're wrong. Our opinions do matter. The politicians are supposed to work for us. If they're not doing the job, we fire them, and get different people in their place.

Granted, the "career politician" and numerous other elements have fracked with the system, but that's exactly how it's meant to work.
 
2013-01-23 06:59:58 PM  
You liberals are getting exactly the police state you deserve.
 
2013-01-23 07:03:22 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: A new scan-inhibiting clothing line is launched in 3, 2, ....

So, will they stop and frisk anyone they can't get a clear scan on? Would that be probable cause?


i470.photobucket.com


 Anti-Drone Camouflage:  What to Wear in Total Surveillance
 
2013-01-23 07:03:28 PM  
Gotta love hate these liberal utopian societies.
 
2013-01-23 07:05:24 PM  

R.A.Danny: Sgt.Zim: R.A.Danny: It almost seems that the founding fathers would rather see someone get away with a crime than make it easy to prosecute criminals.

Because that was exactly their mindset.

Careful. Some folks' brains would sprain if they tried to think about that.

Almost as if we were founded by a "long line of frontiersmen and outdoor types."


Funny that some of the first to spout "better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be put to death" in a capital punishment debate will also usually be the first to support weakening the 4th, 5th, 10th and 14th amendments when it's about guns and "the children" (and the 2nd, of course)...
 
2013-01-23 07:06:39 PM  

g4lt: Stone Meadow: g4lt: Stone Meadow: 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 image 850x594]

FTFL: "CORRECTIONS: The AR-15 model was not entirely printed with a 3D printer, only a piece of the material was created with plastic (as shown in the second photo). Only the lower receiver was printed by HaveBlue," So no, not like that one

Of course it wasn't entirely printed in plastic. No one suggested it was. Plastic barrels (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) are available. Plastic (polymer) frames are available. Plastic magazines are printable. In other words, plastic guns can be made, and will be if legislation does tighten up considerably. Heck, the guy who built that gun first built a plastic .22LR through which he fired 200 rounds without failure to test it. Way back in 1987 the Patent Office issued a patent for a plastic/ceramic .22 pistol. Link

So quit quibbling over the reality of plastic guns. They're here and they will greatly undermine detection technologies like what's highlighted in this thread. Even if the barrel is steel it will just look like a pen in his pocket. Put the bullets or magazine in another pocket and the weapon is undetectable by this technology.

I think I was rather clear that I was awaiting the day when MOST of a gun could be printed. The Lower Receiver, while an important part, is still much less than the majority of the gun. I had nothing to say about the state of the art in plastic guns other than I wanted to see a Solidoodle for one. The lower receiver IS a step in the right direction, as you can mail-order all the parts save that one, so you can make a gun BECAUSE of your 3D printer, you just can't make one with it yet. Solidoodle or GTFO, in a nutshell.


To be fair, on an AR-platform weapon, the only tracked/restricted part is the lower receiver. The rest of the rifle can be mail ordered or purchased without background check or waiting period or anything else.
 
2013-01-23 07:11:39 PM  
Every once in a while I read a thread that scares the shiat out of me with the stupidity and recklessness of the callow masses. This is definitely one of them. I think America's system of government is almost completely corrupt, but it's better than the complete anarchy espoused in this thread.

There is an incredible failure of imagination here.
 
2013-01-23 07:16:28 PM  

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

Oh yeah, that's pretty stealthy.


Yeah, you know? Like those stupid "cell" phones. "Portable" my ass.

www.ericgarland.co
 
2013-01-23 07:50:39 PM  
I wish they would break NYC off from the rest of NY already...it's embarrassing.
 
2013-01-23 07:50:51 PM  
certainly better than stop and frisks but still kinda icky
 
2013-01-23 07:51:27 PM  

take_flight: I wish they would break NYC off from the rest of NY already...it's embarrassing.


agreed

/from the other direction
 
2013-01-23 07:55:18 PM  

skullkrusher: take_flight: I wish they would break NYC off from the rest of NY already...it's embarrassing.

agreed

/from the other direction


I recommend we combine NYC with San Francisco, break it off and float it out to the middle of the Pacific, then nuke it from orbit.
 
2013-01-23 08:00:42 PM  

OgreMagi: I recommend we combine NYC with San Francisco, break it off and float it out to the middle of the Pacific, then nuke it from orbit.


Dude, where's the rest of the Bay supposed to go for their fun and debauchery?
 
2013-01-23 08:21:07 PM  

LasersHurt: R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.

Not when they are gathering evidence in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

That remains to be seen.


This type of claim is getting old and ridiculous. The bill of rights was written in plain English so everyone could understand it. We don't have to wait for a new court case every time someone finds a new technology that allows them to use a gadget from afar that yields the same information as a manual search.  If you need a warrant to perform the manual search, you need a warrant to use the gadget that gives you that same information.
 
2013-01-23 08:27:54 PM  
So how long before protestors learn to start making and carrying EMP devices to protests?
 
2013-01-23 08:34:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x446]

Oh yeah, that's pretty stealthy.

Yeah, you know? Like those stupid "cell" phones. "Portable" my ass.

[www.ericgarland.co image 399x420]


Ha! We were driving down a lengthy state-route/county-route type road last week and I was having a conversation with my 16 year old daughter about how I had to walk that road once...10 miles...to "town" in 1993. She said, "Didn't you have a cell phone to call someone for a ride?" I started laughing, and then told her what they were like...she couldn't believe it. Gotta love that bulky old tech!
 
2013-01-23 08:50:05 PM  
This is the type of thing to expect as we move towards stronger gun control measures. I am all for stopping bad guys, but would kind of like to at least have to consent to something like this scan. Hell, even the TSA let's me have a choice (scan, hands-on search, or don't fly).

There are 4 lights, by the way.
 
2013-01-23 09:14:40 PM  

the.swartz: This is the type of thing to expect as we move towards stronger gun control measures. I am all for stopping bad guys, but would kind of like to at least have to consent to something like this scan. Hell, even the TSA let's me have a choice (scan, hands-on search, or don't fly).

There are 4 lights, by the way.


I'm pretty sure this is not legal, but NYPD just does pretty much want they want anymore. They've been in a lot of trouble recently for stop and frisk, racial profiling, etc. I live upstate and our small PD has thermal imaging devices, but I think it was decided they weren't allowed to use them.
 
2013-01-23 09:35:39 PM  

whither_apophis: Only if the NYPD also stands around with drug sniffing dogs at various points on Wall St.

/yeah I didn't think so


The dogs couldn't smell blow that far away.
 
2013-01-23 09:37:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: LasersHurt: R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: How? The government is an extension of the people, when it's working correctly. The government works for us, we work for ourselves and our nation.

Not when they are gathering evidence in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

That remains to be seen.

This type of claim is getting old and ridiculous. The bill of rights was written in plain English so everyone could understand it. We don't have to wait for a new court case every time someone finds a new technology that allows them to use a gadget from afar that yields the same information as a manual search.  If you need a warrant to perform the manual search, you need a warrant to use the gadget that gives you that same information.


How dare you inject common sense into this debate!
 
2013-01-23 09:40:03 PM  
As a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, I'm not only ok with this, but I approve of these replies!
 
2013-01-23 09:42:09 PM  
And New York continues its decent into a fascist hell hole... You could not pay me to live in that city or state at this point.
 
2013-01-23 09:43:53 PM  
Reading the article I assumed the device would show the outline of a gun, or as the media would say, a "Glock," but not a goddamn banana with ears. FFS,
 
2013-01-23 09:46:23 PM  

BronyMedic: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?

Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.

WalkingCarpet: Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?

Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.


If I was a cop I would use it for this reason, who wouldn't? Seriously, what police officer wouldn't just scan a crowd of people in the hood and take down the guys with the glowing bananas?

You're being naive, purposefully so, it's not helping.
 
2013-01-23 10:13:38 PM  

jtown: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x301]

I love how they use a black guy in the demo. Racist much?


Worldwide, as a percentage of population, black people are responsible for like 6X the amount of violent crime than non-blacks, and remember, the US stats count the Mexican gang bangers as "white," something many like to ignore. It's not melanin, it's culture, black culture is F'd up worldwide. The sooner we quit ignoring it the sooner we quit having to deal with a culture that doesn't respect life. Black people worldwide had to deal horrible mistreatment, killing, slavery. But to live as a slave today is harming everyone. Blacks will never know peace until they're ready to move forward, that's a fact.
 
2013-01-23 10:21:35 PM  

OgreMagi: skullkrusher: take_flight: I wish they would break NYC off from the rest of NY already...it's embarrassing.

agreed

/from the other direction

I recommend we combine NYC with San Francisco, break it off and float it out to the middle of the Pacific, then nuke it from orbit.


you think your debt problem is bad now, flyovers?
 
2013-01-23 10:22:43 PM  

Maul555: And New York continues its decent into a fascist hell hole... You could not pay me to live in that city or state at this point.


don't worry - it will only be deployed in areas where "gunplay" is common. Ya know what that means *wink wink*
 
2013-01-23 10:38:15 PM  

skullkrusher: Maul555: And New York continues its decent into a fascist hell hole... You could not pay me to live in that city or state at this point.

don't worry - it will only be deployed in areas where "gunplay" is common. Ya know what that means *wink wink*


yeah... While the current product looks bulky, this could easily be installed into the sides of police SUV's and in specially placed into walls on the exterior of buildings with normal looking wall coverings, or even inside buildings for that matter...
 
2013-01-23 10:41:49 PM  

skullkrusher: OgreMagi: skullkrusher: take_flight: I wish they would break NYC off from the rest of NY already...it's embarrassing.

agreed

/from the other direction

I recommend we combine NYC with San Francisco, break it off and float it out to the middle of the Pacific, then nuke it from orbit.

you think your debt problem is bad now, flyovers?


Spoken like someone from a city with a 110 billion dollar debt and counting.
 
2013-01-23 11:18:36 PM  
I am assuming the Clean Halls Program is also called the Trespass Affadavit Program. If this is true, then its run by the DA's office and landlords sign up their buildings to participate. The agreement allows for the police to arrest people in the buildings who are not visiting people, or who live there, for criminal trespass. These are usually buildings that have a history with drug sales.

This is totally separate from the Stop, Question and Frisk program. The hardship is that there are thousands of signs up on buildings that can't come down over night, meaning that people will be locked up unjustly after the program has ended because the signs will still be up.
 
2013-01-23 11:32:23 PM  
Of course the NYPD can do this.

See, what we have nowadays is what we call a LIVING CONSTITUTION.

It has emanations and penumbras.

One of its emanations, right there under one of the penumbras, is the power of the police to fark up your shiat, whenever the hell they feel like it.

But that's not a principle of freedom that the country was founded on, right?

Tough shiat -- the Constitution has evolved. Get it?

Fall in line, citizen.
 
2013-01-23 11:42:34 PM  

Phinn: Of course the NYPD can do this.

See, what we have nowadays is what we call a LIVING CONSTITUTION.

It has emanations and penumbras.

One of its emanations, right there under one of the penumbras, is the power of the police to fark up your shiat, whenever the hell they feel like it.

But that's not a principle of freedom that the country was founded on, right?

Tough shiat -- the Constitution has evolved. Get it?

Fall in line, citizen.


BBBBBBBBBBBB
 
2013-01-23 11:55:30 PM  
Any idea if any of the useless douchenozzles that wear the NYPD badge will ever be trained up to the level of firearms competence that would allow them to shoot more bullets into life threatening suspects than innocent bystanders?
 
2013-01-24 12:14:18 AM  

BronyMedic: AbbeySomeone: What are the health risks associated with this type of device? Has this been researched?

Pretty sure it's the same risk as a Directional Wireless antenna. That is to say none. It looks like a passive scanning system.

WalkingCarpet: Not only that but this is what they're going to base stopping and frisking someone on?

Your assumption is that they're going to use it to base stops and frisks on, and not have a heads up on whether someone they're stopping for another reason has a weapon.


fark they can't even stop weapons from getting into jails or prisons. They look up your ass there.
 
2013-01-24 12:15:14 AM  

redmid17: LasersHurt: tgambitg: LasersHurt: redmid17: Gee, you mean that the court decided not to address a hypothetical in a decision?

Look at those goalposts go. All I said was that I think this would merit review separate from that decision. Chill out.

Re: everyone else - I don't want a government limited by decisions made long ago. I want one that's wise and agile enough to make the nation better.

A government agile enough to make things better is one that is agile enough to make things worse and slip into tyranny in the blink of an eye. The restrictions put in place are there to prevent that from happening.

To prevent good governance?

People far smarter than you wrote the document. They knew what they were doing. Let's leave it at that.


I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.
 
2013-01-24 12:16:27 AM  

skullkrusher: certainly better than stop and frisks but still kinda icky


How does this prevent what happened to the children?
 
2013-01-24 12:22:37 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.


Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.
 
2013-01-24 12:25:55 AM  
I wonder which neighborhoods they plan to use this in.
 
2013-01-24 12:27:57 AM  
Many moons ago, pre-TSA, someone from work was going on a business trip. Some of the guys in the shop thought it would be amusing to cut a handgun silhouette from thin sheetmetal and slip it into the side of his briefcase where it would go undetected until laid on the carryon x-ray scanner. Everyone, including airport security (LAX) was (were?) highly amused.

/Have a meeting with NYPD in the morning, so I'll be getting a kick thinking about this the entire time.
 
2013-01-24 12:35:25 AM  

Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.


Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.
 
2013-01-24 12:51:35 AM  

Bucky Katt: I wonder which neighborhoods they plan to use this in.


WSJ article:  "Officials said in its current form, the machine could be mounted on a truck and deployed to sites identified as prone to gun violence."

Same article says this boxy thing is a prototype that cost "multimillions" and the goal is something small enough for cops to wear on their belts.  Also, there are no plans to deploy this technology yet.  City is still talking to its lawyers about how to use it without running afoul of the 4th Amendment.

I would have figured out the legal aspect before sinking millions into the technology, but I don't have access to DoD funds.

Use of this device could be justified in a Terry stop, in which cops have a "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."  NYPD has been relying on Terry for its stop-and-frisk practice.

But scanning every passerby for weapons is never going to fly.  "Reasonable suspicion" must be attached to a specific person for specific, articulable reason(s).  Cops can't just say everyone in the neighborhood is suspicious because there have been shootings.
 
2013-01-24 01:07:13 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.


The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.
 
2013-01-24 01:50:10 AM  

BronyMedic: The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.


Mom, last month:  "Don't touch anything that's in my home office."

Mom, today: "WTF are you doing with the iPad that was in my office?!"

Kid:  "Well, you just bought it; it wasn't in your office last month."

What we need  are cops that don't act like kids.
 
2013-01-24 01:52:17 AM  

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?


Nope. This will last about one arrest. Probably the ACLU already has the motion for injunction written and just waiting for a date stamp.
 
2013-01-24 02:15:53 AM  
OW! my sperm!
 
2013-01-24 02:17:04 AM  
dvdmedia.ign.com

oops i guess thats what I get for not previewing..
 
2013-01-24 02:28:13 AM  
Searching for concealed weapons is just the cover story. They will actually be searching for concealed Big Gulps!
 
2013-01-24 02:40:09 AM  

Wrencher: Searching for concealed weapons is just the cover story. They will actually be searching for concealed Big Gulps!


The Big Gulp is a 7-11 product. 7-11 and other large convenience store chains are exempt from Bloomberg's decree because they are regulated by the State, not the city.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:46 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Wrencher: Searching for concealed weapons is just the cover story. They will actually be searching for concealed Big Gulps!

The Big Gulp is a 7-11 product. 7-11 and other large convenience store chains are exempt from Bloomberg's decree because they are regulated by the State, not the city.


Even more pointless...
 
2013-01-24 04:15:38 AM  

BronyMedic: The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.


Congress didn't seem to have any problems passing laws covering the telegraph, the telephone, radio, tv, movies, cell phones, computers, and the internet.

Also, the Constitution doesn't really need to be tweaked for the modern age. It covers basic concepts of how our government is constructed and Rights, not ever changing methods of violating those Rights. So when they say, "secure in your person", they farking mean it no matter how you intend to poke around a person's private affairs.
 
2013-01-24 04:17:04 AM  

russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.


In Arizona, they don't have to be breaking the law, the police can say "papers please" for any reason at all.
 
2013-01-24 04:20:52 AM  

sheep snorter: Sales of a new product to skyrocket. Its a piece of metal in a gun shape. Used to harass the fark out of the police scanners and the more skilled individuals can place it into unsuspecting peoples pockets or purses.

/Oh the bump and stuff(opposite of the bump and pull) on the subway is going to be that much more fun.


They'll probably just outlaw it because it's not a gun.
 
2013-01-24 06:38:50 AM  
i.telegraph.co.uk
Just wear wool.
 
2013-01-24 07:49:19 AM  

You Idiots: You liberals Leftists are getting exactly the police state you deserve deeply desire, have planned for, and have been building for over 100 years.


The current batch of online neo-Progressive shiat-disturbers are merely the latest in a long line of criminals. They may not all be aware of the history of their own movement, but this police-state agenda goes way back.
 
2013-01-24 09:10:38 AM  
If this quote "with the shape of a hidden gun clearly visible under his clothing when viewed through the device" was referring to the pic provided I obviously have a different definition of 'clearly visible' than the NYPD.
 
2013-01-24 09:18:24 AM  

Abacus9: russsssman: I'll bet the same New Yorkers that support this device are the same people that have a problem with Sheriff Joe asking folks immigration status. both essentially the same, but one uses tech and another uses common sense. See gun, stop, frisk and ask for CHL license. See hispanic in border area breaking some law, stop, ask for residency license.

In Arizona, they don't have to be breaking the law, the police can say "papers please" for any reason at all.


Well that is a complete lie. It is a secondary. Law in az. There must be a primary cause for stop. But what are facts to liberals.
 
2013-01-24 12:53:54 PM  
You people that wanted tougher gun control are seeing the ramifications.

When you willingly give up one freedom, you consent to give up all freedom.


/hates guns
 
2013-01-24 01:44:01 PM  
Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.
 
2013-01-24 01:59:06 PM  

GRCooper: Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.


The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-01-24 03:18:00 PM  

OgreMagi: GRCooper: Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.


Fair enough. Taking aside houses/grow operations, would it be a violation of the 4th to use an IR camera to catch someone trespassing? i.e. A helicopter using IR sees someone violating the law that the pilot would not have been able to otherwise see, can the officer act on it?

/don't go all derp, I'm a gun owning conservative. No agenda I'm trying to get to, not trying to "trick" anyone into a gotcha
//I just don't see the difference; doesn't mean I'm in favor or against
///trying to get data before making an opinion
 
2013-01-24 05:37:21 PM  

GRCooper: OgreMagi: GRCooper: Serious question:

If this device is truly passive, how is it different from an IR camera in a police helicopter? Both provide (again, passively) the police with a view the human eye can't perceive.

The helicopter is used to chase down fleeing suspects. The rules change a little bit under those circumstances. If the helicopter is flying around for the sole purpose of imaging houses to look for grow operations, that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Fair enough. Taking aside houses/grow operations, would it be a violation of the 4th to use an IR camera to catch someone trespassing? i.e. A helicopter using IR sees someone violating the law that the pilot would not have been able to otherwise see, can the officer act on it?

/don't go all derp, I'm a gun owning conservative. No agenda I'm trying to get to, not trying to "trick" anyone into a gotcha
//I just don't see the difference; doesn't mean I'm in favor or against
///trying to get data before making an opinion


Why were they scanning private property in ther first place?
 
2013-01-24 05:38:20 PM  
Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?
 
2013-01-24 07:21:39 PM  

OgreMagi: Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?


Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?
 
2013-01-24 07:53:56 PM  

GRCooper: OgreMagi: Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?


Why do they need to violate the 4th amendment to test their equipment? Can they not view their own police department to test it out? Also, the criminal, if detected wouldn't be able to use a 4th amendment defense because it was not his property that was violated, however the owner should be able to sue the department for the infringement.
 
2013-01-24 07:55:58 PM  

GRCooper: OgreMagi: Also, how do they know someone is trespassing?

Ok, if we have to get hypothetical. They're testing out their IR equipment, see someone wandering around a junkyard. Cop knows it's closed, the owner is out of town, and that it's plastered with no trespassing signs. The cop knows it's trespassing and calls it in. He could not have known about it without using the IR device.

Does the trespassing (let's assume it's criminal) charge get thrown out as a violation of the 4th?


The problem is when they are "testing new equipment" every damn night of the year.

As for what do the police do? Same thing they do now, nothing. Because they have donuts to eat.
 
2013-01-25 12:10:55 AM  

BronyMedic: StoPPeRmobile: Frederf: StoPPeRmobile: I wonder what the second ammendment would look like if they knew about radiation scanners.

Who knows. Maybe we should attempt to change the Constitution by the legal means clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If it succeeds, congratulations. If the will of the people says no, better luck next time.

Meh. I want that argument that I stated shut down every farking time it's used.

Will of the people. The idiots wanted slavery. fark that. People are tarded.

Democracy is so great. Look what the "creators" of democracy did. The Greeks, you remember them? farking slavery, right away. Oppression of the majority.

Follow the rules. Don't let the people change them.

When was the civil war of America fought. A scant 100 years after it's founding. And what was the issue of debate? Hmmmmmm? farking others over.

Make the rules and fight for them. Once they are made, live with them and play within them. farking changing the rules arbitrarily to give advantage to an extreme minority is abhorrent and wrong.

The law is 100 years behind the technology of today. That's the problem. Laws cannot adapt as fast as technology is developed.


They don't need to. Secure in your person. Same today as it has ever been. farking laziness and fear drive change like this.

Oh I forgot money.
 
Displayed 334 of 334 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report