Radar sees through wall is used by US police

[G7PSK]

Just found this article about radar that sees through walls, used by US police but apparently contravenes the US criminals charter ( Constitution)

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

I cannot see a problem myself as it is only used to check if a suspect is in a building or where he is in said building. But if you are a criminal I guess it is another tool used by the horrid authorities to stop you going about your legal criminal activities and prevent you earning a living by doing so. Totally unconstitutional.

[miguelvp]

Plus no drones (as in quadcopters) for general surveillance unless they have a warrant.

We are kind of fond to our privacy in this country

People with access to technologies that invade privacy have been misused to check into their own personal relationships. If aimed towards criminals, they wont have any trouble obtaining a search warrant to begin with.

[retrolefty]

Just found this article about radar that sees through walls, used by US police but apparently contravenes the US criminals charter ( Constitution)

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

I cannot see a problem myself as it is only used to check if a suspect is in a building or where he is in said building. But if you are a criminal I guess it is another tool used by the horrid authorities to stop you going about your legal criminal activities and prevent you earning a living by doing so. Totally unconstitutional.

 A few years back I believe that the US Supreme Court ruled on this kind of sensor Vs Constitutional protections (for the US at least  ). Seemed a proper police action (using a search warrant) was using a IR scope to see if that they could see anything useful before entering.

 Seems after all was done the IR operator started just casually scanning neighborhood homes and noted that one roof really lit up their instrument. So they investigated and found a weed garden being grown in the attic. This second action didn't have a search warrant so finally the courts decided that without probable cause they could not use such a device to 'search' homes without going through the normal probable cause / warrant process there was a violation of personal protections.

[dannyf]

Totally unconstitutional.

We live in a world where it is legal to be illegal, criminals are angels, giants are gentle, everyone has rights but the law abiding tax-paying citizens.

It is a miracle we are not doomed sooner.

[Zero999]

There isn't much information about what sort of building materials it can penetrate. A lot off the houses in the US are made from wood so it should work quite well but would it work with brick and concrete, especially if it's steel reinforced?

[SeanB]

Likely using some microwave source, so there will likely be a surge of sales of those old microwave speed detectors.......

[G7PSK]

There was someone on the Amp hour a while back talking about such radar systems I think he was involved in developing such, at the time he was working on some form of medical radar, that was really what made me sit up and take notice of the article.
I cannot really see what the problem with such systems are, after all you cannot just drive around the unit or rather units have to be placed against the walls of the building under investigation and having to get a court order every time leaves the problem of while getting the order the suspect can be getting away or killing hostages etc. If I was an american policeman I would want to be able to know if someone was inside waiting with a gun.

[dannyf]

I cannot really see what the problem with such systems are

As a law-abiding citizen, I agree that this unit does not pose a risk. And indeed, one can argue that its proactive use may prevent crimes - the smoking gun theory.

However, it appears to be open to be abused. Plus, even if I don't appreciate some people's privacy concerns, it is in the constitution and if we are to change it, we should have a discussion and make a conscious decision as a people on that.

Yes, we are running a cost (of not preventing some crimes or not being able to catch a criminal), but who said freedom is free?

[SteveyG]

There isn't much information about what sort of building materials it can penetrate. A lot off the houses in the US are made from wood so it should work quite well but would it work with brick and concrete, especially if it's steel reinforced?

Yes it works through brick and blockwork buildings.

[mtdoc]

The militarization of the Police in the US and other countries is a disturbing trend.

Thank god there are judges willing to uphold the constitution and protect 4th amendment rights.

[mtdoc]

I have no problem with say a swat team using the mentioned limited version before entry into a building,

As long as they have a judge issued warrant .

[LukeW]

This paper from Greg Charvat and his colleagues at the MIT Lincoln Lab from 2012 discusses similar sort of technology, aimed at possibly assisting situational awareness for warfighters in urban combat environments using RF to image through solid walls.

https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol19_no1/19_1_4_Peabody.pdf

This gives you a realistic idea of the complexity, the size of the hardware, the size of the antenna array used, and the nature of the imaging it generates.

The core of this system is a range-gated FMCW radar device that transmits linear frequency-modulated chirps from 2–4 GHz in 1 ms with 1 W peak transmit power at 50% duty cycle.

I'm skeptical that there is some sort of commercial product on the market which offers any dramatic improvements in range, resolution, image quality or reductions in the hardware size compared to the system described here.

[G7PSK]

This paper from Greg Charvat and his colleagues at the MIT Lincoln Lab from 2012 discusses similar sort of technology, aimed at possibly assisting situational awareness for warfighters in urban combat environments using RF to image through solid walls.

https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol19_no1/19_1_4_Peabody.pdf

This gives you a realistic idea of the complexity, the size of the hardware, the size of the antenna array used, and the nature of the imaging it generates.

The core of this system is a range-gated FMCW radar device that transmits linear frequency-modulated chirps from 2–4 GHz in 1 ms with 1 W peak transmit power at 50% duty cycle.

I'm skeptical that there is some sort of commercial product on the market which offers any dramatic improvements in range, resolution, image quality or reductions in the hardware size compared to the system described here.

That is it in a nutshell you can detect the presence of a body in the building and where it is but not much more than that. Without getting too political it seems to me that the US constitution is 18th century and we are now in the 21st so a lot of what is in the constitution is rather dated, and the threats of today could not be envisioned when the constitution was first drawn up,thing like the right to bear arms written in the days of black powder and muzzle loaders now there are weapons that fire tens of thousand rounds a minute. The motor car was around in the 18th century and so no provision was made in the constitution so a driving licence is required airplanes are the same and a medical is required as well as a licence, I don't see people quibbling about that. 
I for one am quite happy to have GCHQ read my emails etc if it stops the sort of persons who ran around Paris the other week, hell I will even forward them copy's as for any thing I post on line like this forum or Facebook etc it's all in the public domain anyway. We all walk through airport security in an ideal world that would not be required but the real world is not ideal.

[tszaboo]

I have no problem with say a swat team using the mentioned limited version before entry into a building,

As long as they have a judge issued warrant .

It probably even makes the entry safer for both parties. It the regular police which is out of control.
Did you jenkies know there were more cilivians shot down by the police than soldier in the Iraq war during the same period? I say give them spaceships lazers and sharks if that helps them not shooting people because they felt like they saw a gun.

[dannyf]

so no provision was made in the constitution

You probably failed to understand what the constitution is for: it is to lay down a set of principles for the country. Not individual laws or regulations.

If it did, it would have died the day it was drafted.

[retrolefty]

You probably failed to understand what the constitution is for: it is to lay down a set of principles for the country.

You too apparently. The constitution of the United States sets out limits on the government, nothing more.

 It comprises of much more then just that.
It defines and sets up a three branch federal gov based on checks and balances and it's role in relationship with the State governments. And it even contains the method to be used to amend itself.

[mtdoc]

It defines and sets up a three branch federal gov based on checks and balances

Which is why a search warrant issued by the judicial branch should be obtained before the right to privacy is violated.  Put in a broader historical context, the constitution is not designed to protect us from the government we have today so much as to protect us from the government we could have if the checks and balances are not maintained. Especially important now as we become more and more oligarchic.   History is rife with examples of governments that began for the people and evolved into government for the few.

What happens if electronic equipment is deemed "dangerous" in private hands because it can be used to design remotely detonated bombs, block RF imaging or communications, etc.?   When they can search your premises remotely without a warrant and break down the door of your lab all in the name on the "war on terror" ?

It may seem silly now - but history shows....

Freedom and 100% security cannot co-exist.