Computing
Drive-by Gun Scans Prompt Privacy Questions
Police hope terahertz-scanning devices can be more effective than patting people down, but civil rights groups are wary.
- Tuesday, January 24, 2012
- By Chris Opfer
Unconcealed: A gun is visible under the clothes of a person in a test of the New York Police Department’s proposed terahertz-wave scanning device.
Credit: NYPD
Police in New York City are trying to develop something like x-ray vision, raising questions about the legal expectation for privacy in public places.
The NYPD recently announced that it's working on a mobile scanner designed to detect concealed weapons on people from up to 75 feet away. The department won't say when the devices might hit the street or how much they will cost, but Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly has already praised them as "a cutting-edge effort to deter gun violence."
The police department is developing the device with the U.S. Department of Defense. The device measures terahertz waves—which are naturally emitted by people and objects and pass through materials such as clothes, which is how the scanner can reveal guns or other hidden objects. The current model can scan from up to about 15 feet away; Kelly hopes to increase the range to 75 feet before mounting the device on police vehicles.
City officials tout the technology as an alternative to NYPD's controversial "stop and frisk" technique, in which officers stop people on the street for questioning—often patting them down in the process. Opponents of the practice say it unfairly targets minorities. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 87 percent of the roughly 600,000 people stopped by the NYPD in 2010, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights organization based in New York City.
"I think this is a positive development," says Richard Cardinale, a New York attorney who represents plaintiffs in police misconduct cases. "The biggest benefit of stop and frisk is that police are getting guns off the street and saving lives. If you have this new way to detect guns, people don't have to suffer the indignity of being searched for no reason."
Not everyone is ready to embrace the new technology, however. "There are serious Fourth Amendment problems raised by the use of this technology," says Michael Price, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. "The idea that police could mount a scanner on a car and take images of everyone within a certain range is troubling."
The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." Generally, the law allows cops to stop and frisk a person if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is committing or about to commit a crime. The threshold is lower than the "probable cause" required for police to search a person's car, get a warrant to search a home, or make an arrest.
- 1
- 2
Related Articles
Tuning Terahertz
A new device gives researchers unprecedented control over an unwieldy part of the spectrum.
T-Rays Advance Toward Airport Screening
A new laser design helps create usable terahertz radiation, which penetrates common materials but doesn't harm tissue.
Taming the Terahertz
Devices that can control terahertz waves could pave the way for faster wireless communication.
ashkenaz
2 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Try Thinking Out-of-the-Box...like Israelis
Screening - whether it's for people packing guns or explosives packed in luggage should be based on thinking out-of-the-box.
That's how Israelis think – developing in 2011 a system that stands to challenge today's options of getting stripped naked on screen or getting fondled by airport security personnel.
How? Using mice who can smell a rat.
Don't believe me? Check it out on Chelm-on-the-Med Online
Or go to OF MICE AND MEN...AND MOLECULES
NOTE: The Chelm Project regularly reports some of the coolest Israeli innovations among its stories - from nano-paint that makes planes virtually invisible
... to a foolproof database for identifying a stolen steer
even when it's already sitting on a diner's plate.
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Look - if you're carrying a concealed firearm and have a permit, then this should be a non issue. IF on the otherhand your're carrying a concealed weapon (knives too I presume), and cannot show reasonable cause, then the police should be able to confiscate the weapon, test it to see if it had been used in any other crime and use the evidence as needed. If not - return the weapon to a place where gun registration happens, have the "perp" pay his fees to recover their property and then be on their way.
Just get the guns out of the bad guys hands - even if no arrests are made, getting the streets cleaned up is better for society.
CurtHowland
69 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Define "bad guy".
If it's "Someone who does something the government doesn't like", then this is good tech.
If it's "Someone who harms others", then this does no good at all. If someone has been harmed, a warrant is easy to get.
If no one has been harmed, then no crime has been committed and we're into the ethical realm explored in "Minority Report".
Scanners like this completely invert the presumption of innocence, and as such are utterly unconstitutional. And wrong.
Duude
7 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
"If no one has been harmed, then no crime has been committed and we're into the ethical realm explored in "Minority Report"
Unless, of course, one lives in a state that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun. In most states its a felony to carry a concealed arm without a permit. I've always assumed that meant it was a crime.
CurtHowland
69 Comments
- 27 Days Ago
- 01/26/2012
The mistake of thinking that violating a statute constitutes a "crime" is one of the sad results of Orwellian times we live in.
delphinus100
20 Comments
- 24 Days Ago
- 01/29/2012
Then...what IS a crime, if not that?
A law may or may not be ill-conceived (and is certainly not the same thing in all times and places), but a crime, a violation of that statute, is whatever our legislature says it is.
And that's a separate issue from this one.
CurtHowland
69 Comments
msreid
27 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
And how exactly is the police officer that scans you carrying a gun supposed to know whether you have a legal permit for that gun? Now they have to stop you and harass you just because you go through the trouble of doing so legally?
In my mind we should not be scanning under people's clothes with a scanner if we could not search them physically. Just because we have a technology that would allow us to search them from afar, doesn't mean we can bypass their right to privacy if there is absolutely no suspicion.
And violating their rights by scanning them cannot possibly be used as suspicion alone to stop and search them. That's just a circular argument, just like the chicken and the egg. If there is no suspicion to search in the first place, they shouldn't be scanned.
CurtHowland
69 Comments
- 27 Days Ago
- 01/26/2012
Not just stop and harass, but because they will know the person is armed the police will have to act as if the person they are approaching is going to try to shoot them.
This will justify accelerating the militarization of the police, all in the name of "officer safety", as well as more people being killed by police since the police will be on even more of a "shoot him before he shoots me" footing.
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
The reason people insisted on the Bill of Rights and other similar doctrines around the world is because they know it's human nature to use power to personal advantage. If everyone could be trusted then we wouldn't need laws at all.
CurtHowland
69 Comments
- 27 Days Ago
- 01/26/2012
And because people can't be trusted with power over people, we put people in a position of power to control people?
I realized a long time ago that there is no rational reason for government, since every reason given for it is also a reason why it should not exist.
Civil society, cooperation and commerce work perfectly well, no need to bring coercion into it and muck it up.
ka5s
61 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Hats,coats, underwear...
http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html
NB: It's unlawful in Colordao to wear EMI shielding to inactivate store theft control devices.
msreid
27 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Re: Aluminum foil hats and suits?
It's also illegal in Colorado to steal from stores, so I don't think the law really helps much. If they're doing it to steal, they don't really care if the clothing is a law-breaker too.
But this brings up a good point... maybe soon it will be the perfect time to start wearing EM shielding clothing when you walk out your front door. Someone who starts thinking about this and/or preparing a line of EM shielding outerwear might be poised to make a lot of money in a city like New York that actually starts using this.
Terahertz radiation can't go through metal or water, so a thin lining of one of these (or some combination of both) might effectively kill the ability of one of these scanners to do much, or might make the range so short that they would have to be right next to you to be effective.
Go make your millions, boys!
CurtHowland
69 Comments
- 27 Days Ago
- 01/26/2012
Re: Aluminum foil hats and suits?
http://www.lessemf.com/fabric.html
Oh yeah, someone already thought of that...
Jardean
1 Comment
snicholson
1 Comment
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
The supreme court may outlaw this technology too without a warrant. I wonder if a private citizen had one of these and then told the police who had guns, then maybe a warrant would not be needed, or is this a vigilante?
joelsapp
21 Comments
- 22 Days Ago
- 01/31/2012
If the Supreme Court banned IR cameras for Marijuana growing detection, then they will surely ban these for scanning crowds on street corners. Both are EM waves and both are passive.
I wish the Supreme Court would have made a distinction between passive and active types of viewing. If an officer with her own eyes could see (passive) someone on the street was carrying a gun, they would have probable cause to stop them. The officer could be mistaken and unintentionally (unlawfully) detain someone, but the detainee could go back to sue the police force or officers involved.
An "active" version of the same scenario would be patting down people on the street as they pass a check point to see if they have a gun. Except for very narrow applications, this would be a violation of unlawful search and seizure.
I see a distinction, but maybe the Supreme Court does not.
Duude
7 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
"Opponents of the practice say it unfairly targets minorities."
Claiming it invades one's right to privacy needs to be worked out with the courts, but claims that it unfairly targets minorities is ridiculous. Anyone making this claim may just be fearful that this technology will blow holes through their decades long stand that police are profiling minorities when they stop and frisk them. Don't understand how people that may be pro-gun control could turn around and be opposed to a technology that would get more guns off the street. Incredible!!!
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Look, you don't have to prosecute anybody - just confiscate the guns that have not been properly registered. If you own it legally then make your case, if not - my guess is that nobody will come to claim the weapons. Then melt them down and turn them into something more useful.
A white guy can be just as guilty about carrying a piece as any other ethnic person.
SCAN THEM ALL without prejudice. Just like Dirty Harry - he hates everybody (equally).
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 28 Days Ago
- 01/25/2012
Considering humans don't have x-ray vision, anything that can see under your clothes would the same as a physical search. Everyone can't see it so it's not in plain view.
2600hz
11 Comments
- 25 Days Ago
- 01/28/2012
Place where a guy that enable file sharing can be jailed for 50 years, and other guy who rape, kill and dispose a body get's 20 years jail. Someone is talking abount rights? Who's right, what rights? Governments are prolonged arms of big money (big industry) and police is here to protect government. That is the only true.
zx5000
2 Comments
jimbo86
1 Comment
- 24 Days Ago
- 01/29/2012
The 75 feet range sounds like an exaggeration. Moisture in the air will cause a large drop off in the returned signal. This combined with low resolution will mean an effective range closer to 15 feet.
curtengelbrecht
1 Comment
- 21 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
The operative phrase from the 4th amendment is not, as the article states "against unreasonable searches and seizures", but "the right to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated...". The argument IMO is not if the technology changed what is reasonable, but is it a violation of the individual without a specific warrant or probable cause. Random, mass, or checkpoint scanning, just because it's easier, doesn't meet that test.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mountainlion
14 Comments
DNA
I read an article that said that the terahertz waves could scramble DNA. I hope they have checked this out.
Reply
brian.bergstein
30 Comments
Re: DNA
That very question was the subject of a vigorous discussion in a TR blog post on terahertz waves in 2009: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
Reply
msreid
27 Comments
Re: DNA
But the story states that this device is just a scanner of terahertz radiation, not that it emits it. All objects with a temperature above approximately 10 degrees kelvin naturally emit terahertz radiation. So I don't think that a scanner that reads that radiation would be dangerous if it doesn't actually try to create terahertz radiation (which has been typically pretty difficult to do).
Reply
brian.bergstein
30 Comments
Re: DNA
That is a key point, and I should have clarified that as well in my comment. Here is how the police commissioner describes the proposed device:
"The device reads a specific form of natural energy emitted by people and objects known as terahertz. If something is obstructing the flow of that radiation, for example a weapon, the device will highlight that object."
Reply
thatdumbguy
4 Comments
Re: DNA
Electromagnetic radiation does not “scramble DNA”. Anyone who thinks that is seriously misinformed (or uneducated).
Terahertz devices operate at a higher frequency than other devices we have used for years without negative health effects. But terahertz frequencies are not as high energy as infrared or visible electromagnetic radiation. We use these frequencies every day and like them (it’s good to see things and stay warm in the Sun).
The ionizing frequencies (ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays) are a problem, but even those frequencies don’t scramble DNA, although they could damage it beyond our bodies’ DNA repair capacity.
Without writing a book on the topic, it’s probably not a good idea to blast the general public with any form of electromagnetic radiation without their knowledge or consent.
Reply
briang1621
173 Comments
Re: DNA
Kudos to TR for focusing on the legal implications of a new technology, too often people see the benefits of the technology and fail to identify the negative impacts it can have. In the case of a terahertz gun scanner article you clearly have strong proponents for the use of the technology and even stronger more well funded opponents. That what made this article an interesting read!
Thanks
Dr. Brian Glassman
Head Marketer for the International Journal of Innovation Science
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ijis.htm
Reply