• This Laser Reportedly Can Instantly, Remotely Scan You For Drugs or Explosives
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36714621]So because it's not someone sticking their fingers into you, it's less invasive? I'm being probed either way, it's not less invasive, it's just less obvious.[/QUOTE] Some people don't mind a hit rate of 1 plane every 3 years being hijacked and crashed into a building. But I suspect after the 4th or 5th one, people might start to care. Shall we just get rid of airport security altogether until that happens, or?
Breaching your rights WITH LASERS I don't like this.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;36720275]Some people don't mind a hit rate of 1 plane every 3 years being hijacked and crashed into a building. But I suspect after the 4th or 5th one, people might start to care. Shall we just get rid of airport security altogether until that happens, or?[/QUOTE] "[i]They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.[/i]" - Benjamin Franklin
[QUOTE=V12US;36720718]"[i]They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.[/i]" - Benjamin Franklin[/QUOTE] Because, y'know, Benjamin Franklin was the arbiter of judgement and everything he said was 100% right and correct. You can't just toss a quote around from some historically famous individual, ESPECIALLY when it's an opinion, and end an argument. He was a human just like the rest of us, and thus he's fallible. I don't consider non-invasive, almost instantaneous bomb-checks being on individuals (even myself) a breach of my liberties anyway. Scan away.
[QUOTE=sltungle;36721062]Because, y'know, Benjamin Franklin was the arbiter of judgement and everything he said was 100% right and correct. You can't just toss a quote around from some historically famous individual, ESPECIALLY when it's an opinion, and end an argument. He was a human just like the rest of us, and thus he's fallible. I don't consider non-invasive, almost instantaneous bomb-checks being on individuals (even myself) a breach of my liberties anyway. Scan away.[/QUOTE] It's a slippery slope situation.
[QUOTE=binarybitz;36719082]You know what else can do all that? [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_13rTsbdEqkM/StX5aUzXS4I/AAAAAAAAAPU/NvtUy8cihlQ/s1600/gt20018+roonphoto.jpg[/img] The GT-200 or Sniffex. This amazing antenna screwed onto nothing but a plastic box can sense anything without any source of power. You can also place in "cards" to sense different molecules. It's so amazing that countless third-world countries have bought thousands of them. Fucking idiots.[/QUOTE] yeah this thing similarly reeks of bullshit like... I really doubt this thing has the capabilities described in the article, if it does it's fucking revolutionary.
Boy I sure am seeing an awful lot of slippery sloping in this thread! Because that's totally the only way this technology is going to end up being used! Do you really think a government like the US government would get away with installing this technology on every street corner or arming all the police with them? Of course not, the public backlash would be obscene. The reason they seem to get away with monitoring Internet communication is because the average person doesn't give a fuck about the Internet and probably only uses Facebook anyway, but this is much different, people would care and actually start taking action with this kind of thing. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;36720718]"[i]They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.[/i]" - Benjamin Franklin[/QUOTE] That's the dumbest fucking quote. Seriously. You don't deserve to lose either your freedoms or safety just because you want some form of safety in society.
What about explosive drugs? Does it do those?
It's my goddamn right as an American to have explosives. Don't these scientists know how we celebrate our independence? [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;36721242] That's the dumbest fucking quote. Seriously. You don't deserve to lose either your freedoms or safety just because you want some form of safety in society.[/QUOTE] You're right, that's why it says ESSENTIAL liberty.
[QUOTE=maurits150;36714670]I think this device is just way too invasive, and they can pretty much put one on every corner of the street and scan for any illegal substances. Hello police state! Also, imagine that I legally smoke some weed here in The Netherlands and then take a trip to the USA a few hours later. Instant trouble.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure that checking people for [B]illegal [/B]substances frequently constitutes a police state.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36721456]I'm not sure that checking people for [B]illegal [/B]substances frequently constitutes a police state.[/QUOTE] Without any prior probable cause it could be.
This reminds me of the time the TSA wanted to strip search me and I said "at least buy me dinner first." I missed my flight because of that. :(
Facepunch: "Privacy doesn't matter if they can violate it in a cool way!"
[QUOTE=Groat;36722459]Facepunch: "Privacy doesn't matter if they can violate it in a cool way!"[/QUOTE] Groat: "I'm an idiot but if I generalize things someone might think I'm cool and edgy!"
[QUOTE=TheTalon;36720275]Some people don't mind a hit rate of 1 plane every 3 years being hijacked and crashed into a building. But I suspect after the 4th or 5th one, people might start to care. Shall we just get rid of airport security altogether until that happens, or?[/QUOTE] There was much less airline security before 9/11. Guess what happened? [I]Nothing.[/I]
How it works?
[QUOTE=Zally13;36722636]There was much less airline security before 9/11. Guess what happened? [I]Nothing.[/I][/QUOTE] You missed out the part where 9/11 happened...? Other than that not a lot OH hold on, silly me. I almost forgot Google existed [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings[/url] Is that what you call nothing? Your argument makes no sense, anyway. 9/11 might have been prevented with stricter security...
[QUOTE=Trumple;36720049]Oh my, now the police will know I secretly eat cornflakes for breakfast :( Look I don't think you understand how this works. It's like a spectrometer, not some magic laser that can see what you have in your stomach They're not going to arrest you for trace amounts of stuff. Everyone has trace amounts of pretty much everything on them. If you have gunpowder residue on your shoes in any large amount there is probably a reason for concern. If you've been to a club or something, the drug residue on you would be much less than if you actually had a bag of the stuff on you. They're not going to arrest everyone this thing beeps at, it is to tell them who to investigate, the same way a policeman would investigate you if you had blood on your clothes. By your logic, the eyes of a policeman are an invasion of your privacy...[/QUOTE] No they're not. If those eyes could see I was carrying things covertly, sure. Also, "not arrested for a trace amount". I guess you've never had friends arrested for literally a gram of marijuana in their car that the police did a road side stop and pulled his car apart to find over a "hunch". It's the idea of giving them more power that they don't need that I don't like and go ahead and call me fucking crazy for that, but it's reasonable to assume that those with power will abuse that power when you look at their track record of ABUSING THAT POWER.
What if you brush up against someone who has those substances on them? Or the fact that every single dollar bill has drugs on it?
[QUOTE=binarybitz;36719082]You know what else can do all that? [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_13rTsbdEqkM/StX5aUzXS4I/AAAAAAAAAPU/NvtUy8cihlQ/s1600/gt20018+roonphoto.jpg[/img] The GT-200 or Sniffex. This amazing antenna screwed onto nothing but a plastic box can sense anything without any source of power. You can also place in "cards" to sense different molecules. It's so amazing that countless third-world countries have bought thousands of them. Fucking idiots.[/QUOTE] Looks like the bomb detector you use in MGS2.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36724861]No they're not. If those eyes could see I was carrying things covertly, sure. Also, "not arrested for a trace amount". I guess you've never had friends arrested for literally a gram of marijuana in their car that the police did a road side stop and pulled his car apart to find over a "hunch". It's the idea of giving them more power that they don't need that I don't like and go ahead and call me fucking crazy for that, but it's reasonable to assume that those with power will abuse that power when you look at their track record of ABUSING THAT POWER.[/QUOTE] It's not a power! It's a means of detecting people who have done something wrong. If you've got a gram of weed on your body, you could probably pass it off as someone who came into contact with you at a club or something. To my understanding, they also couldn't arrest you unless you were actually high at the time or you had illegal drugs on you (and by having illegal drugs I mean enough to actually use) It's like a long distance breathalyser, if you like. Only it can detect other substances, too. Do you complain about breathalysers?
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;36726765]Looks like the bomb detector you use in MGS2.[/QUOTE] it's a hollow box with a swivel antenna it's bullshit. Similarly this seems like bullshit. it uses lasers to detect small amounts of chemicals that fast? orly
Real question is how it works, not how it's going to be used.
[QUOTE=Trumple;36727601]It's not a power! It's a means of detecting people who have done something wrong. If you've got a gram of weed on your body, you could probably pass it off as someone who came into contact with you at a club or something. To my understanding, they also couldn't arrest you unless you were actually high at the time or you had illegal drugs on you (and by having illegal drugs I mean enough to actually use) It's like a long distance breathalyser, if you like. Only it can detect other substances, too. Do you complain about breathalysers?[/QUOTE] You know a gram is more than enough to use right? No, this isn't a power, but they HAVE power, and giving them more seems like a bad idea to me. How is this hard to fucking grasp
[QUOTE=Trumple;36722799]You missed out the part where 9/11 happened...? Other than that not a lot OH hold on, silly me. I almost forgot Google existed [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings[/url] Is that what you call nothing? Your argument makes no sense, anyway. 9/11 might have been prevented with stricter security...[/QUOTE] I'm seeing roughly a few per decade. In my opinion, that's nothing. At least, not enough to warrant this kind of violation and searching.
Cops cant search my pockets without my consent unless I'm arrested. This is just some loophole, the only place it should be used is an airport, or if businesses want to use them on their property.
[QUOTE=V12US;36720718]"[i]They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.[/i]" - Benjamin Franklin[/QUOTE] I like having emergency workers like police to protect me just in case I get robbed or end up in a car accident. Oh fuck I guess I deserve neither liberty nor safety unless I live in the woods by myself with no laws. Seriously, the MASSIVE amount of sensationalism and slippery slope in this thread is bad even for Facepunch. This thread is almost like Fox Nation. It's a fucking scanner that detects chemicals, not a camera that watches you while you undress. Obviously detecting small particles of "suspect" chemicals would be normal and accounted for, because nearly everybody has a trace amount of many chemicals permeating them. Paper currency is especially bad with this because it passes through many, many hands.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36741100]You know a gram is more than enough to use right? No, this isn't a power, but they HAVE power, and giving them more seems like a bad idea to me. How is this hard to fucking grasp[/QUOTE] You said yourself this isn't a power...then you go on to say giving them more would be a bad idea...but we're not giving them more? Anyway, these machines are likely to be expensive. Based on that alone we can already see these things will be used for counter terrorism to save potentially thousands of lives, not to catch some teenager with a bad habit. And what does that mean? It means if you try to walk through an airport/train station with explosives, you're going to get caught, which is great for everyone. Equally, if you happen to be trying to smuggle drugs through an airport, they'll pick that up too, again everyone wins. They're not even going to use them outside of these areas by the sounds of it, and even if they did it would be unlikely they'd care about small amounts of anything
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;36774505]I like having emergency workers like police to protect me just in case I get robbed or end up in a car accident. Oh fuck I guess I deserve neither liberty nor safety unless I live in the woods by myself with no laws. Seriously, the MASSIVE amount of sensationalism and slippery slope in this thread is bad even for Facepunch. This thread is almost like Fox Nation. It's a fucking scanner that detects chemicals, not a camera that watches you while you undress. Obviously detecting small particles of "suspect" chemicals would be normal and accounted for, because nearly everybody has a trace amount of many chemicals permeating them. Paper currency is especially bad with this because it passes through many, many hands.[/QUOTE] The existence of law enforcement and emergency services is not, directly, a violation of anyone's essential liberties. The issue is more in what powers such agencies are provided and how they employ said powers. I have no problem with this, or a similar, device being employed in airports, border crossings, military bases, etc... provided there is a clear indication such devices are employed (displayed before one is within range of said devices). I do however oppose these being placed on every street corner and in every police car, as, at least to me, the use of such a device does constitute a search of one's person, all be it a remote one. I'm optimistic it won't come to that, and even if it does, I hope the Supreme Court will rule similarly to how they ruled with regards to thermal imaging devices (see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States]here[/url]). But who knows. A more immediate concern of mine is, knowing the TSA, if you have even minute traces of anything remotely illegal (which likely everyone does for various reasons, not least of which being the currency we use every day) they will strip search you and hold you for days. Used correctly though, this could be a great way to avoid all of the invasive crap the TSA does (this plus a metal detector should work quite well).
Obligatory freakin' lasers joke
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.