• This Laser Reportedly Can Instantly, Remotely Scan You For Drugs or Explosives
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zally13;36768784]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.[/QUOTE] Until the plane you're on gets bombed, or a bomb goes off on a train and you wish there was some sort of device that could have detected a terrorist as he walks through the airport door I'm willing to allow the police to see if I have any illegal substance on me in return for them potentially saving thousands of lives. As long as you don't commit a crime what do you have to worry about? Sorry to break it to you, but I don't think anyone will care what you had for breakfast either I understand your concern but I think you're being irrational, you'll be fine as long as you don't wheel around a suitcase of drugs or something silly
if they start using these at festivals and such they're going to have to stop due to prison overcrowding and loosing so much profit
[QUOTE=SuPeR_MaN;36796913]if they start using these at festivals and such they're going to have to stop due to prison overcrowding and loosing so much profit[/QUOTE] They already have drug sniffing dogs and they don't use those at festivals This is intended for anti-terrorism, not anti-fun
This seems pretty cool, but I predict a lot of false readings, and false accusations.
[img]http://zapp5.staticworld.net/news/graphics/222024-homefront_original.jpg[/img] (not a political statement)
[QUOTE=Trumple;36796774]Until the plane you're on gets bombed, or a bomb goes off on a train and you wish there was some sort of device that could have detected a terrorist as he walks through the airport door I'm willing to allow the police to see if I have any illegal substance on me in return for them potentially saving thousands of lives. As long as you don't commit a crime what do you have to worry about? Sorry to break it to you, but I don't think anyone will care what you had for breakfast either I understand your concern but I think you're being irrational, you'll be fine as long as you don't wheel around a suitcase of drugs or something silly[/QUOTE] This sort of "what if" thinking is what can lead to the removal of people's liberties. Statistically, the odds of it happening are much too low for some of these things to happen. I'm arguing against the full-body scans that essentially show people naked. If there is a foolproof way of finding drugs that isn't invasive, then I am all for it. I am merely trying to argue that the U.S. is going too far in the name of security.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36802303]This sort of "what if" thinking is what can lead to the removal of people's liberties. Statistically, the odds of it happening are much too low for some of these things to happen. I'm arguing against the full-body scans that essentially show people naked. If there is a foolproof way of finding drugs that isn't invasive, then I am all for it. I am merely trying to argue that the U.S. is going too far in the name of security.[/QUOTE] Wait this isn't a full body scan that shows people naked or anything of the sort...nor is it a magical invasive laser It's a long range spectrometer, they can't see your body. So does that mean you're actually for this...?
[QUOTE=Trumple;36802410]Wait this isn't a full body scan that shows people naked or anything of the sort...nor is it a magical invasive laser It's a long range spectrometer, they can't see your body. So does that mean you're actually for this...?[/QUOTE] Assuming that it is used properly and not just to see what people are up to, then sure.
[QUOTE=Metalcastr;36726561]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] The sensor probably has compensation for things like that. Maybe a part per million display of relevant substances so that the operator knows if the person is worth worrying about.
[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] You...are kidding...oh my god why
Are people really complaining about this invading your rights while at the air port? Fucking idiots. You don't NEED to travel by air. It's like a car. A privilege, not a right.
This constitutes as a search of an individual and an encroachment of privacy. What the TSA does now is illegal enough. The only reason it hasn't been ruled as such by the Supreme Court is because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that airport security had special privileges and no one bothered to push it higher than that. A personal search, either by person or laser, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment unless they receive a warrant. You bet your ass that if someone made it to the SCOTUS that they'd all shoot that shit down faster than you can say "8-1 majority opinion". "The right of the people to be secure [B]in their persons[/B], houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And you know, you just bloody know, that being able to detect the things this laser detects is WELL BEYOND any reasonable limit. This is a gross invasion of privacy that goes far beyond protections of individuals and has so much room for abuse. The fact that people have took this without resistance for so long baffles me. Just handing their Fourth Amendment right off. Privacy means nothing to anyone anymore and it's a damn shame that we have people here who try to rationalize and sympathize with the cause of invading and smothering our most basic and fundamental rights. As far as I'm concerned, the state can see what I've eaten, smoked, and drank, the inside of my body cavities and the size of my genitals, and whatever the fuck else, when I'm a corpse sitting in a morgue and no other time.
[QUOTE=prooboo;36714698]Does this constitute a search? Would a warrant/consent be required?[/QUOTE] This is the TSA, they don't need those silly things. :v:
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36811992]Are people really complaining about this invading your rights while at the air port? Fucking idiots. You don't NEED to travel by air. It's like a car. A privilege, not a right.[/QUOTE] Actually, it is a right- kinda. The TSA is a federal agency and is under the jurisdiction of the United State Constitution. And for your information, the Supreme Court has recognized freedom of travel and movement throughout the United States as far back as 1823 and the Constitution implies it under Privileges and Immunities. While no one guarantees that you can fly, or drive, these are not privileges, but liberties and services sanctioned by the state and are therefore regulated by the state, then therefore regulated by the Constitution. It's very simple stuff: the method the TSA uses is illegal. While reasonable accommodations have been made for police search and seizure of motor vehicles, and I think most people would agree to these measures for practical reasons, the same does not apply to the TSA or airport security. Why? Because the privileges granted to police require REASONABLE SUSPICION in order to commit a search or seizure. This is not applied by the TSA- all people are screened regardless of reasonable suspicion, which is a clear violation of the Constitution. This is the big difference. When you drive, police are bound to reasonable judgement and can be found guilty of wrongful search and seizure if they don't apply this. You are not searched every time you drive. You are when you fly. The TSA does not have to have reasonable suspicion. The TSA does not need to use reasonable judgment. The TSA simply invades the privacy of every individual who wishes to use a specific private service. By your reasoning there, it would be okay if the government required everyone to do the chicken dance for 20 minutes before they can board a flight or drive a car. Just because you have to go through the process to use a voluntary service does not mean that it's legal or justifiable. You can not consent away your constitutional rights.
[QUOTE=binarybitz;36719082]You know what else can do all that? 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]It's extremely troubling that a glorified dowsing rod was actually used in Iraq to look for explosives. People were very likely killed because of that device, not to mention the massive stock fraud the company's owner was engaged in.
[QUOTE=Dracon;36716584][img]http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d9/Tricorder_2366.jpg[/img] Tricorder?[/QUOTE] Holy shit, it's almost scary how feasible that sounds.
The technological aspect of this is very impressive, but the moral implications are potentially worrying. I think as long as there is consent involved then it shouldn't pose a problem, IE: entering an airport or being legally warranted for a drug search. Hopefully these aren't misused though (IE: scanning people randomly in the streets without consent)
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36812269']Actually, it is a right- kinda. The TSA is a federal agency and is under the jurisdiction of the United State Constitution. And for your information, the Supreme Court has recognized freedom of travel and movement throughout the United States as far back as 1823 and the Constitution implies it under Privileges and Immunities. While no one guarantees that you can fly, or drive, these are not privileges, but liberties and services sanctioned by the state and are therefore regulated by the state, then therefore regulated by the Constitution. It's very simple stuff: the method the TSA uses is illegal. While reasonable accommodations have been made for police search and seizure of motor vehicles, and I think most people would agree to these measures for practical reasons, the same does not apply to the TSA or airport security. Why? Because the privileges granted to police require REASONABLE SUSPICION in order to commit a search or seizure. This is not applied by the TSA- all people are screened regardless of reasonable suspicion, which is a clear violation of the Constitution. This is the big difference. When you drive, police are bound to reasonable judgement and can be found guilty of wrongful search and seizure if they don't apply this. You are not searched every time you drive. You are when you fly. The TSA does not have to have reasonable suspicion. The TSA does not need to use reasonable judgment. The TSA simply invades the privacy of every individual who wishes to use a specific private service. By your reasoning there, it would be okay if the government required everyone to do the chicken dance for 20 minutes before they can board a flight or drive a car. Just because you have to go through the process to use a voluntary service does not mean that it's legal or justifiable. You can not consent away your constitutional rights.[/QUOTE] So, in the sake of our inalienable rights, you propose that we don't...actually attempt to counteract the possibility of terrorist attacks?
[QUOTE=Clementine;36818559]So, in the sake of our inalienable rights, you propose that we don't...actually attempt to counteract the possibility of terrorist attacks?[/QUOTE] As has been said in this thread, it's use in airports isn't what's worrying. It's the potential for a highly mobile particle scanner to be used as a method of search without permission. I'm not crazy or stupid for seeing this as a potential problem.
[QUOTE=Reader;36740970]Real question is how it works, not how it's going to be used.[/QUOTE] The detector shown in the OP excites molecules which begin to vibrate and rotate in an individual way that is detected later. The physics behind this is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy]Raman Spectroscopy[/url] and has been very popular for decades now.
[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] God, they have a machine that makes sure you are not breaking the law! ORWELLIAN POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!
Minority Report?
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36822561]God, they have a machine that makes sure you are not breaking the law! ORWELLIAN POLICE STATE!!!!!!!![/QUOTE] Does innocent before guilty mean NOTHING to you people? Searching me is fine, once you've asked permission or you have a warrant. JUST having the ability to search me without my permission from a range without my knowledge is not fucking "okay".
[QUOTE=Andokool12;36716414]It wouldn't scan your chemical makeup for THC, silly.[/QUOTE] Lochard's exchange principle.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.