Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYPD Developing Portable Body Scanner For Detecting Guns

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the law-and-order-special-irradiative-unit dept.

Crime 575

Zothecula writes "You have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives — after all, if someone who doesn't want to be arrested is carrying a lethal weapon, the last thing most of us would want to do is get close enough to that person to touch them. That's why the New York Police Department teamed up with the United States Department of Defense three years ago, and began developing a portable scanner that can remotely detect the presence of a gun on a person's body. The NYPD announced the project this week."

cancel ×

575 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750142)

GreatBunzinni [slashdot.org] has been posting anonymous accusations [slashdot.org] listing a whole bunch of Slashdot accounts as being part of a marketing campaign for Microsoft, without any evidence. GreatBunzinni has accidentally outed himself [slashdot.org] as this anonymous poster. Half the accounts he attacks don't even post pro-Microsoft rhetoric. The one thing they appear to have in common is that they have been critical of Google in the past. GreatBunzinni has been using multiple accounts to post these "shill" accusations, such as Galestar [slashdot.org] , NicknameOne [slashdot.org] , and flurp [slashdot.org] .

That's not the problem. The problem is that moderators gave him +5 Informative and are now modding down the accused, even for legitimate posts. Metamoderation is supposed to address this by filtering out the bad moderators, but clearly it's not working.

This "shill" crap that has been flying around lately has to stop. It's restricting a variety of viewpoints from participating on the site and creating an echo chamber.

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750396)

I hear you on that echo chamber comment man. I feel like I've read this exact post 50 fucking times....

PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare (2, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750536)

Your new cancer and lack of presumed innocence are a small price to pay, in order to defeat statistically non-existant terrorists.

Police Commissioner Kelly said the scanner would only be used in reasonably suspicious circumstances and could cut down on the number of stop-and-frisks on the street.

But the New York Civil Liberties Union is raising a red flag.
"It's worrisome. It implicates privacy, the right to walk down the street without being subjected to a virtual pat-down by the Police Department when you're doing nothing wrong," the NYCLU's Donna Lieberman said.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/17/nypd-testing-gun-scanning-technology/ [cbslocal.com]

After years of rebuffing health concerns over airport scanners, the Transportation Security Administration plans to conduct new tests on the potential radiation exposure from the machines at more than 100 airports nationwide.

But the TSA does not plan to retest the machines or passengers. Instead, the agency plans to test its airport security officers to see if they are being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation while working with the scanners.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120116,0,7082529.story [latimes.com]

"Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this," John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, told CNET. Sedat has raised concerns about the health risks of X-ray scanners, and the European Commission in November prohibited their use in European airports.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/ [cnet.com]

Re:PROBLEMS: Civil Liberty, Health and Welfare (4, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750734)

I think I kinda want to punch you in the face right now. What you're saying has a point, but this is the wrong story. The scanner being presented is an infrared camera, nothing more.

Re:Organized trolling campaign by GreatBunzinni (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750676)

Still at it, faggot?

My oh my ... (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750148)

That's one big gun you've got there buddy.

Re:My oh my ... (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750278)

What an appropriate place to say this. What happens when the police get a false positive?

But seriously.

Re:My oh my ... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750382)

Shit happens...

This device empowers criminals. (5, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750154)

I have four knives on me right now. This is what I carry with me on a daily basis give or take. Three of them are Leatherman brand, but none are the traditional multi-pliar, I find having the tools spread across multiple devices better as a tech for various reasons.

I first fired a shotgun at the age of five. At six my dad handed one to carry with me when we were out quail hunting.

New York, like Chicago, Great Britian, and many other places too much fear in the tool and not enough effort into education, trust and tollerance.

The reason I could carry a shotgun at the age of six is my dad took me out at the age of four, shot some rabbits and explained death and danger to me. He taught me to respect the tools that guns are. When I was seven he gave me a pocket knife and expected me to carry it as it is one of the most ancient, practical and useful tools known. I got in trouble if I didn't have it on me when he asked. I often didn't have it on me because the school system had the same mentality as NYPD and I knew better than to got with my dads logic, which I considered supperior.

In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways. In a rural setting they're a meal ticket, something to protect your livestock with, and occasionally a form of entertainment - when used responsibly.

When everyones armed the random individual who wishes to victimize others has less power to do so. Things like this scanner empowers criminals as it prevents otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying their tools of protection.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (5, Insightful)

Azuaron (1480137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750302)

They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns. They're talking about scanning arrestees instead of frisking them. If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of. Remember: fear the people, not the tool.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750348)

Fear the people since when? The NDAA bill? Coming to your town this April?

Re:This device empowers criminals. (5, Insightful)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750356)

If they're only talking about scanning people they arrest, why do they want the capability to scan from over 80 feet away?

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750368)

Have you been paying attention to what's going on with the TSA? They're expanding like a cancer and the constitution doesn't seem to matter. [thetimesnews.com] The Second American Revolution will be started in response to the TSA and the fact they allowed to operate without restraint. They're moving onto public streets in some places.

Random scans are coming if they don't get shut down.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0, Flamebait)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750430)

I agree that the TSA is out of control but I can't imagine any sane person thinks preventing guns on plans is a bad thing. Guns are for hunting - who are you hunting on a plane?

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750524)

They're expanding beyond trains and they're trying to get to highways.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750592)

TSA can only make suggestions to local governments about train security. They don't control it. What is your support for them trying to "get to highways"?

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750540)

terrists

Re:This device empowers criminals. (5, Insightful)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750602)

who are you hunting on a plane?

Terrorists! If all (or most) passengers were armed, there is no way a terrorist would be able to hijack the plane. In fact, I think, for safety, we should require all adult passengers to carry loaded guns when they board the plane. We can keep a supply of rentals at every airport.

Ok, I jest. I agree that passengers shouldn't have guns on the plane. However, the TSA's methods of preventing that are way beyond reasonable. We can keep safety within acceptable tolerances without sexually assaulting passengers and giving them cancer.

Like, locking the cabin door. That change did more for airplane security than the entire TSA. Metal detectors are sufficient for finding guns or knives, and sniffer dogs are fine for finding bombs. These levels of security would be more effective than what the TSA does now, far less intrusive/harmful to the passengers, and would save the taxpayers a fortune.

But they wouldn't make Michael Chertoff even richer than he already is, so they are not acceptable.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750610)

TSA is no longer just doing planes. They are performing random stops and searches on highways and public roads. They are installing industrial grade X-rays at, near and possibly away from the border. They are jack booted thugs with absolute license to infringe on everyone's liberty. Remember that they may operate within 200 miles of the border and every airport is now considered a border. They can now operate anywhere. They are the enemy of the constitution and the people of the United States of America.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750694)

TERRORISTS, you America-hating asshole.

I mean, fuck, if everyone on the planes had a handgun, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

There'd be no TSA. No PATRIOT act. No erosion of the constitution by paranoiacs or despots cashing in on fear.

No Americans would have died in Iraq or Afghanistan. Take another trillion dollars off the debt.

Mythbusters showed -- despite what the movies love to show -- a plane won't go into explosive decompression via a bullet hole.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750744)

GOLDFINGER!

Ass-first, out the window!

Re:This device empowers criminals. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750820)

Metal detectors have ALWAYS worked to find guns. The new invasive search procedures the TSA has introduced are not needed at all.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750378)

Following that logic, it would be unreasonable search and seizure to "inspect" someone's smartphone or go through their email. Since this is "digital", the supreme court would likely say that it does not infringe on their fourth amendment rights, and would be used to scan anyone, anywhere. And it won't stop at guns.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (5, Informative)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750462)

What they are talking about is a terry stop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop) They can stop and frisk you for weapons based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.

Just because it happened to me once, they can have a "reasonable suspicion" that you are going to j-walk because you are walking down the side walk!

You will find that they can find "reasonable suspicion" in just about anything. S/His eyes were blood shot (Drunk or stoned), S/He looks out of place in this neighborhood, and my all time favorite "Three white guys under 25 at the mall must be there to cause trouble"

Note that "Reasonable Suspicion" is defined as a point where the investigating officer has weighed the totality of the circumstances to determine whether sufficient objective facts exist to create reasonable suspicion. VERY open and abused quite regularly in my opinion.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750466)

Granted, they certainly could use this device to scan random people. But that's an unconstitutional search which the Supreme Court would slap the Hell out of.

My milk came out of my nose. Mod funny +5.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750544)

They're not talking about scanning random people on the street and taking their guns.

Meh.. give it a couple years.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

ski9826 (2541112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750568)

This will be very useful when the liberals take away our right to bear arms.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750766)

In all seriousness, they belong to the bears.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750692)

If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens".

Right. Because police accusation means you abandon presumption of innocence.

Taken to it's logical extension, you advocate suspicion==conviction. You may be a "psychologist", but your also a Nazi. Godwin be damned to hell!

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750698)

You seriously think that even one cop isn't going to use this tool illegally? You sound like a teenage girl who hands out her passwords as a sign of intimacy.

The way this tool will be used is simple. The cop will scan random people. If an item the cop disapproves of (even if it is legal) shows up, the cop will approach the person for questioning "because they behaved suspiciously". After a few questions, the cop will claim "probable cause", and move forward from there. At no time will the use of the scanner be claimed as the reason for the confrontation.

The only way that these devices should even be considered is if they log every time they are used, the police are required to give an explanation prior to it's use, and the logs are in a read only environment that has no mechanism for the police department to tamper with the data. A simple audio recorder that time stamps the event and lets the cop say "Making arrest on 4th st." into the device before it will scan should be enough to keep cops from abusing this.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750714)

If you're getting frisked, we're no longer talking about "law abiding citizens

*climbs back into chair*
*wipes eyes*

Thank you so much, I needed a good, near-crippling full-body guffaw today.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (3, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750340)

There is no legitimate reason for a normal person to carry a gun in New York.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750410)

Except the constitution? Oh, sorry, i forgot, it is not a legitimate reason.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750458)

The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms - not that we should be bearing arms. I mean the Constitution gives me lots of rights that I don't necessarily use on a daily basis.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750654)

Just because you don't necessarily use them on a regular basis does not mean you should not be allowed to use them on a regular basis (or at all).

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750752)

Did the constitution say that we have the right to bear arms, but it is not a legitimate reason???????

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750776)

And head asplode.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750418)

Not counting the criminal who is carrying one and you're on his menu.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0, Flamebait)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750534)

I know you're from some redneck small town who thinks New York is full of big bad criminals like in the movies but I hate to tell you that New York is one of the safest cities in the country. Unless you are a car service driver in the South Bronx you aren't going to be anywhere near a criminal.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750710)

I know you're from some redneck small town who thinks New York is full of big bad criminals like in the movie

You don't know that at all. You just want to believe it, because it's easier than thinking.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750432)

To kill a murder/rapist armed with a knife.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750526)

So, you're saying that political allies of the current city administration are not normal?

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

the_bard17 (626642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750584)

Yes, there is. There's more to NY than NYC. See, there's this place called "Upstate NY." Contrary to popular opinion, it does not start at the G.W. Bridge. Try further north.

There's no shortage of woods, providing plenty of opportunities to hunt with a hand gun, both small game and deer. There's plenty of unscrupulous bluenecks who's sole hobby seem to be causing problems for other folk. They tend not to bother houses where guns live, despite NY not having that "a man's house is his castle's law. Some of us shoot for a hobby, too.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750632)

So the NYPD covers upstate New York? That's news to me.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750690)

There is no legitimate reason for a normal person to carry a gun in New York.

Either you know very little about how the world works, care very little about self defense, or have your head firmly planted in your rectal cavity.

There is no legitimate reason for a normal person not to carry a gun in New York. FTFY.

Your ignorance may be bliss, but there is no reason to force it on the rest of us.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750770)

Again. I know people in the small towns of this country believe New York is this big scary city with muggers and rapists on every corner but if you've ever lived or worked there you would see that it just isn't the case anymore. This isn't the 70's. If you want to see a real dangerous city travel somewhere like Johannesburg, South Africa. There I endorse carrying a gun.

Now if you are somebody who routinely works late at night in the crappy parts of town then sure - bring a gun. But for 99.99% of New Yorkers there is never going to be a situation where a gun is going to help you. And that's based on real violent crime rates - not just pulling a number out of the air.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750816)

I do no accept the premise. I carry a firearm. I ALWAYS carry a firearm. I hope to never use it. You make the argument, "why carry a firearm?". I ask you this, why WOULDN'T you carry a firearm? I also have car and home insurance, life insurance....

Re:This device empowers criminals. (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750358)

Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated that that. I live in fairly rural Alaska, people have guns all of the time. It's not all that uncommon to see a couple of guys walking down the main road, rifles in hand, going off deer hunting. If we go out into the backwoods, I typically carry a 12 gauge for bear defense (first rounds are the shotgun equivalent of an M-80, designed to scare the bear off). I don't carry a pistol around because there is really no need to - the human animals are fairly tame compared to the batshit insanity found in a bigger city.

But in the batshit insanity of a big city, feral humans are a big problem. Especially if you are law enforcement. It's useful to know that the hophead idiot wired up on six different drugs has a pistol (although those people tend to remind me of the scene in '5th Element' where Bruce Willis disarms the guy). It's useful to know that the stoner is unarmed.

If you are carrying a gun and a policeman stops you, you'd best put your hands where they can see them and tell them slowly and carefully that you're armed. Be professional. It saves lives.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750446)

When you get a concealed carry permit they teach you to inform cops you are carrying during a traffic stop. Professionalism is the apex.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750360)

Oh, surprise. A gun owner who jumps to the wrong conclusion as an excuse to go on about guns. Naturally using anecdotes to show how safe they are.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (3, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750502)

Please, place a huge sign on your front door that says "No guns here, and they're not welcome."

Guns are by no means the most dangerous thing I'm around on a regular basis. I would qualify that 2005 Saturn out in the parking lot as a much bigger danger to me than my rifles and pistols, I'm much more likely to die from it. I also work around high voltages on a regular basis, and I'm not talking 115 AC.

My guns and knives may not the be the safest things I own, but they're far from the most dangerous thing I'm around regularly. When it comes to my other tools I'm more afraid of my circular saw than I am my guns.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750490)

Well its too late for that shit now ... its time for damage control and that calls for detection of illegally carried weapons, at least.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (0)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750508)

In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways.

The consequences of the accidental use, misuse, or theft of a fire extinguisher are very low, and virtually never involve injury. The consequences with a firearm are much more severe, and often involve death. Not very comparable.

A firearm is much more like an ejector seat in a fighter jet. Not something that is used very often, and misuse can cause death. In fact, correct use often causes injury or death.

Note that they don't install ejector seats in automobiles, or even in commercial aircraft - they are only for use by trained members of the military.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750724)

The consequences with a firearm are much more severe, and often involve death.

You're off a bit there--it should have read "The consequences with a firearm can be much more severe, and in rare cases involve death." The statistics for injuries and deaths from accidental discharge of firearms are alarmingly small. The number of crimes stopped, prevented, or deterred is astonishingly high. Sure, a gun has much greater potential to kill someone than a fire extinguisher. That's kind of the point. You use a fire extinguisher to take care of a fire. You use a gun to take care of the guy who just forcibly entered your apartment and intends on robbing/beating/raping you.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

ThisIsSaei (2397758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750626)

I think the application (and ease of application), something the article didn't go into much detail about, will set the rules for that game. Quoted from the linked article;

"So far, the technology only works from a distance of about three or four feet (about one meter), although NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly hopes that its range can ultimately be extended to at least 25 meters (82 feet).

The plan is for the scanner to be mounted on a van, then used on suspects who would otherwise have to be physically searched." ( - http://www.gizmag.com/nypd-portable-gun-scanner/21147/ [gizmag.com] )

If it gets to the point that a van is allowed to scan past clothing at 25 meters, at the whim of a policeman, I think that the 4th amendment implications are grave, however, I don't think it's infringing on the rights of CCP owners directly, as it would only help enforce a law - a law you could more astutely claim is infringing on 2nd amendment rights. (Welcome to the shall/may state debate!)

Given that I don't live in a state that issues CCPs to citizens, it's already a moot point. I don't carry a gun because it would be a felony to do so, and this only allows the police to actually start cleaning up the guns carried by those who don't worry as much about felony violations. (i.e. The concept works under the presumption that we're all supposed to be unarmed.)

"New York gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing pistol licenses. In New York City, a concealed pistol license is allowed by law, but detractors have claimed it takes a large degree of wealth, political influence, and/or celebrity status to obtain.[33] In contrast, many rural Upstate New York counties are effectively Shall-Issue in their licensing policies, and some rural upstate counties have policies that allow unrestricted concealed carry after one has obtained a state carry permit." ( - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] )

Given that New York isn't completely may-issue solid it might not make the same amount of sense in application, and provides a glimpse into the de facto decisions of the enforcement on this issue - implications that may bother some gun owners in New York.

(It should be clear, but I wanted to make sure to mention, IANAL.)

Re:This device empowers criminals. (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750628)

I'm generally in favor of an educated and armed population, but I don't see how the existence of this scanner makes it easier for criminals.

The scanner detects firearms, it doesn't mean that you can be arrested for one. Presumably, you could be asked for your concealed carry license if they saw you with yours, but that's just the law. Criminals would be scanned as well. So in the sense of detection, this seems more like a tool than anything else. That is unless you are trying to ensure that the police have no way of knowing you are armed either, and while I understand that could cause licensed carriers to possibly be unduly harassed if the cops decided that every weapon carrier was a criminal, it doesn't discriminate against legal gun owners.

The reason that concealed carry exists is not to hide the fact that you are armed, because honestly, it works better as a deterrent if you don't carry concealed. The actual reason to carry concealed is that you want to be able to carry it in public without alarming the general population, and sometimes the law requires you to conceal it for that purpose. However, I don't see many good reasons to conceal a licensed sidearm from an officer of the law in pursuit of their duties.

Re:This device empowers criminals. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750726)

In an urban setting, guns are like fire extinquishers. They're something you hope you never need, but you should have one around anyways.

I suspect without some pretty specialized training, if the average person find themselves in a position where they feel the best way out is to wave around a knife ... they're likely going to end up on the losing side of that equation.

I somehow doubt that the average person finding themselves in a knife fight will have any ability to use it like they expect.

This is getting out of control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750162)

You know, maybe it would be easier if they just got rid of the entire bill of rights and put us all in cages. . . Because in prison, there are no weapons and no danger, right?

Re:This is getting out of control (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750192)

You know, maybe it would be easier if they just got rid of the entire bill of rights and put us all in cages.

Don't give them ideas...

Re:This is getting out of control (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750284)

You know, maybe it would be easier if they just got rid of the entire bill of rights and put us all in cages.

Don't give them ideas...

Do that with blacks and watch crime rates plummet. Yeah, you don't like how that sounds. You wish it wasn't true. Hell I wish it wasn't true. But you know it's true.

Back when white people lived in inner cities you didn't have to worry about carrying guns and knives.

Re:This is getting out of control (1)

The Mister Purple (2525152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750470)

I know this counts as troll-feeding, but have you ever heard of the Irish?

I can not see these being abused at all (4, Insightful)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750168)

I'm sure they won't abuse these items by just randomly scanning pedestrians. After all, they uphold the law!

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750242)

Would it matter if they did? Carrying a weapon isn't a crime (in most U.S. jurisdictions). Second Amendment, and all that.

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750716)

Would it matter if they did? Carrying a weapon isn't a crime (in most U.S. jurisdictions). Second Amendment, and all that.

Apparently you don't seem to understand what NYC thinks of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment.

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750802)

Random searches like that could probably be considered harassment. There IS the possibility of that if the cops do execute random scans like that. That should not be allowed, but in and of itself, is probably not a big deal except if you really *are* in a police state. Most police generally do have better things to do than randomly scan pedestrians.

However, if a police officer is at a checkpoint that was set up for a specific, reasonable purpose, or they are making an arrest or detention of some kind, I see no reason that they should be forced to guess if you have a firearm or not. If anything, it may make cops less jumpy and likely to start shooting armed or unarmed people if they aren't forced to get up-close and personal with a potentially armed assailant.

If you are legal, they can demand your license, but if you produce it, your firearm will be returned to you and you will go about your business if there is no reason to believe the weapon was used in the commission of a crime. Like a hammer can either build a house or bash your head in, this is a tool and what is does depends mostly on the intent of the wielder.

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750294)

Point 1: there are low-tech ways to spot whether someone's carrying a concealed gun, and there are training materials for police which teach those.

Point 2: how often is this technology going to be aimed at white people, given the huge racial disparity of the current stop-and-frisk program?

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750486)

I wonder if they could use dogs. They're portable, most are even happy to walk-around on their own without being carried ;).

And they can detect lots of things, you just need to get them to understand what you want them to detect, e.g. explosives, CD-Rs, cancer, dead bodies.

Main problem is they get bored after a short while and stop being effective.

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750634)

I wonder if they could use dogs.

I keep wondering why the TSA doesn't take this advice....they'd be much cheaper and less of a radiation risk than all the scanners they currently have and are using....

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750590)

Point 2: how often is this technology going to be aimed at white people, given the huge racial disparity of the current stop-and-frisk program?>

The politically correct expectation is that they will use it against each race equal to their proportion in society (ie, if there are 8 martians for every 100 people, then 8% of scans will be of martians).

What they should do is use the FBI Uniform crime reports and and use them on all race(s) at the rate they commit violent crimes relative to their ratio of the population.

So if 8% of the population is martians but they commit 30% of the violent crimes, they should get 30% of the scans. Right? Or is there something wrong with this?

Re:I can not see these being abused at all (1)

vencs (1937504) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750394)

Very quickly it can upturn the original argument and make every approaching/staring cop a likely victim of a tripping trigger hands.
It can be useful when then range of scanner is farther/faster/wider than the gun.

--
SOPA is a softwar

It doesn't even have to work... (3, Insightful)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750220)

All that matters is that people on the street THINK that every cop has one that does work.

"You have to feel sorry for the police ..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750228)

"You have to feel sorry for the police officers who ..."

um...no, no I don't

I hope it fries their gonads (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750230)

like some early radar guns did.

NYC's "zero tolerance" bullshit on handguns is pure idiocy.

Re:I hope it fries their gonads (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750386)

Yeah... gun tolerance approaches Zero and crime drops. Man, it must pain you when the facts run counter to your belief.

Re:I hope it fries their gonads (1)

The Mister Purple (2525152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750520)

Because there is absolutely no way for an unarmed attacker to hurt someone, right?

Re:I hope it fries their gonads (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750670)

Prove it.

What happened with the "with warrant only" searh?? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750320)

No, really, what is going on? First drones, read as warrant-less search and wiretapping of your home, then body stripping at the airports, and now this, gun and knife scanner....SO WHAT IF I HAVE A KNIFE IN MY POCKET. Am i guilty of something? What happened with Magna Carta guys, WHAT?

Re:What happened with the "with warrant only" sear (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750374)

You have a knife in your pocket? Quick, taze and spray!

Re:What happened with the "with warrant only" sear (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750424)

well, if the police have probably cause, and they find a knife. They will probably ask you to remove it. If you are hostile, they will take it away. Just like they do now if they see you have a knife vs. finding a knife when the search you.

Re:What happened with the "with warrant only" sear (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750646)

Regarding the constitution, they don't have the right to pick-pocket me if they don't have very very good reason. But with this new tool, they could, and they would do it without any reason, or warrant.

Re:What happened with the "with warrant only" sear (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750790)

How quaint - a fourth amendment reference.

What are you, some sort of seeker of justice? /snark

Re:What happened with the "with warrant only" sear (1)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750570)

I live in louisiana, it is illegal to carry a knife here. Period :( Everyone carries one, but the law on the book says no.

Haha, NYPD is currupter than Moscow henchmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750328)

It is true, I tell you.

FLIR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750334)

I think Flir cameras can already do this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flir

Oh, sure .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750350)

Like the scanners at airports ... I'm not sure I'd be willing to entrust my health to the lowest bidder on a government contract.

And, of course, no matter what happens with the safety record of this, I'm sure it will become a crime to refuse to be scanned by this. You're not allowed to tell an law enforcement agent that his lack of medical training means he's not qualified to tell you it's perfectly safe.

I know at airports I won't get into it ... frisk me down if you like. When you're talking about cops, this is to save them needing to pat you down.

To me this is a violation of the 4th amendment, but I'm sure the NYPD won't care about that and the Attorney General will say it doesn't apply here.

Papers please, comrade!

God (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750376)

5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie
to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold,
was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in
thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost:
and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and
buried him.

5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife,
not knowing what was done, came in.

5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for
so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together
to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have
buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the
ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying
her forth, buried her by her husband.

5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as
heard these things.

----------------

God says...
C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT

ners are more re publican; and their governments, those of three
of the provinces of New England in particular, have hitherto been more
republican too.

The absolute governments of Spain, Portugal, and France, on the
contrary, take place in their colonies; and the discretionary powers
which such governments commonly delegate to all their inferior officers
are, on account of the great distance, naturally exercised there with
more than ordinary violence. Under all absolute governments, there is
more

YAY more x-rays (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750402)

Just what we need.

What is next home scanners so you can size your own shoes and see your toes wiggle around?

Re:YAY more x-rays (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750712)

RTFA

It's Infra-red, you insensitive clod.

Can remotely detect guns: (4, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750414)

And give a blurry image of it.

Or any other object that blocks the normal IR radiation from the body.

"Your honor, we had probable cause to search the individual because we thought that vague rectangular outline in his pocket was a gun. Our bad. It was a cell phone with a metal case. But, we did find the joint in his backpack during the search that we only did to ensure our own safety."

Cry more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750422)

I DO NOT feel sorry for the police, ever, they chose the job, they know what they are getting into and all this scanner crap is is an extension of the police state.
I personally feel I have the right to carry a weapon for 2 reasons,
1: The police ever NEVER there when you are attacked...NEVER.
2: You are expected to allow yourself to be robbed, raped and murdered by the police, if you don't think this is true then why is it so difficult to get a CCW in most states?
Why is it so difficult to legally carry any self-defense device be it pepper spray, taser or gun in some states?
And do your research before you argue, as in some states if there is a school within a 1000 meters you aren't allowed to have any of them on you.

For a criminal it isn't difficult at all, so face it the police are just another gang.

Re:Cry more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750614)

I hope this scanner gives the cops who use it TESTICULAR CANCER.

Hello "law and order" conservatives. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750492)

You have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives — after all, if someone who doesn't want to be arrested is carrying a lethal weapon, the last thing most of us would want to do is get close enough to that person to touch them.

Well, if they got a problem with that, shouldn't they go and find another job? A better paying job? (I know personally a couple of police officers with overtime make $100k+ - sitting around watching airports for terrorists.)

And "conservatives", what about that Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, you know the US Constitution you guys like to hit the "Liberals" over the head with whenever they want to pass a law to enact Universal Single Payer Healthcare? Or pretty much anything else. Conservative:"There's nothing in the Consitution that says that we have to ...."

Hmmmm?!?

Police should have no say in laws that restrict our Civil Liberties because they want more power or to feel even more "safe".

ORLy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750496)

If only there was some kind of wand... that could detect.. I donno.. metal?

Seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750510)

No one has thought of Total Recall yet?

Nerds love guns too (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750514)

but I doubt many have used them winningly in a Meatspace Hero boss fight, nor faced the consequences. If you do shoot someone to 'save the day', try to make sure they're friendless orphans with no gang affiliations.

There we go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38750542)

X-Ray Glasses. Pervin' for your safety, ma'am.

on the other hand (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750586)

"you have to feel sorry for the police officers who are required to frisk people for guns or knives"

No, i dont. thats their job. I have to feel sorry for an author so desparate to spin the idea of shredding my constitutional freedoms that hes resorting to an empathetic appeal to "my fellow man."
nothing stops gangs and crime like a job. this perpetual incarceration model where once released a felon is bankrupt, banned from food stamps, and legally unemployable is whats virtually guaranteed america will enjoy some of the highest violent crime rates in the first world. developing the ways and means to catch the bad guy do nothing if you arent willing to address the heart of the matter.

It was a RIGHT that US citizens have lost (2, Insightful)

Ranten_N_Raven (220310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750624)

In DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), when discussing why black can't be considered citzens, the Supreme Court listed some common rights they would have:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

More guns in honest hands == less crime and fewer deaths

Privacy vs Safety (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750762)

While I want Police to be safe while doing their jobs, I also believe that people have the right to privacy, and this in my opinion is pretty invasive.

Of course this is thought of as a great way to protect those police officers (who already have guns) against those bad guys who might have guns.... and what about those honest law abiding gun owners who have followed all the laws to be able to both possess and carry a weapon, what about their rights and safety?

Once again, for those in society who don't break the laws, we're the ones most punished.

Missing Tag (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38750808)

totalrecall

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>