
New police radars can 'see' inside homes - mattee
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/
======
Animats
That device is more useful for firefighters than for cops. Firefighters need
to find people inside burning buildings. Looking for trapped people is one of
the more dangerous jobs in firefighting. The fact that it's being sold more to
cops than firefighters indicates that cops are getting too much money for
tactical gear.

The device is a fairly basic Doppler radar, although the sensitivity is
impressive. Someone might want to look up the FCC approval data for it to get
the full technical specs.

~~~
tzs
> Someone might want to look up the FCC approval data for it to get the full
> technical specs

Someone using a new account named throwawayranger did that and posted the
results, but the comment was promptly killed because it was a new account
posting via TOR.

For those without "showdead" enabled, here is the content of the dead post:

\----------------------

L-3 Communications RANGE-R Operator's Manual
[http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-1.pdf](http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-1.pdf)

Internal Photos
[http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-2.pdf](http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-2.pdf)

External Photos
[http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-3.pdf](http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-3.pdf)

Test Report
[http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-5.pdf](http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/RANGE-R-5.pdf)

Handheld Radar Frequency Scanner for Concealed Object Detection U.S. Patent
6,950,054
[http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/US6950054.pdf](http://blockyourid.com/~gbpprorg/mil/wall/US6950054.pdf)

~~~
Animats
It's a low power device (35mw), but it's in a radiolocation band, so they had
to get a wavier from the FCC. That's an interesting read, because it lists the
uses. They're getting surprisingly good range for only 35mw radar power.

[https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2482A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2482A1.pdf)

The patent is for a different device - that's for a better version of those
wands used in security screening. The approach is similar, but the power is
much lower.

------
jonahx
As disturbing as the police use is, I am more disturbed by the possibility
(inevitability?) of devices like these, and similar audio devices, becoming so
cheap and readily available that even basic privacy from strangers while in
your home becomes a thing of the past.

It seems to me that before too long anyone could pick up audio and video
devices for a couple hundred bucks that would allow them to see you in your
own house and hear your every word.

~~~
systemtrigger
Bouncing lasers off window panes to detect audio is a worrisome development.
The counter-measure is to install dual pane windows equipped with acoustic
transducers that vibrate the panes with white noise. For the device mentioned
in the article, when the technology becomes available to consumers and/or is
open-sourced, anyone will be able to count the occupants of any location near
to them. The question again becomes one of counter-measures.

~~~
woodman
Development? The technique has been well known for a long time, I remember
hearing about it in the late 90s. It isn't widely used because it isn't
practical. Also, your countermeasure doesn't work if there is another
reflective surface inside the room.

~~~
acdha
> Development? The technique has been well known for a long time

The difference is that these things used to be the domain of major government
agencies rather than a hobbyist with a few hundred dollars and a poor sense of
privacy.

~~~
woodman
In the 70s maybe, but in the late 90s? No, it has been a potential hobby
project for a long time now.

------
robmiller
My first reaction is that Anne Frank's diary would have been much shorter had
this technology existed then.

~~~
onion2k
The problem with that line of thinking is that you're really arguing that an
entire technology is 'uninvented' because it could be used for evil.
Suggesting that we ought to give up doppler radar entirely, with all its
benefits like detecting victims in natural disasters, finding people trapped
in fires, detecting criminal suspects, etc because it might be used by the
next evil dictator is ridiculous. It's a completely unmeasured response.
Besides being impossible to uninvent things, it just means we lose out on
potentially useful technology now for an intangible benefit that might never
come to pass.

The fact that the next evil dictator could have access to tools like this is
reason to be vigilant not to let an evil dictator come to power and to be
sensible about how we use these tools today to stop them being used in ways we
think are unreasonable. It is not a reason to suggest we shouldn't have the
tools.

~~~
patal
That's absolutely not what parent was arguing, though. Also, that "line of
thinking" not necessarily leads there. Accepting the technology is but one
step. But we still need to raise moral and ethic questions about it. All
parent was really saying is, that the nazis wouldn't have thought twice about
using said technology to kill even more people.

~~~
onion2k
It absolutely is what the parent is arguing. It's impossible to say "Evil
people would use this technology for evil!" without implying something should
be done to stop them, otherwise you're tacitly condoning evil. The thing that
should be done is stopping the evil people from doing things, regardless of
what they use, rather than questioning morally ambivalent technology just in
case evil people use it.

~~~
palmer_eldritch
Once a technology has been invented, uninventing it because it might be used
to harm people doesn't work. Especially if the people wanting to do the harm
are in a position of power (like the nazis were).

Wondering about the countless wonderful or horrific uses new technologies
might have is simply part of critical thinking.

I don't think anyone did that calculation but if we were to add up all the
good technology brings us with all the bad it brings us, I'm not sure we'd end
up in the positive.

So I think it's pretty natural when you hear about some new technology to ask
yourself "great, how's that thing going to be used against us?"

Asking yourself what you could do to stop it is a completely different matter.
And we all know here that security through obscurity is a pretty poor defense.

------
dhughes
What if it's passive? Wifi from the routers of homes emit the RF energy and
all the police do is use a detector I could see that as legal since it's
energy being emitted just as if it were light shining out a window and you
were a silhouette.

[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-
see-...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see-through-
walls)

>The system, devised by Karl Woodbridge and Kevin Chetty, requires two
antennae and a signal processing unit (i.e. computer), and is no larger than a
suitcase. Unlike normal radar, which emits radio waves and then measures any
reflected signals, this new system operates in complete stealth.

~~~
pithon
I wouldn't consider the passive/active distinction the definition for
'invasive.' I'd consider thermal imaging from the outside of the home w/out a
warrant 'invasive', but a thermal camera is just picking up the heat radiated
by your body.

~~~
dalke
The article links to the relevant Supreme Court decision. They, in "Kyllo v.
United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or
FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from
a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and
thus required a warrant."
-[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

The article goes on to say the Supreme Court "specifically noted that the rule
would apply to radar-based systems that were then being developed."

~~~
scott_karana
Thank god for that.

------
imroot
I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster
if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the
court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions,
but those are few and far between.

~~~
gizmo686
Kyllo v. United States [1]

Law enforcement used a thermal imaging camera to detect hotspots consistent
with marijuana growth inside Kyllo's house. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme
Court ruled that this was a 4th amendment violation.

[1][http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508)

~~~
baddox
That's pretty close. I could see it going the other way just as easily.

~~~
andymcsherry
I would argue the opposite. The dissenting opinion's rationale doesn't hold up
in this case

> Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory
> or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building.

In the case of thermal imaging, you measure light waves that is already
leaving the building. In the case of radar, you are actively sending in light
waves to bounce off the inside and return to you.

~~~
baddox
That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is
ridiculous). Of course, they could come up with a workaround. Like perhaps
it's not a violation of property rights for invisible and virtually harmless
waves to enter private property, and if they happen to bounce off something
and come back to the source for collection and analysis, so be it.

~~~
rayiner
> That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is
> ridiculous).

While Kyllo was obviously decided correctly, I don't think the reasoning of
the dissent is ridiculous. Arguably, it's better scientifically.

Premise: It's not an unreasonable search if police stand on the public street
outside a house and hear someone shout: "I killed Jake!"

Argument: Use of thermal imaging is indistinguishable from standing on the
street hoping to hear a shout. Sound waves and infrared light waves are both
generated inside the building, escape into public space, and are captured by
passive receiving devices (ears, IR cameras). It's arbitrary to treat sound
and infrared light differently.

The above may be a good example against hyper-technical reasoning in court
cases (but see: everyone's support of the argument advanced by Aereo), but
it's not a scientifically unsound argument.

~~~
logfromblammo
I would argue that if the police require any equipment in addition to the
normal range of human senses to detect evidence, the use of such equipment
should be considered a search. Whether the feet physically move onto the
property or not, the equipment is breaching a privacy barrier.

If you confess to murder in your own home on an ultrasonic carrier wave, and
the police happen to be outside on the sidewalk pointing an ultrasonic
microphone at your house, no reasonable person could deny that was a search of
your home.

A visible-light camera with an audible-range microphone that coincidentally
covered your home in the course of otherwise lawful activity, on the other
hand, would be more in the nature of accidental eyewitness than intentional
search.

When people take steps to create a private space for themselves, they judge by
their own senses whether their precautions are sufficient. If I stand outside
my own house and cannot see, hear, smell, or otherwise sense any activity
within, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I typically do not use a
wi-fi packet sniffer, or a FLIR camera, or a laser microphone to ensure that
my activities are safe from interception from random passers-by, because they
do not carry such equipment.

~~~
rayiner
> If you confess to murder in your own home on an ultrasonic carrier wave, and
> the police happen to be outside on the sidewalk pointing an ultrasonic
> microphone at your house, no reasonable person could deny that was a search
> of your home.

What if I broadcast my guilt on un-encrypted FM radio?

Again, I think Kyllo was rightly decided. But I don't think the dissent's
argument was "ridiculous." I think there's some logic to asking: why the heck
should the 4th amendment treat sonic and EM emissions differently depending on
their wavelength?

~~~
logfromblammo
Because the wavelength determines whether you need to make an explicit effort
to retrieve the information.

The search is not a matter of retrieving what is possible to retrieve, but is
instead about intentionally breaching a privacy barrier.

As long as you have taken a single safeguard to protect yourself from casual
observation, anyone circumventing that safeguard with the intention of
observing you is performing a search.

Thus, if you want to make an FM broadcast, it would be prudent to do so on a
frequency that is not expected to be routinely monitored. Anything that could
be directly intercepted by commonly-available radio receivers, such as car
radios, walkie-talkies, police scanners, or similar would not create a
reasonable expectation of privacy. Anything that might cause interference in
an electronic device is likewise non-private, as anyone who transmits should
be aware that amateur and professional radio operators may investigate
interference.

In those cases, sending your FM transmission from inside a Faraday cage,
through a shielded cable, to the inside of another cage, would be sufficient
precaution against casual observation that anyone hearing your signal must
have been searching for it. I contend that even if the shielding is imperfect,
the signal leaks, and the cops are able to monitor and record your
transmissions, they are still peeking behind the fig leaf, so to speak. The
instant that they become aware that the transmissions were intended to be
private, all subsequent monitoring is a search.

Were it otherwise, a person not acting in his official capacity could breach
the privacy barrier, and then later monitor under the presumption that no such
barrier existed. A cop might take off his badge and shove a pin through the
shielding on the cable into the center conductor, then put the badge back on
and tune in the radio signal as though it were meant to be a broadcast.

The dissenting argument is ridiculous because the "searchiness" of an
observation does not depend on some law of physics. It depends on whether you
are exposing something that I wish to be private, regardless of the means by
which you do it.

------
funkdobiest
So does using these new devices mean they will be using the flash bangs less?
They should be able to see who all is inside and realize a child or person
that is not the suspect?

~~~
pavel_lishin
It doesn't sound like it can positively identify people; just pinpoint where
they are in the house.

~~~
ssully
It could help determine if there are infants or children in the house before a
raid.

Then again it really isn't hard to determine if there are children in a house
without advanced tech...

------
nzealand
The Range-r simply tells users how far away movement is occurring in a
building.

Useful for a no nock entry, but not much more.

The bigger issue is the number of tactical police raids on private homes, plus
some of the other technologies in development and currently available.

Stingray, which is currently in use, acts as a portable cell tower. All cell
phone calls in the vicinity of a stingray unit get routed through the mobile
cell tower, warrant or not.

------
finid
> and similar audio devices, becoming so cheap and readily available that even
> basic privacy from strangers while in your home becomes a thing of the past.

Even at current price ($6000), the thing is cheap, taking into account what it
can do.

As for privacy, forget about that, at least privacy by default. that's so
dead. Start thinking about counter measures.

------
femto
Does the US use "sarking" [1] (metal foil insulation) in house construction?

Most Australian houses are wrapped in a layer of metal foil insulation.
Presumably that would offer some attenuation to radar, though the windows must
still allow radiation though, as mobile phones typically work inside. Perhaps
a house with metal foil based window tinting would offer a reasonably complete
Faraday cage?

[1]
[http://www.bradfordinsulation.com.au/Products/Residential/Th...](http://www.bradfordinsulation.com.au/Products/Residential/Thermal-
insulation/EnviroSeal-roof-sarking.aspx)

~~~
jzwinck
People use a lot of different construction materials and techniques across the
country, but I don't think this "sarking" is common for residences.

People don't want to live inside Faraday cages though, for the reason you
already mentioned: their mobile phones wouldn't work. Not to mention broadcast
television, AM/FM radio, garage door openers, etc.

~~~
comrh
I've thought about living in one, I only use radio in the car and TV comes in
through cables. On the plus side my wifi would be protected from wardriving
(or an outside access) as it would never leave the house.

Cell service would definitely be a problem though.

~~~
_cudgel
While this is admittedly off-topic to this thread, I too have given this some
thought. I'm coming around to the opinion that losing cell service wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing.

I prefer to live in a rural area, and a landline would definitely be cheaper.
Ditching the smartphone in favor of a feature phone, which could remain off,
battery disconnected, and in it's own little faraday cage in the car --
because being prepared for an emergency is a thing we should all do -- well,
it all seems very appealing. Nothing in my pocket, no wifi sniffer gathering
the hardware address off my phone, no location tracking services, etc.

Best of all, the people in my life would adjust to me not being available
24x7x365. I think that would be highly beneficial when compared to the
constant stream of interruptions that seem like an invasion of privacy all on
their own.

------
Luyt
This quote from the article made me think immediately of the 'motion trackers'
as used in the Aliens films,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yNOT6lWedA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yNOT6lWedA)

 _" The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to
zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than
50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are
and whether they are moving."_

~~~
logfromblammo
For the speculative future sake of humanity, if you ever work on the GUI for
one of those things, make sure it has an elevation indicator.

More than 1m below the detector, show a downward-pointing triangle. More than
1m above it, show an upward-pointing triangle. Within 1m, show a square.
Change the relative size of the icon according to the size of the moving
object. Add telltale lines extending from the center of the icon in a contrast
color to show direction of motion and speed.

I realize that the shortcomings of the device UI were critical to the dramatic
tension, but whenever I see that scene in Aliens, I can't help but
sympathetically think about the poor military-industrial-complex gadget
developer who wasn't even allowed to think about the user experience, because
the requirements were determined by someone who would likely never use it, and
cast in concrete long before anyone was hired to implement them.

And the thing that really kills me is that the person who created those
requirements probably based them on a device seen in a sci-fi movie. This is
why it is so important for film directors to employ technical consultants
whenever they include gadgets and computer monitors. Anything seen on the big
screen will have an ongoing and possibly unintended future influence on
design.

------
lotsofmangos
That's nothing, wait till they get hold of an ADR scanner, it can chemically
identify everything it scans and can do it through miles of rock. In
interview, Colin Stove is quoted as referring to it jokingly as a
"quadcorder", on the basis that it is much better than a tricorder -
[http://adrokgroup.com/technology/how-it-
works](http://adrokgroup.com/technology/how-it-works)

------
sandworm
It's radar. So it is emitting radio waves, with a tiny tiny percent of them
bouncing back to the detector. So it can be detected and/or jammed.

Assuming these devices work on a very narrow frequency range, it shouldn't be
too hard to passively hear them coming. If detectors appear, these devices
would become a serious liability for anyone looking to "storm" a residence.

------
pavel_lishin
That story links to
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505137-12-6001.html](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505137-12-6001.html)
when talking about a court upholding Denson's conviction, which mentions
nothing about using radar to search a house.

~~~
bitchypat
I found it here:
[http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-3329.pdf](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-3329.pdf)

------
ftcHn
Any examples of the display output of the radar device?

~~~
madethemcry
The posted pdf to the manual shows a little bit of the device. But here's
another larger and more advanced device (linked in the article). It is doing
the same but with an more elaborated output visualization.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3ecnqdUCo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt3ecnqdUCo)

You can clearly see the output in the video.

~~~
stickfigure
My mind immediately screamed "game over man, game over!" and reached for the
flamethrower.

------
tempodox
Yikes, that site makes noise shortly after opening it. Fank you very much,
will never visit again.

------
jacquesm
What are the power levels this thing emits?

------
curiously
the transition to a surveillance policing state is nearly complete.

------
kozlinov
Privacy? Fuck privacy!

The 21st century attitude.

People, seriously, we need to do something about it until it is too late.

~~~
hawleyal
I think it's not "fuck privacy", but merely realizing there wasn't really
privacy to begin with. More like "privacy is an illusion".

