New police radars can 'see' inside homes

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&#x27;s being sold more to cops than firefighters indicates that cops are getting too much money for tactical gear.<p>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.

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.<p>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.

My first reaction is that Anne Frank&#x27;s diary would have been much shorter had this technology existed then.

What if it&#x27;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&#x27;s energy being emitted just as if it were light shining out a window and you were a silhouette.<p><a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133936-using-wifi-to-see-through-walls" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.extremetech.com&#x2F;extreme&#x2F;133936-using-wifi-to-see-...</a><p>&gt;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.

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&#x27;s home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.

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?

The Range-r simply tells users how far away movement is occurring in a building.<p>Useful for a no nock entry, but not much more.<p>The bigger issue is the number of tactical police raids on private homes, plus some of the other technologies in development and currently available.<p>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.

&gt; 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.<p>Even at current price ($6000), the thing is cheap, taking into account what it can do.<p>As for privacy, forget about that, at least privacy by default. that&#x27;s so dead. Start thinking about counter measures.

Does the US use &quot;sarking&quot; [1] (metal foil insulation) in house construction?<p>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?<p>[1] <a href="http://www.bradfordinsulation.com.au/Products/Residential/Thermal-insulation/EnviroSeal-roof-sarking.aspx" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bradfordinsulation.com.au&#x2F;Products&#x2F;Residential&#x2F;Th...</a>

This quote from the article made me think immediately of the &#x27;motion trackers&#x27; as used in the Aliens films, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yNOT6lWedA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=1yNOT6lWedA</a><p><i>&quot;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.&quot;</i>

That&#x27;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 &quot;quadcorder&quot;, on the basis that it is much better than a tricorder - <a href="http://adrokgroup.com/technology/how-it-works" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;adrokgroup.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;how-it-works</a>

It&#x27;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&#x2F;or jammed.<p>Assuming these devices work on a very narrow frequency range, it shouldn&#x27;t be too hard to passively hear them coming. If detectors appear, these devices would become a serious liability for anyone looking to &quot;storm&quot; a residence.

That story links to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505137-12-6001.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;1505137-12-6001.html</a> when talking about a court upholding Denson&#x27;s conviction, which mentions nothing about using radar to search a house.

Any examples of the display output of the radar device?

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

What are the power levels this thing emits?

the transition to a surveillance policing state is nearly complete.

Privacy? Fuck privacy!<p>The 21st century attitude.<p>People, seriously, we need to do something about it until it is too late.