- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Infrared cameras on Bourbon st to detect concealed guns??
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:58 am to Tigerpaw123
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:58 am to Tigerpaw123
Plus could use it to detect whores in heat
0
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:00 am to theenemy
quote:
Its on public property. And it isn't intrusive
How is looking under someones clothes not intrusive?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:18 am to Tigerpaw123
They've already got a shitload of cameras in the FQ and it hasn't stopped crime. This is nothing more than a PR stunt.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:29 am to Barf
quote:
How is looking under someones clothes not intrusive?
They didn't have to touch you, remove any clothing, etc. Like a metal detector. It's not really intrusive, legally.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:49 am to Tigerpaw123
Will it falsely read hip flasks as guns?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 9:50 am to Mr Wonderful
quote:
Like a metal detector. It's not really intrusive, legally.
Memphis has been using metal detectors to access Beale St. on weekends and big event nights for 5+ years. They also have cameras with SkyCop Gunshot Enclosure Systems. They're programmed to detect gunfire and immediately pan and zoom toward the sound.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:04 am to Huey Lewis
Terry vs Ohio deals with searches during stops and detainments. So I don't think Terry vs. Ohio applies well to this.
Kyllo v. U.S. would be more applicable.
But still I don't think that would work because:
1) a large part of that decision was the idea of the presumption of privacy in the home
2) another part of the decision was due to the use of equipment (FLIR) that was not commonly available to the public.
As thermal imaging becomes more prevalent to citizens it chips away at this ruling.
Kyllo v. U.S. would be more applicable.
But still I don't think that would work because:
1) a large part of that decision was the idea of the presumption of privacy in the home
2) another part of the decision was due to the use of equipment (FLIR) that was not commonly available to the public.
As thermal imaging becomes more prevalent to citizens it chips away at this ruling.
This post was edited on 1/12/17 at 10:06 am
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:08 am to Mr Wonderful
quote:
They didn't have to touch you, remove any clothing, etc. Like a metal detector. It's not really intrusive, legally.
Fair point but a metal detector can't see under your clothes and police can not just go around wanding people. Police do not need this kind of power.
The big question is what else can these cameras see. What if they can see your 16 year old daughters thong?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:11 am to Barf
quote:
How is looking under someones clothes not intrusive?
I would argue
1) you are not looking under clothes, you are looking at the heat radiating off someone
2) the person is unaware that their heat signature is being looked at.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:18 am to theenemy
quote:
1) you are not looking under clothes, you are looking at the heat radiating off someone
What else can be seen? The outline of your wife's panties?
quote:
2) the person is unaware that their heat signature is being looked at.
This is my biggest issue. It's not they are sending everyone through the same machine, they are deciding on their own where to point the camera. What is to stop the police from stopping and frisking people.
I would argue that the outline of something that could be considered a firearm does not equal probable cause.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:26 am to Barf
quote:
What else can be seen? The outline of your wife's panties?
But once thermal imaging became readily available to the public....the presumption of privacy of your heat signature was diminished.
If the public can see it...the police can see it.
quote:
would argue that the outline of something that could be considered a firearm does not equal probable cause
I think with training and experience they could show they can positively identify guns with a success rate good enough to meet probable cause.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:34 am to Mouthulcer
I hope not!
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:38 am to theenemy
quote:
But once thermal imaging became readily available to the public....the presumption of privacy of your heat signature was diminished.
I agree with you for the most part. Like drones, would expect legislation to catch up with the tech at some point. You are not allowed to put your camera up someones skirt, it's perfectly logical expect peering through the skirt would be added to that list of shite you can't do to people. Why should police be exempt from this?
quote:
If the public can see it...the police can see it.
Except the public can not stop and detain you for what they think you might have in your pocket.
quote:
I think with training and experience they could show they can positively identify guns with a success rate good enough to meet probable cause.
Maybe, but we should not have to give up our privacy to help police do their job. There is no way to insure they will not abuse this ability.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:40 am to theenemy
quote:You may be right -- I don't know enough to even hazard a guess. But I think that eventually this technology will exist.
Sounds like technology that will be very expensive and very ineffective.
Willing to bet it doesn't work....especially in crowded areas.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:48 am to Barf
quote:
You are not allowed to put your camera up someones skirt, it's perfectly logical expect peering through the skirt would be added to that list of shite you can't do to people. Why should police be exempt from this?
Again, if the public can look at you through thermal image device than the police can too. You would need to ban citizens from the use of thermal imagery to also ban police.
quote:
we should not have to give up our privacy to help police do their job.
If the public can see it....how do you have a presumption of privacy?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 10:54 am to theenemy
quote:
theenemy
I don't know man, you bring up good points. Do you think you could convince a judge that you were not jerking off to infrared pictures of underage girls if those pictures included their underwear? It's hard to imagine a scenario where looking at people with some kind of xray camera would be allowed, by anyone.
It just seems like too slippery of a slope. Police have all the power they need, they do not need anymore. I'd like to see them have less.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:04 am to Barf
quote:
don't know man, you bring up good points.
Full disclosure - those points are points brought up in court cases. I'm just pointing them out.
quote:
Do you think you could convince a judge that you were not jerking off to infrared pictures of underage girls if those pictures included their underwear?
Why would I have to?
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:07 am to theenemy
quote:
Why would I have to?
I'm just pointing out that if everyone had the ability to see through clothes, you would almost certainly see legislation in place to stop people from doing it. Just because you're in public doesn't mean someone can use a special camera to see under peoples clothes.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:10 am to Barf
quote:
Police have all the power they need, they do not need anymore. I'd like to see them have less.
I understand. But at the same time, you can't bitch about crime (I'm not saying that you particularly do) and not want the police to do their job.
Scenario 1: cops use infrared technology to detect you are likely carrying a gun. They approach, ask you if you are, you say yes. They ask to see your CC permit. You provide it. Cops says thanks, enjoy your evening. The whole "stop" takes under 30 seconds. Go about your business (although if you're on Bourbon there's a 90% chance you're going into bars which is a no no).
Scenario 2: cops asks you if you are carrying a gun. In the case of a true criminal, he attempts to flee and is arrested and charged. Or he attempts to pull out said gun and cops shoots him. Either way, mission accomplished.
I'm not saying I'm all in favor of this new FQ plan, but it doesn't sound like a terrible idea to be honest.
Posted on 1/12/17 at 11:11 am to Barf
quote:
I'm just pointing out that if everyone had the ability to see through clothes, you would almost certainly see legislation in place to stop people from doing it. Just because you're in public doesn't mean someone can use a special camera to see under peoples clothes
I see.
Yeah with advances in technology it will be interesting what changes will be made when it comes to our liberties and freedoms.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News