Jump to content
downward747

Passive Millimeter Aff

Recommended Posts

"Surveillance technology can be defined as devices or systems which can monitor, track and assess the movements of individuals, their property and other assets. Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders and political opponents."

 

-US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis – 1928

 

 

Passive Millimeter, also known as Millivision, is some crazy tech that allows tha police to see thru walls and search for weapons using "x-ray" type scanning. Lockheed-Martin has just developed the most cutting edge technology to come in the field. They have been able to see through walls for a long time but have now gotten so damn good that they can aparently look at us naked through walls. this is a hot issue for the millivion industry and because police really want it now, it gets to be a bit of a search and seizure issue.

 

here's some places to go:

 

Good summary of Passive Millimeter and Potential Dangers

http://www.angelfire.com/blog/thecrime/page7.html

 

gov just may wanna use it

http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/1999/06(june)/10-jun-1999/asol005.htm

 

canadian military uses in urban terrain

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/gradrech/millimeter-e.pdf

 

LA Airport security apologises for looking through black womyn's clothes in Airport (really!)

http://www.raven1.net/kkarticl.htm

 

Another LA Airport Security Story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1348172,00.html

 

Mention of Millivimeter, but stuff on Project Echelon

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/policestate/DarkFuture.html

 

Used by U.S. military primarily for anti-terrorism

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Aug/Anti-Crime.htm

 

More generally cool shit to look into:

http://www.secretgovernmentlabs.com/page/bookstoacontrol98

 

 

 

it's a start. what do you all think?

 

xxx

Spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble finding where stuff is searched without probable cause by the USFG. You could argue that scanning baggage fits, but the TSA has probable cause that someone may try to destroy aircraft using luggage or something like that (see 9/11, shoe bomber).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the cops are outside my apartment searching it via passive millimeter, my civil liberties are violated. and i don't want people to see me naked anyway, i'm not comfortable enough with my body.

 

:)

 

the case would be an indict of social control and a climate of fear allowing these things to happen. it sucks that we even have to live in a time where we allow airports to do this, those articles are the pinnacle of why we need to call these intrusions of our rights into question

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic area is Civil Liberties. The rez calls for detainment without charge or search without probable cause. Again, the cops have cause to search your apartment when they use this, from what I saw. The TSA has cause to scrutinize stuff because of terrorism. (As a plus if I see this, I get to run Terrorism DAs with easy links.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olmstead isn't the standard for this kind of search in the status quo. Check out Kyllo v. U.S. 533 u.s. 121 (2001). In summary (paraphrased and accurate to the best of my knowledge), the supreme court held that thermal imaging devices do violate the fourth amendment (is an illegal search)when law enforcement uses technology that isn't genrally in useabout to search that person's home without a warrant.

 

"..where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore detials of a home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search and is presumptively unreasonable w/o a warrant". (Scalia, from the majority in Kyllo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was this ruling after the HS privacy topic? I remember this case from then and can't exactly remember the details. as soon as i go home, i'll check my backfilez for how it was spun - but people are definately still talking about it in the police arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having trouble finding where stuff is searched without probable cause by the USFG. You could argue that scanning baggage fits, but the TSA has probable cause that someone may try to destroy aircraft using luggage or something like that (see 9/11, shoe bomber).

 

No offense, but you have an incomplete understanding of probable cause. Simply because you buy a plane ticket automatically creates the presumption you are a terrorist? According to your logic, the police always have probable cause, because the job of the police is to stop crime, and they wouldn't have searched you if they didn't suspect that you were commiting a crime. If that were true, then no case would be topical...

Probable cause= articulable facts that require or justify a WARRANT to search. Meaning, probable cause must exist BEFORE the search takes place, not after. This case would most certainly be topical, since the police would be using this device WITHOUT a warrant, which is totally consistent with searching without probable cause.

 

if the cops are outside my apartment searching it via passive millimeter, my civil liberties are violated. and i don't want people to see me naked anyway, i'm not comfortable enough with my body.

Feeling like Simon Cowell here: not to disabuse you, but you only have civil liberties with respect to UNREASONABLE searches. If the police were using the device indiscriminately, then there is a possible civ liberties advantage. But if the police scanned your apartment, because they had a warrant against some guy who lived in your apartment complex (more likely scenario), there's no civil liberties violation in that case.

That being said, there's definitely a social control/privacy advantage here that would be huge. There's some interesting discussion on how Lawrence v. Texas actually expanded the right to privacy into a more "critical" liberty interest which is a fundamental right. Whether or not it's helpful, I have no idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indiscriminate use is where the big problem with Millivision comes in. It is espicially bad that cops can much more easily go into densely populated urban areas and typically go after more minority citizens while the rich gated communities are not affected. No matter what, look to the quote in the very beginning of the thread and you can see where this comes into play.

 

because i'd rather be dead that live constantly watched by the powers at be.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see probable cause is that the USFG has to have some reason for searching you or your belongings. (I suppose you could expand it to include that they must have a warrant to do it.) Moving on, I'm not sure what sort of plan you could run while evading DAs and such. These things are very accurate at scanning stuff, and therefore could detect bombs/knives/gigantic spoons that a passenger could use to hijack a plane, right? Banning them brings Terrorism DAs (without, of course, the word "terrorism") along with Solvency attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Draconrider, I realize this is off the subject of the thread, but it doesn't matter what in the hell you call the "terrorists" your DA would still link to all of the arguments you try to avoid with that move.

 

EDIT: Also, the TSA doesn't need jack to search your shit. They do leave you a nice little note to tell you your shiz has been searched.

 

EDIT 2: There is little need to evade the DAs you speak of due to the massive offensive possiblities based on the arguments you speak of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about Terror Talk, which talks about how the words "terror," "terrorism," and the like cause all of these horrible effects. If my DA doesn't use the words and the cards don't use the evidence, where's the link? (I suppose the aff could pull out a "name for guys in the DA=terrorist" card.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking about Terror Talk, which talks about how the words "terror," "terrorism," and the like cause all of these horrible effects. If my DA doesn't use the words and the cards don't use the evidence, where's the link? (I suppose the aff could pull out a "name for guys in the DA=terrorist" card.)

 

I can't imagine a source that wouldn't use that term yet would still do what you want it to, but even if it existed, the argument could be changed slightly or you could simply run other Ks like Threat Con or a more Zizek styled "Destruction of the 'other'" type argument with basically, a similar amount of offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I see probable cause is that the USFG has to have some reason for searching you or your belongings. (I suppose you could expand it to include that they must have a warrant to do it.) Moving on, I'm not sure what sort of plan you could run while evading DAs and such. These things are very accurate at scanning stuff, and therefore could detect bombs/knives/gigantic spoons that a passenger could use to hijack a plane, right? Banning them brings Terrorism DAs (without, of course, the word "terrorism") along with Solvency attacks.

 

so practically any plan would link to some DA. so, that means you write a...drumroll...BLOCK!

 

 

on another note...i think this sounds like an awesome plan. thanks for the links and the idea spurlock. and this was on the bottom link you provided:

 

"For Banisar, “They facilitate mass and routine surveillance or large segments of the population without the need for warrants and formal investigations. What the East German secret police could only dream of is rapidly becoming a reality in the free world.” "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but you know, "terrorism" outweighs. ;).

 

and it's no problem. I'll dig out my backfilez while i'm at home. this is kind of fun for me because i was a god awful debater during the privacy topic and now it's like i get to do at least part of it semi-right. But I should have some good plan ideas soon.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you may be able to spin something like that. By banning the actual device, you could probably claim advantages off getting rid of them in iraq and elsewhere - and start breaking down the system of social control where we're all not even private in our own homes and have the constant fear of being watched by big brother. If we break down the climate of fear, we can start to listen to the other side instead of constructing them for ourselves.

 

it seems like a pretty fair argument. i'll watch for articles that could be related to it, because i think that would be a really sweet idea.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not familiar with what you're referring to. but i'm interested....

 

 

xxx

spurlock

 

you dont know what the panopticon is?

 

i think it may be a good idea. social control will definatly give you the internal link to the panopticon...and in this sense, they really can see you without you knowing. you never know if they are watching you with the millivision!OOOHHH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You fools. Terror talk doesn't mean you can't say the word "terror" or anything that has the word "terror" in it. It simply means that you must not use the word "terrorist" as a generic blanket term. Maybe I'll talk more about it later. This isn't the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the panopticon - correct if me if i'm wrong - is the symbolic tower of power. there is a tower w/ blackened windows. there may or may not be a guard in there. nobody can see into it. since any type of resistance is "against the rules" people are unwilling to fight back because they don't know if the guard will see them or not.

 

anyway, it isn't topical because state and local governments use them too.

 

brennan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiscriminate use is where the big problem with Millivision comes in.
What "indiscriminate use" are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You fools. Terror talk doesn't mean you can't say the word "terror" or anything that has the word "terror" in it. It simply means that you must not use the word "terrorist" as a generic blanket term. Maybe I'll talk more about it later. This isn't the place.

 

 

you're wrong too. I'm not even sure why you said this, but Terror Talk indicts a whole set of rhetoric that otherizes groups and i guess makes thier actions and thoughts look senseless. this denies any possibility of progress.

 

xxx

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...