Police will be able to see through walls with a WIFI router. Good or bad?

I know where this is leading.

I enjoy my privacy, thank you.

Could be anything moving and there are more considerations with wireless. If the frequencies go through walls, they go through you and cause nerve and muscle stimulation. The frequencies are also impacting structural integrity of buildings and fire separations. Be careful with that one.

If I find the police spying on my family using this or any other technology, I will kill them. Badges don't mean good guys anymore.

oh no big brother to the max if theres a limit!

Ooooooh the stuff they're gonna see...

We better make sure this doesnt happen in this country - it would be a huge invasion of privacy

That meas use a shotgun instead of solid round weapon.

If you think your graphic is the only way that technology will be used.....

A clear violation of search and seizure.

Unless you are a sheep.

Bad for privacy and ONLY good for fighting crime

Actually....I really don't care....if they are so bored that they want to watch me...meh, so what?

Good and Bad- If there a a guy behind that wall who is about to kill people that is good....If the police are spying on citizens - that is bad

Chalk another one up to the "conspiracy theorist".

I hope they can shoot through the walls too.. save lots of policemen's lives.

It's not legal

The Supreme Court announced the following rule: “when . . . the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Because infrared temperature sensing was not in “general public use,” the thermal imaging was a “search” that required a warrant. There are several ways to justify the “general public use” limitation on the result in Kyllo. Perhaps the idea was that if a technology is widely used by the public, it is not longer reasonable expect that it won’t be used. This reflects what I have called the probabilistic model of Fourth Amendment protection, and is hinted at in footnote 6 of Kyllo. Alternatively, perhaps the Court was trying to square the result in Kyllo with cases going back to the 1920s that that had allowed the police to use flashlights.


see Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) also see
United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563 (1927); United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)

However, it wouldn't work if there were no wireless signals being transmitted in the area, so I gather. And seems it would be prone to jammers or obfuscation :P

Take care,

A man's home is supposed to be his castle, unless they have a court warrant giving them permission to search for a specific item. With modern technology we have the problem of balancing the rights of privacy and to be secure in one's home, secure in our private property, and secure against unreasonable search and seizures. There is less and less respect for personal space and privacy by the government, and by losing our individual rights to a big brother government, they are distroying the very things that this country was founded on, and what made our country so exceptional.



Think about living in a world where there is no where to hide from cameras, no where to go where you know you are not watched, and no secrets personal or otherwise from big brother. Is that a fair exchange for a piece of security from events most Americans are not likely to ever be victims of? And still, with losing all of our rights and personal security, our safety can not be guaranteed each time we walk into a building, or get on a plane. I rather live my life free, then caged by watchful eyes even in my own home.

I already live in a world where God sees everything, so I am not worried.

We have a Constitutional right to privacy. This will be the last straw.

We USED to have a Constitutional right to privacy Jerry. Patriot Act changed all that.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust the government to use such a device only for 'good.' Also, if the government has it, what's going to stop the 'bad' guys from getting it and also using it?

more big brother

What i do in my room is private THEY NO STEAL MY WIFI EITHER!

There are about 6 WiFis detectable from my room - only one of them is in my house.

over 20 in the Mobil Home Park where I live. Us old folks are more up to date than some of you young whippersnappers think. :))

I get like 13 that arnt from my house. only 2 of the 14 i recive are pasword protected x3 one is ours the others is our nehibor across the street

They already use FLIR systems to "observe" those of interest.

But they still need a search warrant.They just can't eve drop on your internet.

They produce there own signal.

How do I say this. Picking up your signal ,is the same as if they walked on your property,and saw something like illegal drugs on your table,through the window. They cannot bust in without a search warrant.

I agree, this is a bad thing. The new tech is that they produce their own signal to "observe".

Your signal is just floating around in the air. If it comes to you, how is that invasive?

If they can see drugs on your table through your window from the sidewalk, it is fair, though?

If you have your network protected with a SSID Key, they cannot penetrate the firewall without a lot of searching to find the key.

The police will abuse this technology and will not use it for the true intended purpose.

Bummer man.....they forgot about pop ups. They'll have to break for a commercial.

If it is used under the same criteria as a "wire tap" and requires a court order, it could save lives. If it is a means to spy on "the people" shame on them.