TexasCHLforum.com

Was reading in the paper this morning that a British company is unveiling a new security camera that can see discreetly through clothing from 80 feet away. The article indicated the camera is designed to detect drugs, liquids, weapons and explosives hidden under a person's clothing. The device can display images of concealed objects under clothing while the individual is walking.

The ThruVision T5000 device uses naturally occurring terahertz waves (never heard of em) - that are emitted by all people and things.

If this works as indicated it seems like a good idea but wonder what effect this will have on legal concealed carry.

http://www.statesman.com/business/conte ... trays.html

I had not heard the term terahertz before now. It is electromagnetic radiation with a longer wavelength than infrared.

I see this kind of thing as having little impact on legal concealed carry. The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot use imaging devices to obtain evidence without already having probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime. It could be used for airport security, but you can't carry there anyway.

- Jim

This is nothing new. I had something similar to it when I was a kid. They were a pair of x-ray glasses you ordered out of the back of comic books.

Your wireless computer connections at home work in the gigahertz frequency range (10 to the 9th power) and terahertz adds 3 more zeros (10 to the 12th power.)

From Wikipedia:
Terahertz radiation can penetrate fabrics and plastics, so it can be used in surveillance, such as security screening, to uncover concealed weapons on a person, remotely. This is of particular interest because many materials of interest, such as plastic explosives, have unique spectral "fingerprints" in the terahertz range. This offers the possibility to combine spectral identification with imaging. Passive detection of Terahertz signatures avoid the bodily privacy concerns of other detection by being targeted to a very specific range of materials and objects

These cameras could allow facilities to detect who is carrying a weapon on the premesis without putting people through metal detectors.

For places like malls and other large facilities that allow for concealed carry, they would have little effect except for possibly giving security people an indicator of who to keep an eye on. (If someone is carrying, they could have a CHL and thus be legit, or they could be a rampage shooter looking for the right spot to go crazy and start shooting. The camera can see your gun, but it can't see your CHL.)

Some places might even stop people on the way in and ask them to produce their CHL's (or leave the gun in their cars). But this requires hiring people to do that, confronting people, etc. So most places will not bother.

Some places than ban concealed carry like casinos, post offices, and some large 30.06 places might use them in liew of putting everyone through a metal detector. This has the potential to produce some test cases in venues owned by the government but leased by a private business that post 30.06 like the AA Center. All it would take is someone carrying concealed, even very well concealed, past the 30.06 signs, and a facility operator who wanted to "send a message".

ALL cameras work on a principal involving recording electromagnetic radiation, which includes all the visible spectra of light.

I was not aware that anyone had developed either a filter efficient enough to block all but terahertz frequencies, or a sensor only sensitive in that range. I guess I ought to keep up.

I used to have, may still actually, several specialty filters for my film cameras that allowed me to image either UV or IR with the proper film. I had a blast shooting pictures of roses at dawn in UV, and muzzle blast in IR, now if only I could find those pics.

TSA had been considering using a booth that had THz detectors, but people kept objecting because bra strap clasps could be seen, which would obviously incense some of the more twisted TSA screeners.

I think this camera would not be useful in places like malls. A person in a crowd would be shielded from the camera by other people. You need to isolate each subject and get a 360° view, probably with multiple cameras.

Malls and other public places could be using metal detectors now. They don't.

I'm also thinking that the contraband could be obscured from this camera by shielding material, possibly even aluminum foil. You'd have to have access to one to experiement, though.

- Jim

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice the unfortunate juxtaposition of the nomenclature of the new device with movies featuring The Governator"?

Makes me wonder if Arnuld has some financial interest, or maybe are they trying to tell us something.

Keith, did you X-ray glasses ever work? Mine didn't! Seriously though. What kind of image does it produce? I can't help but picture a pimply faced rent-a-cop ogling naked girls in the security shack. Not a good thought, especially if it were my teenage daughter or my wife!

Edited: Never mind. I just noticed this at the bottom of Keith's post.

Passive detection of Terahertz signatures avoid the bodily privacy concerns of other detection by being targeted to a very specific range of materials and objects

Found this on another forum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

Backscatter X-Ray...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:All it would take is someone carrying concealed, even very well concealed, past the 30.06 signs, and a facility operator who wanted to "send a message".

It would be funny if they pushed the issue and found out the meaning of "OR"

Kind of like Bill Clinton and "IS"

Sounds similar to the airport screening device they were trying to start using a few years ago. In the trials they gave metal plates to the men and women to cover private areas, as the screening device they used would show EVERYTHING. I remember seeing a report on this on Fox26. Person walks in, gets scanned, walks out.

I honestly don't think it would ever get wide scale use in the US, that's a pretty big invasion of privacy I think.

I wonder if clothing doped with ferrite particles or lined with a fine wire mesh would show up as opaque?

Possible business opportunity here . . .

(Hmmm . . . what if T-shirts, normally worn under clothing, were emblazoned with obscene/profane messages?)

HankB wrote:(Hmmm . . . what if T-shirts, normally worn under clothing, were emblazoned with obscene/profane messages?)

I was thinking of expanding an older idea; metal weapon silhouettes that could be slipped into the lining of briefcases, etc. Made from flexible material, they could also be placed in soft-sided purses, backpacks, and even jackets.

legend wrote:Sounds similar to the airport screening device they were trying to start using a few years ago. In the trials they gave metal plates to the men and women to cover private areas, as the screening device they used would show EVERYTHING. I remember seeing a report on this on Fox26. Person walks in, gets scanned, walks out.

That's what I was referring to above, I was with TSA when they were testing that thing and they still may end up using it, if the last few bugs can be worked out.

The part about them revealing everything was pure urban legend. Since the device images frequencies that can't be seen by the human eye, the pic on the screen is merely a representation of differences in density, just like an x-ray or MRI. The "everything that could be seen was just as much "everything" that could be seen on an x-ray, which is not that much - the clasps on bra straps, underwires, but not what they contain, etc.

HankB wrote: (Hmmm . . . what if T-shirts, normally worn under clothing, were emblazoned with obscene/profane messages?)

TSA screeners see that kind of thing every day, soiled underwear and worse, obscene messages about TSA, and play devices that are illegal in some states, not even cleaned since their last use. Been there done that, don't need the t-shirt.

jimlongley wrote: That's what I was referring to above, I was with TSA when they were testing that thing and they still may end up using it, if the last few bugs can be worked out.

They were using them in Phoenix last year. They had several in operation. Some folks were routed through the standard metal detectors others through these fluoroscope type machines.