Using a metal cable to prevent LEO seizure during UOC

pullnshoot25 · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

mjones wrote:

rpyne wrote:

With RFID, who needs gun registration? Unless you store your guns in a faraday cage, all they have to do is drive down the street with an RFID reader to come knocking on your door to collect your firearms.

Click to expand...

This actually happened to me Saturday morning.

My wife and I just bought and moved into a new house in an adjoiningcity. I get a knock on the door from a city code enforcer indicating that I need to pay fees for our two cats and any other pets we have in the hom.

Whether or not indoor only cats should be licensed is another issue, but I flat out asked how they hell they found out.

Anyhow...his response was that 'if your pets are chipped we can tell by driving down the street slowly.'

Grrrrrrrr...

SCREW THAT! I would be plucking that chip out ASAP.

N6ATF · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

mjones wrote:

rpyne wrote:

With RFID, who needs gun registration? Unless you store your guns in a faraday cage, all they have to do is drive down the street with an RFID reader to come knocking on your door to collect your firearms.

Click to expand...

This actually happened to me Saturday morning.

My wife and I just bought and moved into a new house in an adjoining city. I get a knock on the door from a city code enforcer indicating that I need to pay fees for our two cats and any other pets we have in the hom.

Whether or not indoor only cats should be licensed is another issue, but I flat out asked how they hell they found out.

Anyhow...his response was that 'if your pets are chipped we can tell by driving down the street slowly.'

Grrrrrrrr...

"Oh really, I need to pay fees for dead cats stored in the freezer?"

Sons of Liberty · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

mjones wrote:

rpyne wrote:

With RFID, who needs gun registration? Unless you store your guns in a faraday cage, all they have to do is drive down the street with an RFID reader to come knocking on your door to collect your firearms.

Click to expand...

This actually happened to me Saturday morning.

My wife and I just bought and moved into a new house in an adjoiningcity. I get a knock on the door from a city code enforcer indicating that I need to pay fees for our two cats and any other pets we have in the hom.

Whether or not indoor only cats should be licensed is another issue, but I flat out asked how they hell they found out.

Anyhow...his response was that 'if your pets are chipped we can tell by driving down the street slowly.'

Grrrrrrrr...

Outrageous!!!! Truly, an "invasion" of privacy!!!! :what:

bigtoe416 · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

mjones wrote:

This actually happened to me Saturday morning.

My wife and I just bought and moved into a new house in an adjoiningcity. I get a knock on the door from a city code enforcer indicating that I need to pay fees for our two cats and any other pets we have in the hom.

Whether or not indoor only cats should be licensed is another issue, but I flat out asked how they hell they found out.

Anyhow...his response was that 'if your pets are chipped we can tell by driving down the street slowly.'

Grrrrrrrr...

Doesn't Arizona v. Hicks cover this topic? I seem to remember a justice talking about a hypothetical gigantic telescope that the government had and asking if using that gigantic telescope to peer into a private residence to read the serial number off the stereo would violate the fourth amendment. In fact, here is the transcript:

Unknown Speaker: Suppose the government sets up a monster telescope across the street from my house and looked through my window to do nothing else except get the stereo number off of a stereo in my room. Would that be all right?

Mr. Akers: Your Honor, if the only information that can be conveyed from that serial number is whether or not the stereo or whatever the appliance or item that has a serial number on it is stolen, then in that respect, there is no legitimate expectation of privacy, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply in that respect. So if you can ascertain it by aided sight, as you have indicated here, I mean, I think you could also draw an analogy if an officer had glasses on; needed glasses to inspect the serial number. Once he's legitimately where he has a right to be... and perhaps that is the threshold question that your question raises here, is that--

Unknown Speaker: I'm assuming that they have no business being in my house. And if a telescope won't do it, it's some fancy electronic technique that has nothing to do with sight, but it reaches into my apartment and derives the serial number of my stereo. And you say that's... that's okay, because that's not very important information.

Mr. Akers: --In your hypothetical, the officer does not have a right to make the observation that he makes. He doesn't have a right to be where he can observe that serial number.

Unknown Speaker: That's right.

Mr. Akers: In that case, then, we would say that under the Fourth Amendment--

Unknown Speaker: But why? You could say just as much in that case: What's the big deal about a serial number? It's not very important. I mean, that's the argument you were running. That the search here is okay because the serial number is not important.

I'm assuming the lawyer for the state, Akers, was going to say that under the Fourth Amendment that would be an unlawful search. In this case, you were subjected to a suspicionless, warrentless search, which I believe is an unconstitutional search.

In Hicks, the officer simply moved a stereo which was next to him, and that movement was ruled to be unconstitutional despite the fact that he was legally able to be right next to the stereo. In mjones' case, the government essentially moved the walls of his house to get at information about his cats. The government did this without reasonable suspicion, without probable cause, and without a warrant. I'd hope that the SCOTUS would agree that such is an unlawful search.

Citizen · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

SNIP In mjones' case, the government essentially moved the walls of his house to get at information about his cats. The government did this without reasonable suspicion, without probable cause, and without a warrant. I'd hope that the SCOTUS would agree that such is an unlawful search.

I would hope so, too. But who has got the $$ to take a misdemeanor unregistered-cat-offense to the Supreme Ct., or even the state appellate court.

Oh, and I can hearthe state's argument already, "Your Honor, its common knowledge that people have RFID's installed in their pets specifically so they can be located and identified. Also, since the pet owner was committing the offense of harboring an unregistered animal, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the RFID chip or its emanations. Furthermore,knowingly installing into their pet adeviceintended to function exactly as it did in this case constitutes a waiver of 4th Amendment protections."

stuckinchico · Aug 2, 2009

imported post

WTF really!!!!! by driving down the street??? Wow thats overstepping in my books. ON this subject. If that scan comes back to me on that scan I dont approve thats my business. If i wanted someone to know my name ID TELL THEM

ijusam · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

is it such a leap?
in plain sight...
in plain scent...
in plain electronic detection?

ijusam · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

2PM, everyone is at work and school, the house is empty except for the brazen thief that is scooping unsecured jewelry and portable valuables into a bag, he pulls out a detector and heads unerringly to the location of well hidden firearms...

N6ATF · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

2 am, everyone's asleep, break-in. Residents wake up, arm themselves, prepare to clear or barricade fire. BG(s) know exactly in which rooms the guns (and maybe dogs) are by RFID signal strength. They open fire through walls and doors, or just as residents are about to slice the pie.

Decoligny · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

It's 2 am, the rapist/murderer scans the neighborhood looking for the perfect target. He locates three houses on the block that have guns, he avoids them. He breaks into the house farthest from any "gun signal" and murders the Dad, then spends the next several hours raping the Mother and Daughter before killing them.

HankT's suggestion ensuresthat we give the bad guys the tools to do a bettter job in a safer work environment.

mjones · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

Well, I hope noone jumps my case for it, but its time for me to come clean...

My story about RFID and thecats was partially fabricated - the city did *NOT* detect my cats from the street.

However, I can absolutely assure you that it *IS* (from a technical standpoint) possible.

The whole point of my fabrication was to illustrate how absolutely horrible RFID is from the standpoint of potential privacy invasions. I hope that the result is such that if our legislature even thinks about such an idea with regard to our firearms that you will do everything in your power to prevent it.

Again, my apologies, I hope it's taken in the appropriate light.

marshaul · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

demnogis wrote:

Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.

Click to expand...

A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have the serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

That, or we could not try living in a police state.

I mean really Hank. What's the point?

HankT · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

HankT wrote:

demnogis wrote:

Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.

Click to expand...

A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

Click to expand...

That, or we could not try living in a police state.

I mean really Hank. What's the point?

Time saver. Hassle-saver. More accurate. As stated previously in this thread.

Would help with stolen gun recovery, too.

Overall, win-win.

marshaul · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

SomeGuyInCali wrote:

HankT wrote

A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have the serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

Click to expand...

Oh h*** no! I used to work for several global electronics companies and have done R&D with RFID chips. Believe it or not but an RFID chip can be energized and "read" acurrately from 100 feet away. This could be used to pick out an OC'er in a group even though the officer may now have even known there was a gun present. I would think that this would constitute and promote illegal searches for handguns without any provocation or reasonable cause.

Click to expand...

What would be your basis for contending that such a case, for OC, would even be a search, much less an illegal search?

Maybe for CC. But for OC? State your basis, sir.

Silly Hank.

Arizona v. Hicks

marshaul · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

marshaul wrote:

I mean really Hank. What's the point?

Click to expand...

Time saver. Hassle-saver. More accurate. As stated previously in this thread.

Would help with stolen gun recovery, too.

Overall, win-win.

I wasn't asking what the point of the RFIDs is; that I understand well enough.

Step up a level. I was asking "what's the point?" of the whole thing, running around inspecting serial numbers in clear violation of Arizona v. Hicks?

Decoligny · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

HankT wrote:

SomeGuyInCali wrote:

HankT wrote

A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have theserial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

Click to expand...

Oh h*** no! I used to work for several global electronics companies and have done R&D with RFID chips. Believe it or not but an RFID chip can be energized and "read" acurrately from 100 feet away. This could be used to pick out an OC'er in a group even though the officer may now have even known there was a gun present. I would think that this would constitute and promote illegal searches for handguns without any provocation or reasonable cause.

Click to expand...

What would be your basis for contending that such a case, for OC, would even be a search, much less an illegal search?

Maybe for CC. But for OC? State your basis, sir.

Click to expand...

Silly Hank, Chips are for twits.

Arizona v. Hicks

Fixed that for ya. :lol:

N6ATF · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

marshaul wrote:

HankT wrote:

demnogis wrote:

Right, but the officer is not warranted to take your firearm to perform the serial number check. If, for instance, they see the number and write it down, that's fine.

Click to expand...

A way to solve this problem is to implant an RFID tag into a handgun. The RFID would have the serial number, make, model, caliber and manufacture date.

The police could have handheld readers to scoop up the data and transmit an inquiry to their favorite legal database(s).

Such a system would be safer, more secure, more accurate and efficient.

No one but the gun owner/carrier would have to touch the gun.

Click to expand...

That, or we could not try living in a police state.

I mean really Hank. What's the point?

Click to expand...

Time saver. Hassle-saver. More accurate. As stated previously in this thread.

Would help with stolen gun recovery, too.

Overall, win-win.

Win-win-win. Let's tell criminals where all the guns are so they can steal them, and keep the police busy finding and getting shot at 24/7 by stolen guns! CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD!

Streetbikerr6 · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

Anyone interested in RFID just research what happened to Mythbusters when they tried to do a show on how to hack RFID.

N6ATF · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Anyone interested in RFID just research what happened to Mythbusters when they tried to do a show on how to hack RFID.

They've blurred out stuff before when it could be used criminally, but apparently that's not good enough.

If they can't or won't risk shutting down the entire industry because it's insecure, maybe it'll show up on Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

Sons of Liberty · Aug 3, 2009

imported post

mjones wrote:

Well, I hope noone jumps my case for it, but its time for me to come clean...

My story about RFID and thecats was partially fabricated - the city did *NOT* detect my cats from the street.

However, I can absolutely assure you that it *IS* (from a technical standpoint) possible.

The whole point of my fabrication was to illustrate how absolutely horrible RFID is from the standpoint of potential privacy invasions. I hope that the result is such that if our legislature even thinks about such an idea with regard to our firearms that you will do everything in your power to prevent it.

Again, my apologies, I hope it's taken in the appropriate light.

It's too late...the story's gone viral!

Using a metal cable to prevent LEO seizure during UOC

Regular Member

Banned

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter