"SWORD" add-on to smartphone lets you detect concealed carry

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,090
    113
    Texas
    Device Now Let?s Smartphone Users Scan A Person For Concealed Firearms From Up To 40 Feet Away ? Concealed Nation


    From the press release:

    SWORD, the world’s first mobile 3D imaging scanner, attaches to a Google Pixel 2 XL smartphone and Apple’s iPhone 8 Plus. It is accessed and controlled via a fully customizable and dedicated app. From a distance of up to 40 feet, security agents or law enforcement personnel can scan individuals in a crowd or an approaching person of interest simply by pointing their smartphone at them with the SWORD device attached. They will be able to non-invasively determine if someone is carrying a weapon or explosive--all without the need for a physical search--and rapidly identify a person of interest. SWORD can be used to scan backpacks and handbags that are being carried or have been left unattended. It can also detect listening devices used for espionage and intelligence gathering.

    https://www.officer.com/command-hq/...-to-google-pixel-2-xl-and-apple-iphone-8-plus
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    Some serious privacy issues should get this stopped on 4th Amendment grounds. At least for .gov, not sure about private companies’ use of this tech?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    This use of technology is a bit of a gray area.

    The argument for it is that it isn't any different than using a flashlight to look into a dark room. If the officer is in a place he is allowed to be, then there really aren't very many 4A restrictions. Another analogy might be the license-plate scanning technology.

    I remember reading about magnetic anomaly detecting stuff a LONG time ago. I wonder if this is the evolution of it.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    This use of technology is a bit of a gray area.

    The argument for it is that it isn't any different than using a flashlight to look into a dark room. If the officer is in a place he is allowed to be, then there really aren't very many 4A restrictions. Another analogy might be the license-plate scanning technology.

    I remember reading about magnetic anomaly detecting stuff a LONG time ago. I wonder if this is the evolution of it.

    With regards to things I want out of sight, can firearms be treated the same as your body? Both are your property.

    I don't want you to see my pecker, so I cover it up. If you do something to bypass that cover...

    Same with a gun?

    With progressions in technology... do we need an amendment? Or law?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    With regards to things I want out of sight, can firearms be treated the same as your body? Both are your property.

    I don't want you to see my pecker, so I cover it up. If you do something to bypass that cover...

    Same with a gun?

    With progressions in technology... do we need an amendment? Or law?

    Unless your pecker is detachable (which, may or may not be a cool evolutionary trick), I don't think it is a helpful analogy.

    Let's use cocaine.

    Well. Let's use cocaine as an analogy.

    Just because you cover it up doesn't mean LEOs can't use non-invasive ways of finding it. If you are carrying cocaine in a body cavity (your choice which) and walk past a drug dog that alerts on you. There's no 4A issue. (Aside from the de rigeur issues with officer chompy's hit rate.)
     

    Hatin Since 87

    Bacon Hater
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    11,402
    77
    Mooresville
    Unless your pecker is detachable (which, may or may not be a cool evolutionary trick), I don't think it is a helpful analogy.

    Let's use cocaine.

    Well. Let's use cocaine as an analogy.

    Just because you cover it up doesn't mean LEOs can't use non-invasive ways of finding it. If you are carrying cocaine in a body cavity (your choice which) and walk past a drug dog that alerts on you. There's no 4A issue. (Aside from the de rigeur issues with officer chompy's hit rate.)

    Is there a constitutional right to own cocaine?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Is there a constitutional right to own cocaine?

    No. Not yet.

    But, that doesn't really make any different in terms of 4A.

    There's no constitutional right to secretly own or carry a firearm. (At least not yet.)

    Maybe it is important to differentiate between knowing someone is carrying and what LEOs might do with that information. In Indiana, now, LEOs may not be able to do ANYTHING with that info, unless there's some other reason to stop the person (or have a voluntary interaction).

    Now, combine that with the facial recognition. They see a guy with a felony warrant, and see that he is CCing... well... that seems like an appropriate use of technology.

    Or apply it to private property. A mall could have their security people determine whether someone is CCing and ask them to leave.
     
    Last edited:

    indyblue

    Guns & Pool Shooter
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 13, 2013
    3,590
    129
    Indy Northside `O=o-
    Unless your pecker is detachable (which, may or may not be a cool evolutionary trick), I don't think it is a helpful analogy.

    Let's use cocaine.

    Well. Let's use cocaine as an analogy.

    Just because you cover it up doesn't mean LEOs can't use non-invasive ways of finding it. If you are carrying cocaine in a body cavity (your choice which) and walk past a drug dog that alerts on you. There's no 4A issue. (Aside from the de rigeur issues with officer chompy's hit rate.)

    Isn't this similar to Kyllo? Replace "use of imaging device" with "use of a remote detection device" aka dog, phone scanner, etc.

    Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001),[SUP][1][/SUP] held in a 5–4 decision that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    home may be the key word...that's not in public by definition.
    Isn't this similar to Kyllo? Replace "use of imaging device" with "use of a remote detection device" aka dog, phone scanner, etc.

    Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001),[SUP][1][/SUP] held in a 5–4 decision that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
     

    Hatin Since 87

    Bacon Hater
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    11,402
    77
    Mooresville
    No. Not yet.

    But, that doesn't really make any different in terms of 4A.

    There's no constitutional right to secretly own or carry a firearm. (At least not yet.)

    Maybe it is important to differentiate between knowing someone is carrying and what LEOs might do with that information. In Indiana, now, LEOs may not be able to do ANYTHING with that info, unless there's some other reason to stop the person (or have a voluntary interaction).

    Now, combine that with the facial recognition. They see a guy with a felony warrant, and see that he is CCing... well... that seems like an appropriate use of technology.

    Or apply it to private property. A mall could have their security people determine whether someone is CCing and ask them to leave.

    I understand, my only point is carrying cocaine is an illegal activity. Carrying a firearm is not, as long as you are legal to do so... but we are still innocent until proven guilty and should not be subjected to interrogation or searches for exercising legal activities. Maybe I’m thinking completely wrong about this, but if I’m not doing anything illegal, i shouldn’t be violated and “searched” as if I had.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Isn't this similar to Kyllo? Replace "use of imaging device" with "use of a remote detection device" aka dog, phone scanner, etc.

    Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001),[SUP][1][/SUP] held in a 5–4 decision that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.

    Yeah, that's the outer bound of technology. That decision was made difficult because standing on public property and looking in a window is not a 4A violation. But, that tech is SO advanced that it made an absurdity of actual real walls.

    The same cannot be said of clothing. At least not yet.

    Also, probably worth clarifying that I'm not predicting that this will be free of legal issues. Heck, a court somewhere might say this is more like the imaging tech in Kyllo. I'm just saying that this is not a legally cut and dry situation.

    I understand, my only point is carrying cocaine is an illegal activity. Carrying a firearm is not, as long as you are legal to do so... but we are still innocent until proven guilty and should not be subjected to interrogation or searches for exercising legal activities. Maybe I’m thinking completely wrong about this, but if I’m not doing anything illegal, i shouldn’t be violated and “searched” as if I had.

    Post-Heller, this is on a long list of things that will have to be resolved.

    When we go out in public, we are giving up a great number of privacy rights. The "expectation of privacy" is almost zero.

    I recall in the 90s there was a video camera that had an IR lens or something that was so sensitive it could "see" through artificial fabric/materials like spandex. I can't remember what happened with that, but I don't think it was an LEO issue.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    They do use metal detection methods where they just walk by or stand by people at certain levels like secret service. Not new but I bet it's really developed now. They also do have computer programs that use cameras to detect body language patterns and lumps in bags and pockets ect and will notify a minder who can keep an eye out or notify ground units. I can tell anyone who is attempting to conceal a firearm or a knife, do not put it in your pocket or even if you are carrying it on another more concealed part of your body do not have anything that bulges in your pocket. They are really training people hard to look for this. Your goal is to avoid all interaction and not stand out. Even if they didnt see it, you are now remembered. Sometimes when going through a metal detector you may want a throw away piece of contraband to be found so thats not what I'm talking about.
    Whatecer technology LE has and employs (like the blanket cell phone spying they have and use at the state police level and maybe local level too) they will use it till they get caught or told its unconstitutional. I highly doubt your gonna see LE running to a judge asking their permission before they employ a new technology to police and pre-crime the public.
    It's getting hard to be left alone anymore. Some in the government are actively searching to **** with people.
    People who are part of the govt or system dont see it the same way because they belong to it. The average man who has their privacy and freedom constantly at risk even if you are an honest law abiding person, sees it quite differently
     
    Last edited:

    shootersix

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    4,280
    113
    notice the name of their other products... "sentinel"...same name as the bad computer in "person of interest"
     
    Top Bottom