Seeing through walls

**Prince** · 10-18-2011, 05:07 PM

Researchers at MIT’s Lincoln Lab have developed new radar technology that provides real-time video of what’s going on behind solid walls.
Emily Finn, MIT News Office

Lincoln Laboratory researchers John Peabody and Gregory Charvat explains how their team’s system can see through walls.
Video: Melanie Gonick

The ability to see through walls is no longer the stuff of science fiction, thanks to new radar technology developed at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory.

Much as humans and other animals see via waves of visible light that bounce off objects and then strike our eyes’ retinas, radar “sees” by sending out radio waves that bounce off targets and return to the radar’s receivers. But just as light can’t pass through solid objects in quantities large enough for the eye to detect, it’s hard to build radar that can penetrate walls well enough to show what’s happening behind. Now, Lincoln Lab researchers have built a system that can see through walls from some distance away, giving an instantaneous picture of the activity on the other side.

The researchers’ device is an unassuming array of antenna arranged into two rows — eight receiving elements on top, 13 transmitting ones below — and some computing equipment, all mounted onto a movable cart. But it has powerful implications for military operations, especially “urban combat situations,” says Gregory Charvat, technical staff at Lincoln Lab and the leader of the project.

Waves through walls

Walls, by definition, are solid, and that’s certainly true of the four- and eight-inch-thick concrete walls on which the researchers tested their system.

At first, their radar functions as any other: Transmitters emit waves of a certain frequency in the direction of the target. But in this case, each time the waves hit the wall, the concrete blocks more than 99 percent of them from passing through. And that’s only half the battle: Once the waves bounce off any targets, they must pass back through the wall to reach the radar’s receivers — and again, 99 percent don’t make it. By the time it hits the receivers, the signal is reduced to about 0.0025 percent of its original strength.

But according to Charvat, signal loss from the wall is not even the main challenge. “[Signal] amplifiers are cheap,” he says. What has been difficult for through-wall radar systems is achieving the speed, resolution and range necessary to be useful in real time. “If you’re in a high-risk combat situation, you don’t want one image every 20 minutes, and you don’t want to have to stand right next to a potentially dangerous building,” Charvat says.

The Lincoln Lab team’s system may be used at a range of up to 60 feet away from the wall. (Demos were done at 20 feet, which Charvat says is realistic for an urban combat situation.) And, it gives a real-time picture of movement behind the wall in the form of a video at the rate of 10.8 frames per second.

Filtering for frequencies

One consideration for through-wall radar, Charvat says, is what radio wavelength to use. Longer wavelengths are better able to pass through the wall and back, which makes for a stronger signal; however, they also require a correspondingly larger radar apparatus to resolve individual human targets. The researchers settled on S-band waves, which have about the same wavelength as wireless Internet — that is, fairly short. That means more signal loss — hence the need for amplifiers — but the actual radar device can be kept to about eight and a half feet long. “This, we believe, was a sweet spot because we think it would be mounted on a vehicle of some kind,” Charvat says.

Even when the signal-strength problem is addressed with amplifiers, the wall — whether it’s concrete, adobe or any other solid substance — will always show up as the brightest spot by far. To get around this problem, the researchers use an analog crystal filter, which exploits frequency differences between the modulated waves bouncing off the wall and those coming from the target. “So if the wall is 20 feet away, let’s say, it shows up as a 20-kilohertz sine wave. If you, behind the wall, are 30 feet away, maybe you’ll show up as a 30-kilohertz sine wave,” Charvat says. The filter can be set to allow only waves in the range of 30 kilohertz to pass through to the receivers, effectively deleting the wall from the image so that it doesn’t overpower the receiver.

“It’s a very capable system mainly because of its real-time imaging capability,” says Robert Burkholder, a research professor in Ohio State University’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering who was not involved with this work. “It also gives very good resolution, due to digital processing and advanced algorithms for image processing. It’s a little bit large and bulky for someone to take out in the field,” he says, but agrees that mounting it on a truck would be appropriate and useful.

Monitoring movement

In a recent demonstration, Charvat and his colleagues, Lincoln Lab assistant staff John Peabody and former Lincoln Lab technical staff Tyler Ralston, showed how the radar was able to image two humans moving behind solid concrete and cinder-block walls, as well as a human swinging a metal pole in free space. The project won best paper at a recent conference, the 2010 Tri-Services Radar Symposium.

Because the processor uses a subtraction method — comparing each new picture to the last, and seeing what’s changed — the radar can only detect moving targets, not inanimate objects such as furniture. Still, even a human trying to stand still moves slightly, and the system can detect these small movements to display that human’s location.

The system digitizes the signals it receives into video. Currently, humans show up as “blobs” that move about the screen in a bird’s-eye-view perspective, as if the viewer were standing on the wall and looking down at the scene behind. The researchers are currently working on algorithms that will automatically convert a blob into a clean symbol to make the system more end-user friendly. “To understand the blobs requires a lot of extra training,” Charvat says.

With further refinement, the radar could be used domestically by emergency-response teams and others, but the researchers say they developed the technology primarily with military applications in mind. Charvat says, “This is meant for the urban war fighter … those situations where it’s very stressful and it’d be great to know what’s behind that wall.”

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/l...alls-1018.html

**Dark Geared God** · 10-18-2011, 05:15 PM

I wonder where this will fall under the law? getting a warrant by seeing through a wall?

**LAM** · 10-18-2011, 05:26 PM

the military already has some tech like this. it will be joined with something like the switchblade drones and will be totally bad ass...

sucks we can't ever come up with some tech that actually makes life better and not just different.

**SFW** · 10-18-2011, 07:13 PM

Wait til local cops get this. Scanning houses for grow rooms and what not.

**HialeahChico305** · 10-18-2011, 07:15 PM

If this goes down, all you fuckers won't be able to pin gears in peace.

**Dark Geared God** · 10-18-2011, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by SFW

Wait til local cops get this. Scanning houses for grow rooms and what not.

**LAM** · 10-18-2011, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by SFW

Wait til local cops get this. Scanning houses for grow rooms and what not.

the FLIR camera already does this, they have been for sale on the retail market for a little while now. I use them to ID hot spots in high voltage cabling, etc. but there are many uses.

fire departments use them also but i'm not sure if they are the same as the retail versions.

**maniclion** · 10-18-2011, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

the FLIR camera already does this, they have been for sale on the retail market for a little while now. I use them to ID hot spots in high voltage cabling, etc. but there are many uses.

fire departments use them also but i'm not sure if they are the same as the retail versions.

The PV industry uses FLIR for troubleshooting also, if I were an installer I would use it on initial site assessments just to see if parts of the roof get hotter than others which could effect efficiency. We had them on our ship back in 97 for firefighting...

I bet they could get better images by boosting the signal and passing a vehicle on both sides of a building...

**LAM** · 10-18-2011, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by maniclion

We had them on our ship back in 97 for firefighting...

now that you bring that up I do remember seeing some of the guys in engineering carrying them around then during FF training at GTMO. I could only imagine the advancements on that tech since then because you know what they allow civilians to use isn't squat compared to what the military has now on the weapons side.

**Dark Geared God** · 10-19-2011, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

the FLIR camera already does this, they have been for sale on the retail market for a little while now. I use them to ID hot spots in high voltage cabling, etc. but there are many uses.

fire departments use them also but i'm not sure if they are the same as the retail versions.

In DC the Leo has the FD cruse by a supected grow house late at night with the FLIR and looks for hot spots the some how they get a warrant..life is funny

**maniclion** · 10-19-2011, 05:43 PM

I'm gonna put a huge hot tub in my spare room and see if the fuzz gets suspicious...used to be they got suspicious if the home had solar panels, but those are so common now....

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

In DC the Leo has the FD cruse by a supected grow house late at night with the FLIR and looks for hot spots the some how they get a warrant..life is funny

I think you are lying. Doing this is a violation of the 4th amendment and the there is clear Case Law (Decision/opinion/ruling) from the U.S. Supreme court that prohibits this.

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 05:46 PM

Cool story to tell though..

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by SFW

Wait til local cops get this. Scanning houses for grow rooms and what not.

They did and it was deemed unconstitutional so they can't anymore.

**Dark Geared God** · 10-19-2011, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

I think you are lying. Doing this is a violation of the 4th amendment and the there is clear Case Law (Decision/opinion/ruling) from the U.S. Supreme court that prohibits this.

well i seen them crusing at 3 in the morning in the big Fire truck with the Flir pointing it at house's as they cruse by.. think about it the power company get a reading of high energy usage and the popo is informed (do u think they don't work with the popo) any way I seen what i seen ..And how many times do u think they shread the 4th?

anyway how would you prove they did this? plus once they know the just sit on your house and collect the trash and such

**Dark Geared God** · 10-19-2011, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

They did and it was deemed unconstitutional so they can't anymore.

And they just sit on the house until you hang your self with the proof they need

**LAM** · 10-19-2011, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

In DC the Leo has the FD cruse by a supected grow house late at night with the FLIR and looks for hot spots the some how they get a warrant..life is funny

Patriot Act...the single worst document in the history of the US. most have no idea how much of our freedom and privacy was lost with that one.

I had a buddy that got into a "thing" with his wife, and the lawyers were called in. they pulled recorded phone conversations from 6 month prior. everything is recorded 24/7 - 365 days a year.

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

well i seen them crusing at 3 in the morning in the big Fire truck with the Flir pointing it at house's as they cruse by.. think about it the power company get a reading of high energy usage and the popo is informed (do u think they don't work with the popo) any way I seen what i seen ..And how many times do u think they shread the 4th?

anyway how would you prove they did this? plus once they know the just sit on your house and collect the trash and such

getting a high energy reading of the meeter is not the same thing as pointing a FLIR at one's residence.

I don't know if you are familiar with the rule of stare decisis or case law. It means that if an upper appellate court rules on a subject ALL lower courts within that jurisdiction have to follow that court's decision. Since the U.S. Supreme court deciding on exactly this subject, every court in the U.S. has to follow.

And yeah, they could go against it in trial court but that only means it would be reversed on appeal.

When you say shred you probably are talking about instances where it seems to the common person that one's constitutional right has been broken. It is not that simple, the appellate court will post a decision explaining their ruling. I'll give you an example.

Using a drug sniffing dog is not unconstitutional because the dog is only trained to sniff out stuff that one has no right to own. If one does not have the right to own something, it is not protected under any privacy clause for it is illegal.

Using FLIR to detect illegal activity within one's home is unconstitutional because in addition to reveling heat lamps for growing pot it could also show ,and i'll use the exact word of the court, "what time the lady of the house takes her daily sauna". It would revel activity that is perfectly legal and is happening within one's house and is therefore protected under that person's reasonable expectations of privacy.

**Dark Geared God** · 10-19-2011, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

getting a high energy reading of the meeter is not the same thing as pointing a FLIR at one's residence.

I don't know if you are familiar with the rule of stare decisis or case law. It means that if an upper appellate court rules on a subject ALL lower courts within that jurisdiction have to follow that court's decision. Since the U.S. Supreme court deciding on exactly this subject, every court in the U.S. has to follow.

And yeah, they could go against it in trial court but that only means it would be reversed on appeal.

When you say shred you probably are talking about instances where it seems to the common person that one's constitutional right has been broken. It is not that simple, the appellate court will post a decision explaining their ruling. I'll give you an example.

Using a drug sniffing dog is not unconstitutional because the dog is only trained to sniff out stuff that one has no right to own. If one does not have the right to own something, it is not protected under any privacy clause for it is illegal.

Using FLIR to detect illegal activity within one's home is unconstitutional because in addition to reveling heat lamps for growing pot it could also show ,and i'll use the exact word of the court, "what time the lady of the house takes her daily sauna". It would revel activity that is perfectly legal and is happening within one's house and is therefore protected under that person's reasonable expectations of privacy.

I don't think your getting my point they did this i don't know if anything came of it.....what ever case law it doesn't matter when they got you locked up unless you have 10 of thousands of $$$$ your fucked...and i saw this happening at 3 in the morning...Ok so u say they can't do this u have a high enery reading for several months the months before u didn't because your pot was drying out u cycle up for a new grow and a few months later the FD does this..well they were just out testing there stuff ok they infore the popo..no bigdeal...the popo wants to make sure you are well within the city code for tour house wiring...or thye just Flir your house..they omit this from there report...wink wink...so they sit on your house for a few months logging everyone and everything..checking trash...(the trash is where most fuck things up) so you throw away sum big bloom or other vits for the plant or sandwich bags stems seeds...script drugs all it take is that one thing and they have a warrant...then they got you if u have nothing great but if u have even a 1/4 oz your done ...the chain starts with you...all i can say is i know what i know most poeple can't afford a good lawyer so you would be fuck with a Public defender and how much do u think thye can about u..the PD has an endless budget plus they have time all the time as you rot in jail..i'm sure lam could tell ya a few stories

**LAM** · 10-19-2011, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

Using FLIR to detect illegal activity within one's home is unconstitutional because in addition to reveling heat lamps for growing pot it could also show ,and i'll use the exact word of the court, "what time the lady of the house takes her daily sauna". It would revel activity that is perfectly legal and is happening within one's house and is therefore protected under that person's reasonable expectations of privacy.

Fire Department doesn't need a warrant to do a home inspection, this has been an old trick by LE for a long time.

**Dark Geared God** · 10-19-2011, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by LAM

Fire Department doesn't need a warrant to do a home inspection, this has been an old trick by LE for a long time.

+10 yea why would the fire Dept need a warrant they're just testing out the stuff to see if it works at 3 in the morning who they give the info to is well you know

any why we all trust the FD

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

I don't think your getting my point they did this i don't know if anything came of it.....what ever case law it doesn't matter when they got you locked up unless you have 10 of thousands of $$$$ your fucked...and i saw this happening at 3 in the morning...Ok so u say they can't do this u have a high enery reading for several months the months before u didn't because your pot was drying out u cycle up for a new grow and a few months later the FD does this..well they were just out testing there stuff ok they infore the popo..no bigdeal...the popo wants to make sure you are well within the city code for tour house wiring...or thye just Flir your house..they omit this from there report...wink wink...so they sit on your house for a few months logging everyone and everything..checking trash...(the trash is where most fuck things up) so you throw away sum big bloom or other vits for the plant or sandwich bags stems seeds...script drugs all it take is that one thing and they have a warrant...then they got you if u have nothing great but if u have even a 1/4 oz your done ...the chain starts with you...all i can say is i know what i know most poeple can't afford a good lawyer so you would be fuck with a Public defender and how much do u think thye can about u..the PD has an endless budget plus they have time all the time as you rot in jail..i'm sure lam could tell ya a few stories

I like your little hypo situation. I'm not saying that it has never happened, but to think this is standard procedure is not realistic as it is unconstitutional and the PD and the court system do not have a endless budget, faaar from it.As a matter of fact, most police departments that deal with drugs and violent crime (low income areas) are in the hole big time.
You don't need a high powered lawyer for all cases, as a matter of fact, many 4th amendment, and constitutional, case laws arise from cases where there was a public defendant, defending someone with little to no money. There is a difference in arguing some far fetched constitutional issue and something as clear cut and highly published as this matter specifically.

By the way, Casey Anthony just got off for killing her daughter with a no-name pro bono lawyer.

I don't think you understand the core of the system as you keep mentioning something about trash. Trash, once thrown out, is not your property anymore as it is considered abandoned. Anybody can pick up your trash and do as they please with it as long as they don't break any laws while doing it like let's say trespass. All I do these days is write case briefs on constitutional cases.

Originally Posted by LAM

Fire Department doesn't need a warrant to do a home inspection, this has been an old trick by LE for a long time.

I did a quick search on both lexis and westlaw and did not manage to find any statutes or laws saying the FD has a right to do a unannounced inspection of one's home. Maybe i missed it, would be nice if you could show me where it says so. I will be one fact more knowledgeable.

If the fire department had the right to come in your house, that still doesn't mean that something they see can be used in court. FD would have to notify LE, which then would have to get a warrant. And a warrant isn't what alot of people think it is. Warrants differ, LE can get a warrant to search for one thing but find another and they can't use it in court because it is not what the warrant was for. If you want me to I can cite cases to back this up but with my endless research for my law classes (lack of time) I hope you take my word for it lol.

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

+10 yea why would the fire Dept need a warrant they're just testing out the stuff to see if it works at 3 in the morning who they give the info to is well you know

any why we all trust the FD

Look, nobody needs a warrant or a reason to do anything. The question is, is it legal. A police officer can pull you over without reason and search your car if he wants. Only problem is, if he finds a body in your trunk, there is no way it can be used as evidence.

People do get fucked over, sure, but patrolling streets scanning houses isn't exactly the same as screwing the occasional poor person.

Number one way to prevent getting screwed is to know your right. Know what an unconstitutional search is, know what your rights to privacy is (even though the constitution said nothing about privacy)

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 09:37 PM

here, this is a piece from Kyllo v. U.S. 533 U.S. 27

these are the facts of the case (what essentially happened to land the individual in court)
Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo's home in a triplex, agents used a thermal-imaging device to scan the triplex to determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that Kyllo's garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home and substantially warmer than the neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home, where the agents found marijuana growing. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed, upholding the thermal imaging on the ground that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home. Even if he had, ruled the court, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the thermal imager did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life, only amorphous hot spots on his home's exterior.

this is what the court ruled

Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant

**Gissurjon** · 10-19-2011, 09:43 PM

To explain a little. The trial court and the first appellate court both concluded his rights were not violated. The Held paragraph is what the supreme court thought about it and the supreme court said it did violate his rights and ultimately reversed the ruling of the lower courts.

I thought about pulling a LAM and post the whole case but who is really trying to read tens of pages written by a judge who doesn't like commas or periods.

**NJRiot** · 10-19-2011, 10:33 PM

another good read ... thanks prince

**Dark Geared God** · 10-20-2011, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Gissurjon

I like your little hypo situation. I'm not saying that it has never happened, but to think this is standard procedure is not realistic as it is unconstitutional and the PD and the court system do not have a endless budget, faaar from it.As a matter of fact, most police departments that deal with drugs and violent crime (low income areas) are in the hole big time.
You don't need a high powered lawyer for all cases, as a matter of fact, many 4th amendment, and constitutional, case laws arise from cases where there was a public defendant, defending someone with little to no money. There is a difference in arguing some far fetched constitutional issue and something as clear cut and highly published as this matter specifically.

By the way, Casey Anthony just got off for killing her daughter with a no-name pro bono lawyer.

I don't think you understand the core of the system as you keep mentioning something about trash. Trash, once thrown out, is not your property anymore as it is considered abandoned. Anybody can pick up your trash and do as they please with it as long as they don't break any laws while doing it like let's say trespass. All I do these days is write case briefs on constitutional cases.

I did a quick search on both lexis and westlaw and did not manage to find any statutes or laws saying the FD has a right to do a unannounced inspection of one's home. Maybe i missed it, would be nice if you could show me where it says so. I will be one fact more knowledgeable.

If the fire department had the right to come in your house, that still doesn't mean that something they see can be used in court. FD would have to notify LE, which then would have to get a warrant. And a warrant isn't what alot of people think it is. Warrants differ, LE can get a warrant to search for one thing but find another and they can't use it in court because it is not what the warrant was for. If you want me to I can cite cases to back this up but with my endless research for my law classes (lack of time) I hope you take my word for it lol.

Look, nobody needs a warrant or a reason to do anything. The question is, is it legal. A police officer can pull you over without reason and search your car if he wants. Only problem is, if he finds a body in your trunk, there is no way it can be used as evidence.

People do get fucked over, sure, but patrolling streets scanning houses isn't exactly the same as screwing the occasional poor person.

Number one way to prevent getting screwed is to know your right. Know what an unconstitutional search is, know what your rights to privacy is (even though the constitution said nothing about privacy)

Citing case law is meanless..If they want you they're going to get u..and tell thta to the guy that just got MM of 10 years for 8 plants no probono lawyer would take it they froze everything he owned and took it ..1 lawyer will take porb cases to get know thye don't care about FLIR or a guy with 12 or 8 plant they are the one who do real time..don't fool yourself and think your safe thatswant they want...yeah nbut what do i know do u know how many people go to jail every year for weed? easy internet layer i know all about the trash..but over time people get sloppy and think whatever they are doing they will never get caught thats my point

**Dark Geared God** · 10-20-2011, 05:15 PM

Oh i i'v seen the guy who said they will never talk to the cop and never anwer the question they are the 1st to tumble

**Gissurjon** · 10-20-2011, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Geared God

Citing case law is meanless..If they want you they're going to get u..and tell thta to the guy that just got MM of 10 years for 8 plants no probono lawyer would take it they froze everything he owned and took it ..1 lawyer will take porb cases to get know thye don't care about FLIR or a guy with 12 or 8 plant they are the one who do real time..don't fool yourself and think your safe thatswant they want...yeah nbut what do i know do u know how many people go to jail every year for weed? easy internet layer i know all about the trash..but over time people get sloppy and think whatever they are doing they will never get caught thats my point

What does the amount of people that go to jail for weed have to do with the constitutionality of FLIR? Are they all being caught with FLIR? I mean, what's your point by saying that. Show me cases where one has been locked up after the use of FLIR on his home, that would actually serve your point. Not just saying "hey allot of people go to jail for weed"

Internet lawyer? That's what I go to school for...

If you knew about the trash, why even bring it up when discussing illegal discovery of evidence, since going through the trash is defined completely different under the law?

If you didn't know, the U.S. legal system is based on case law.

**Gissurjon** · 10-20-2011, 09:36 PM

Citing case law is meaningless? What do you think lawyers do? You have been watching way to much Law and Order dude. The first thing a lawyer does when presented with a legal criminal issue is research case law..... then the lawyer will make an argument based the case law that was research. The fact that you made that statement lets me know you don't have the slightest clue how the actual criminal legal process is, you get your facts from the same source as most Americans, Hollywood.

Arguing with you about a process you have no idea about is about as productive as trying to teach my dead cat tricks, so bye bye.

**LAM** · 10-20-2011, 09:51 PM

I have no doubt that under the circumstances you are referring too a criminal case brought forth would be thrown out in a heartbeat. I was just throwing it out there that LE does use the FD in certain cases to gain access to certain places in lieu of obtaining a search warrant.

and yes case law is what the US justice system is all about it's how precedent is set.

Thread: Seeing through walls

Thread Tools

Display

Seeing through walls

Similar Threads

Blow through walls and get ripped with Dermacrine Liqua-Vade!

Posting Permissions