Police 'threat' increases
Now the threat posed by the police has just increased. An article in the New Scientist examines"Long-range Taser-like high-voltage weapons that do not use wires, and can potentially"stun" (electrocute) entire crowds." The article states, in part,"The laser pulse must be very intense, but can be brief. So the makers of the weapons plan to use a UV laser to fire a 5-joule pulse lasting just 0.4 picoseconds - equating to a momentary power of more than 10 million megawatts. This intense pulse - which is said not to harm the eyes - ionises the air, producing long, thread-like filaments of glowing plasma that can be sustained by repeating the pulse every few milliseconds." A correspondent who is a physicist in an unrelated area wrote to me,"...said not to harm the eyes"?!!? I am no laser physicist, but I would venture to guess that anything that packs enough power density to IONIZE CLEAR AIR *will*, in fact, harm the eyes. Acutely. Further, 5 joules"every few milliseconds" translates to hundreds of watts of average power, more than enough to roast most biological materials even if *not* concentrated into a point at the end of a"thread-like filament". Now, if you wanted to adapt this into a dot-matrix-style"printer" to print custom suntans... :-)" Here's another advance in police tactics and technology."A police officer stops you on the street, then taps something into a device in the palm of his hand. The next minute, he knows who your relatives are, who lives in your house, who your neighbors are, the kind of car you drive or boat you own, whether you've been sued and various other tidbits about your life. Science fiction? Hardly. A growing number of police departments now have instant access via handheld wireless devices to vast commercial databases that contain details on just about anyone officers encounter on the beat." the article comments,"But placing a commercial database full of personal details at an officer's fingertips also raises troubling questions for electronic privacy activists." As a feminist, just the first question that comes to mind concerns the series of recent allegations and convictions against police officers who sexually assaulted women they'd pull over for traffic offenses. Now they're to have easy access to unprecedented information on those women? Yeah, that'll encourage victims to come forward.
For more commentary, please see McBlog.
comments powered by Disqus
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing