4 ms·

Let us never forget this infamous explosives 'detector': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 Sold to law enforcement i

Let us never forget this infamous explosives 'detector': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 Sold to law enforcement in military around the world for a while.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
It actually makes sense for law enforcement even knowing the device does nothing because it can be used to give them probable cause to search somewhere they wouldn't otherwise legally be able to search. When the shit hits the fan the company that sold it takes the fall, which is part of what the police were paying for. Perhaps a similar logic is at work for the military, but one would think they'd be more concerned with actual efficacy of such a device so it seems more likely it was just collusion between purchasers and sellers to siphon tax money.
- leephillips 6y ago
  All they have to do is say “I smelled weed.”
- ballenf 6y ago
  I also think there's value in tools that allow our subconscious to override our conscious mind when it comes to making tricky decisions. (But never in support of probable cause.) I'm reminded of the chick sexing story from a while back. About how no one can tell you what to look for to separate male from female chicks. But you can still learn how to do it through trial and error. A device that basically tells your conscious mind to pause requires that you believe the device is working. Even better would be training people to deliberately allow their subconscious to make certain decisions.
  - kelvin0 6y ago
    I don't think the subconscious mind is able to 'make certain decisions', it operates on a whole different level than the conscious mind. But that's a discussion for another time.
    - ballenf 6y ago
      Here's the article: https://psmag.com/magazine/the-lucrative-art-of-chicken-sexing https://psmag.com/magazine/the-lucrative-art-of-chicken-sexi... Yeah, subconscious decision making is probably the wrong term. "Instinctual" decision making?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Just like those dogs that indicate the presence of drugs. Except of course when there aren't any. I've had my car searched a couple of times at the Canadian/American border because a dog gave a signal. Given the number of times I've crossed that border the false positive rate must be ridiculously high. Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext. I'm about as anti-drugs as you'll find and if those dogs are responding to my car then they'll respond to any car.
  - hangonhn 6y ago
    Oh wow! I've never even considered that. I wonder if the dogs pick up on subtle behavior cues from their handlers, which the handler may not even be aware of. The dog ends up giving a seemingly legit outlet for some unconscious bias.
    - kn0where 6y ago
      An officer can give the dog a subtle cue to alert. Happens all the time.
    - recursivecaveat 6y ago
      Reminds me of Clever Hans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
  - kitteh 6y ago
    US LEOs are big on traffic stops + delay tactics to buy time to have the drug dog arrive and sniff a car. Back when the show "Live PD" was on it was used heavily and officer calling a "hit" on the dog in some areas sometimes seemed like a stretch. Coworker of mine was a sheriff deputy in Indiana and he confirmed this was a common practice.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext. To find other "bycatch" - cash to confiscate, for example, or the gun that might be forgotten after the last hunting ride, or a pack of medicine without a prescription. In the end it's a game of probability - assume that out of 1000 cars 1% (10 cars) have something that's not an illegal drug, but still illegal. Now, police are usually banned from warrant-less searches of vehicles for a good reason, so assuming they would follow their own rules, they would possibly only search the one car of the dude with red eyes, and the other potential hits would be missed. Now, with a "trained dog", they have the legal authority to conduct a warrant-less search - which in turn enables more insidious stuff such as racial profiling the drivers, or simply do a rough check of all cars. "Drug dogs" are nothing more than an instrument of abuse.
kitteh 6y ago
Someone I knew involved in defense procurement explained the proliferation of such devices. Basically these small companies who make these things will hound politicians saying they've got a device that can save soldiers/police lives but your bureaucrats who handle supply chain sourcing and testing are slowing us down - please help us accelerate this and we can save lives. They'll usually bring up that this is a small company who is competing with the military industrial complex keeping them out of the game. This usually results in one or multiple politicians pressuring the applicable agency, to the point where they'll threaten to withhold funding to consider a trial or small purchase. Fast forward a year and these devices are deployed and thrown away due to the fact they obviously don't work. It's worse in the law enforcement circles where they actually believe the stuff until a court gets involved and things get thrown out and guidance is given to drop the crap.

Let us never forget this infamous explosives 'detector': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 Sold to law enforcement in military around the world for a while.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

It actually makes sense for law enforcement even knowing the device does nothing because it can be used to give them probable cause to search somewhere they wouldn't otherwise legally be able to search. When the shit hits the fan the company that sold it takes the fall, which is part of what the police were paying for. Perhaps a similar logic is at work for the military, but one would think they'd be more concerned with actual efficacy of such a device so it seems more likely it was just collusion between purchasers and sellers to siphon tax money.

leephillips 6y ago
All they have to do is say “I smelled weed.”
ballenf 6y ago
I also think there's value in tools that allow our subconscious to override our conscious mind when it comes to making tricky decisions. (But never in support of probable cause.) I'm reminded of the chick sexing story from a while back. About how no one can tell you what to look for to separate male from female chicks. But you can still learn how to do it through trial and error. A device that basically tells your conscious mind to pause requires that you believe the device is working. Even better would be training people to deliberately allow their subconscious to make certain decisions.
- kelvin0 6y ago
  I don't think the subconscious mind is able to 'make certain decisions', it operates on a whole different level than the conscious mind. But that's a discussion for another time.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    Here's the article: https://psmag.com/magazine/the-lucrative-art-of-chicken-sexing https://psmag.com/magazine/the-lucrative-art-of-chicken-sexi... Yeah, subconscious decision making is probably the wrong term. "Instinctual" decision making?
jacquesm 6y ago
Just like those dogs that indicate the presence of drugs. Except of course when there aren't any. I've had my car searched a couple of times at the Canadian/American border because a dog gave a signal. Given the number of times I've crossed that border the false positive rate must be ridiculously high. Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext. I'm about as anti-drugs as you'll find and if those dogs are responding to my car then they'll respond to any car.
- hangonhn 6y ago
  Oh wow! I've never even considered that. I wonder if the dogs pick up on subtle behavior cues from their handlers, which the handler may not even be aware of. The dog ends up giving a seemingly legit outlet for some unconscious bias.
  - kn0where 6y ago
    An officer can give the dog a subtle cue to alert. Happens all the time.
  - recursivecaveat 6y ago
    Reminds me of Clever Hans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
- kitteh 6y ago
  US LEOs are big on traffic stops + delay tactics to buy time to have the drug dog arrive and sniff a car. Back when the show "Live PD" was on it was used heavily and officer calling a "hit" on the dog in some areas sometimes seemed like a stretch. Coworker of mine was a sheriff deputy in Indiana and he confirmed this was a common practice.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > Since you don't have much in terms of rights when crossing a border I wondered why they even bother with the pretext. To find other "bycatch" - cash to confiscate, for example, or the gun that might be forgotten after the last hunting ride, or a pack of medicine without a prescription. In the end it's a game of probability - assume that out of 1000 cars 1% (10 cars) have something that's not an illegal drug, but still illegal. Now, police are usually banned from warrant-less searches of vehicles for a good reason, so assuming they would follow their own rules, they would possibly only search the one car of the dude with red eyes, and the other potential hits would be missed. Now, with a "trained dog", they have the legal authority to conduct a warrant-less search - which in turn enables more insidious stuff such as racial profiling the drivers, or simply do a rough check of all cars. "Drug dogs" are nothing more than an instrument of abuse.

kitteh 6y ago

Someone I knew involved in defense procurement explained the proliferation of such devices. Basically these small companies who make these things will hound politicians saying they've got a device that can save soldiers/police lives but your bureaucrats who handle supply chain sourcing and testing are slowing us down - please help us accelerate this and we can save lives. They'll usually bring up that this is a small company who is competing with the military industrial complex keeping them out of the game. This usually results in one or multiple politicians pressuring the applicable agency, to the point where they'll threaten to withhold funding to consider a trial or small purchase. Fast forward a year and these devices are deployed and thrown away due to the fact they obviously don't work. It's worse in the law enforcement circles where they actually believe the stuff until a court gets involved and things get thrown out and guidance is given to drop the crap.