DailyTech - Company Announces Cameras that See Through Walls

Submit News

Hardware Company Announces Cameras that See Through Walls
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - January 12, 2007 8:35 AM

27 comment(s) - last by InsaneGain.. on Jan 25 at 5:30 PM

Camera uses ultra-wideband wi-fi signals to construct a 3D image

With airport security ever increasing, an Israeli company named Camero has developed a camera that is able to "see" through walls by using wireless signals in the ultra-wideband spectrum. According to reports however, the camera does not actually visually see anything, but instead constructs a 3D image representing what its radio waves see.

Called the Xaver800, the camera itself sends out ultra-wideband signals, which are reflected and bounced off of objects in a room or in other rooms -- however far the signals can reach and penetrate. Then, using the reflected signals, the Xaver800 constructs a 3D representation of the area.

The technology can potentially help police agencies and military organizations. Camero is only selling its Xaver800 to these types of customers anyway. Camero has also raised roughly $14-million USD for funding of its Xaver project, which brings its total funding to roughly $20 million USD. The technology isn't exclusive to just Camero however. Several universities within the U.S. are working on similar technologies.

Recently there has been a lot of research and development into "see-through" types of devices. DailyTech last reported on a new type of x-ray scanner being deployed at various airports throughout the U.S. and Europe that would allow security personnel to see through a passenger's clothing, possibly revealing a hidden weapon. Technologies such as these have drummed up a good deal of controversy over the past year.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Corrections

By darkfoon on 1/12/2007 12:43:04 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
With airport security ever increasing

Correction: With privacy and personal freedoms being invaded ever increasingly at airports.

quote:
a new type of x-ray scanner...that would allow security personnel to see through a passenger's clothing, possibly revealing a hidden weapon.

Correction: a new x-ray scanner that will definitely invade your privacy, and could catch somebody dumb enough to half-ass an attempt at something.

Why do I feel like I am the only person who care about my freedoms in this country? I see so many people my age who are just unconcerned with these kinds of things.
George Orwell was off by 30 years with 1984, he must have meant 2014

RE: Corrections

By heulenwolf on 1/12/2007 1:17:32 PM , Rating: 2

How about this scenario: the inspector sits in a room with no windows watching the imaging feed. They can't see any information about the identity of the person being scanned, just the ID number of the imaging system that is scanning them. The inspector radios the security staff on the scanning line when they see something out of the ordinary on the person in scanner #X and where on the body they see it. The security people on the line take care of it from there on out. The resulting imaging is stored with only an ID number until a later determination of whether there was an incident worth saving the image for or, possibly, could never be stored at all after initial inspection.

This way, the person "seeing through your clothes" has no way to determine who you are or even what you look like (unless they've seen you naked before;) because you're just a colorless, 3D blob on their screen. Much like how other private information is shared nowadays, the relevant private info is never correlated with your identity or information that could be used to determine your identity.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By Pythias on 1/14/2007 10:07:19 AM , Rating: 2

Thats an interesting idea, but that number is going to be connected to a face at some point.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By Polynikes on 1/12/2007 1:40:25 PM , Rating: 3

They'll figure it out... When it's too late.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By rushfan2006 on 1/12/2007 3:00:42 PM , Rating: 2

I do agree that the airport x-ray scanner thingie is a bit much.....even though the idea is that the only people that will see the image is a remote station at a central location, no one on site at the airport you are being scanned at will see it.

But there comes time when you have to also think where is the balance? Where do we side - privacy or safety?

So my generic question I always ask of people who just hard line on the "privacy and personal freedoms" stance is...What would your compromise be? What is your solution? If someone is gonna rant and rave against the big bad and evil government stepping on rights and freedoms --- at least have a solution to offer.

As for the camera thing in this article with the 3d imaging - I have no problem with that at all..in fact I see it being quite useful.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By right winger on 1/12/07, Rating: -1

RE: Corrections

By dolcraith on 1/12/2007 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 2

Orwell actually meant 1948, but it was changed to 1984.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By pauldovi on 1/12/2007 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2

Are you serious? Your personal freedoms and privacy are being invaded. I travel through the airport quite frequently, and I have never felt like my freedom or freedom has been in violation.

You do not have to ride the airplane if you feel you are being so violated. It is not your right to ride the airplane. It is a privileged. If you can't handle the security, you have plenty of other options open to you.

The Constitution does not protect you against voluntary search. And that is what it is, voluntary search. So, next time you go to the airport, exercise your right as a citizen to refuse to be searched and they will exercise their right to deny you a ride. Very simple.

This is excellect technology that should help save lives.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By themadmilkman on 1/13/2007 3:54:22 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
You do not have to ride the airplane if you feel you are being so violated. It is not your right to ride the airplane. It is a privileged. If you can't handle the security, you have plenty of other options open to you.

Sure, I have fewer rights when I want to travel on a commercial airliner, since they are a non-government entity. I do still have certain rights, though. Don't forget that.

Here's the problem, though. When I get searched, I'm not being searched by that non-government entity. I'm being searched by a government employee, acting on behalf of the government. As such, I have MORE rights available to me. Arguably, I have ALL of the rights enumerated in the constitution when I am being searched by a government employee.

Does this really change anything? No, probably not. But you need to remember what rights you have, before they try to strip those away as well.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By pauldovi on 1/15/2007 2:42:13 AM , Rating: 1

You are wrong sir. You are voluntarily submitting yourself to search by any airport official when you purchase that ticket and enter the airport. You can choose not to be searched, and they can choice not to allow you to fly. So, in fact, you have all the rights in the world. So do they.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 1/12/2007 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Correction: a new x-ray scanner that will definitely invade your privacy, and could catch somebody dumb enough to half-ass an attempt at something.

It's sort of like a nuclear weapon. It's more of a deterant than anything else.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By FrankM on 1/12/2007 5:00:04 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
George Orwell was off by 30 years with 1984, he must have meant 2014

Was he? Book-reprinting, constant surveillance, having people spy on others and report them, using shortages to keep poeple busy and distract attention, lies flowing constantly through the media, keeping people in fear and using wartime to maintain power, as in "War is Peace", was happening all over the Soviet Block. The book was a good guesstimate what was going on and where it could evolve. What the book wrote about was the reality here - but it seems some ignorant westerners keep forgetting this.

As for the other post referencing dates: the book was written in 1948, 1984 was its original title, it was not changed.

One more thing: it's using radio waves as far as I understand. Then what's that wi-fi referencing in the title? Completely inappropriate.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By dgingeri on 1/12/2007 5:57:36 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sure you'd just love having your loved ones blown up by a terrorist.

I'm sorry, but I've already lost one really good job to one terrorist attack, that happened right across the street from my company's HQ and caused $350 million in damages, forcing my company at the time to close their Denver office to pay for the repairs.

I don't want to lose those people who are important to me because some numbskull can't figure out that a little inconvenience of extra security will make us all safer. I don't want to lose them because some idiot doesn't think they'll strike here again.

The terrorists are not going to settle for anything less than our extermination, so our only choice to to seek theirs. this can only end one way, the extermination of either side, and that will take a very long time. I'm not talking about the extermination of Muslims, but of the terrorists, so don't try putting words in my mouth and saying I'm racist.

I'm definitely prejudiced against stupid people, though, I will admit that. I've had too much in my life taken away because of stupid people, and you certainly qualify with a post like this.

Just because you don't want anyone to know about your child porn or your meth lab, doesn't mean the rest of us want to suffer for it.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By cloh2083 on 1/13/2007 5:01:09 AM , Rating: 2

So much for freedom of speech and rational objective thinking.

One states his opinions and gets flamed for being an 'idiot'. What a great way to show you're so much more intelligent!

Sure I agree these are useful technologies - but one has to take them with a grain of salt and consider things from different perspectives! In the wrong hands, they can prove to be deadly dangerous too. How about some X-Ray vision in the hands of rapists, pedophiles, and wall scanners for terrorists who can see through the blueprint of any building in 3D? Great way to stop people blowing each other other! By posting flame remarks you are showing you are every bit an idiot as you believe the other to be.

The only thing I agree so far is for people to be rational and think about ways to compromise the pros and cons of each new tech - rather than one-handedly blame the other for presenting their points.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By Tilmitt on 1/13/2007 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 2

Terrorist's blow up stuff for a reason. The solution isn't abandoning the freedoms that make you better than the terrorist and then trying to kill them before they kill you. The solution is to look at WHY they blow stuff up. And being "evil" is a bullshit hysterical reason made up by people stupid enough to have to see everything as black and white.

Look at the foreign policy of the country you live in. Instead of assuming that your country is great by virtue of you being born in it, look at the reality of some of the effects the policies have on people in other parts of the world.

People like you who throw away freedom while not addressing the real reasons your lives are insecure sicken me.

If it was a simple as you and the terrorists going at each other, I'd be happy to see ye destroy each other. Unfortunately the rest of us are casulties in the war of two extremes. Our freedoms get taken by you, and because your immoral foreign policies are are associated with us all, our lives have a small chance of being taken by terrorists.

But even with that, I'd rather walk onto a plane with my freedom and dignity intact and run the risk of some guy blowing it up. Better one day as a lion that hundred as a sheep.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By isaacmacdonald on 1/13/2007 11:36:09 PM , Rating: 2

I agree with the spirit of your post, but have to point out that security deterrents do have a tangible effect. To put a finer point on this, even if we do nothing at all to ameliorate the ultimate causes of terrorism, high grade security will reduce localized terrorism.

In this case, more airport security = less airport terrorism. Of course a bi-product of this might very well be more street level terrorism, or wherever the next easiest place of attack might be. Short of a total police state, these sorts of proximal security measures will just re-route terrorism.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By InsaneGain on 1/25/2007 5:30:31 PM , Rating: 2

Well, your logic is naive and flawed. Islamic extremist groups can be simply categorized as a group with some sort of grievance, that in their opinion, is cause for violent action. Personally, I believe this grievance is simply that the existence of western culture, and it's emphasis on individual freedom, is a corrupting temptation to the Muslim youth, and must be destroyed. Anyway, you support the appeasement of groups who feel they have been wronged. What determines whether or not any given groups grievances are valid and should be addressed? The level of violence the group is willing and able to project? Being a globally engaged power, the United States will inevitably contravene the values of many different groups all over the world. It cannot simply allow it's foreign policies be coerced by any special interest group simply because they may not approve a certain policy. Allowing any group to successfully use violence to increase their power disproportionate to their numbers is a recipe for the collapse of civilization as we know it.

Parent

RE: Corrections

By angryhippy on 1/16/2007 3:42:35 PM , Rating: 2

The terrorists are not going to settle for anything less than our extermination, so our only choice to to seek theirs. this can only end one way, the extermination of either side, and that will take a very long time. I'm not talking about the extermination of Muslims, but of the terrorists, so don't try putting words in my mouth and saying I'm racist.

Sorry 911 affected your life so much, but saying terrorists will not stop until we are exterminated, is more than a little exagerated.

1. Most terrorism would probably stop if we simply stopped trying to impose our way of life on Muslim countries with military means. We could stop supporting Israel too. Isreal is not exactly a leader in human rights, we should cut off all support until they actually start treating Muslims like human beings with actual rights.

2. You're much more likely to be murdered by a fellow citizen, or killed by a drunk driver even if a 9/11 size event happens every year.
In 2005 there were 16,692 murders and manslaughters. http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Cri...

How exactly are terrorists going to exterminate us when so far they just increased out murder rate 20% for one year?
Now if a few of them manage to get nukes, then we'll be in some trouble.

3. After 9/11, passengers are probably more likely to fight back if someone hijacks their plane with pepper spray, or small knives, or whatever pidly little weapons they used.

4. Muslim terrorists don't seem to be very bright, a lot of the time they aren't even smart enough to use remote controls or timers for their bombs. Any bright high school kid could probably make a bomb with a timer, but not the terrorists. You could actually bomb multiple targets if you didn't kill yourself in the process. Plus there are a lot of easier ways to cause mass death than fly planes at buildings, and probably without getting caught too.

5. Anybody with half a brain can probably figure out a way to hide weapons from a system that only sees through skin. Now having an undercover armed guard on all planes would actually be somewhat more effective, if a bit more costly.

Parent

Good and bad

By Spivonious on 1/12/2007 9:15:25 AM , Rating: 2

This sounds like radar that can penetrate walls. I'd like to see some pics of the results. This would be fantastic for finding people hiding out in dangerous places.

I'm not too enthused about the x-ray device mentioned at the end of the article though. Seeing through clothes? That just screams indecent assault to me. Not to mention all of the x-rays passing through your body everytime you take a flight. That can't be good for you.

RE: Good and bad

By TomZ on 1/12/2007 9:24:44 AM , Rating: 2

A lot of discussion and debate already took place on the x-ray-through-clothes device:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5204

Parent

RE: Good and bad

By BladeVenom on 1/12/2007 10:43:28 AM , Rating: 2

If you want to see through clothes, just get the right camcorder.

Parent

you tease!

By Lazarus Dark on 1/12/2007 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 2

I saw the rss headline and thought... have all my twelve year old dreams come true after all this time, but, alas it is not the 'watch the hot neighbor girl in the shower' device I hoped it would be. But the second one is totally ripe for abuse. How will they keep pervs out of the airport security jobs?

RE: you tease!

By zsouthboy on 1/12/2007 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 2

Ya know, I used to worry about that too, but.. who cares if someone gets their jollies from doing this as their job?

Granted, we don't want someone who would do anything MORE, but... meh.

Parent

Save the Cat

By Koder on 1/12/2007 1:44:16 PM , Rating: 2

I think that this technology would greatly benefit ‘Search and Rescue’ teams. If the manufacturers are able to create the device in a small enough form factor as to make it portable, crew’s such as those who entered the World Trade Towers on 9/11 would be find and rescue victims with a lot more ease.

Think of your local fire department being able to determine if there is anyone left in the burning house. They would be able to evacuate everybody from the building a lot quicker.

Who knows, they just might be able to save the cat after all.

other uses

By scrapsma54 on 1/12/2007 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 2

exentually soldiers will be able to use this in a compact form. Swat would definitely put this to good use.
And just imagine, eventually game devs will be able to make scenes and then upload them into an editable mesh.

freedom???

By paydirt on 1/15/2007 8:45:20 AM , Rating: 2

freedom smeedom!

Wi-Fi? Hype-Fi?

By Araemo on 1/15/2007 1:22:17 PM , Rating: 2

Note: Not every wireless gadget or gizmo is Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ultrawideband, Wi-Max, or 3G.

This one seems like it probably is ultra-wideband...

But really, Wi-Fi is a trade name for a specific set of Ethernet-related protocols. This has nothing at all to do with Ethernet or networking. I would expect technology journalists to have some idea of that, and not to spread ignorance.