Smells suspicious (sniffer dogs, security, privacy and the science of olfaction)

Guardian ^ | 3/31/08 | Amber Marks

[LibWhacker]

Dogs have long been used by police forces to detect drugs and explosives. But now animals and machines are being trained and developed to sniff out a person's potential for aggression, if they are feeling guilty - even their race.

I was walking into Fulham Broadway underground station a couple of years ago when I saw police officers holding dogs on leashes, encouraging them to sniff the crotches of passing commuters. What, I asked one of the policemen, was the purpose of this operation?

"I can't say," he replied.

[Global2010]

We have 3 Labs who rub up against King Vanity when he is in his sling/barrier free lift before he transfers to his wheelchair and then they rub all over that.

I was wondering how that would affect the canine who was on Detail with Homeland Security and had to sniff his WC down before we entered an event (it was Obama in Oregon huge security esp since we went through a back entrance with the press and all had to empty pockets/bags ect ect....and get sniffed.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> While many police dog handlers appear to hold a genuine belief in the “magic powers” of the dog

I’m one dog trainer who does. Dogs are a helluva lot more clever than we have ever given them credit for.

> (Russell Lee Ebersole was convicted of fraud for selling police officers in the US dogs said to be able to indicate which substances they were detecting by pointing their noses at letters of the alphabet),

I can believe that. Basic association is not beyond the powers of most dogs.

> others are even more sanguine. A senior police dog handler told me that the dog’s heightened olfactory sensitivity is not its only asset: “Admissions flow out of people indicated like a gush of air - they’re so relieved not to have anything on them.”

Man’s best friend strikes again! Try getting a cat to do anything useful — you will die of old age waiting...

[R. Scott]

...police officers holding dogs on leashes, encouraging them to sniff the crotches of passing commuters.
Several police dog handlers attribute their dogs' knack for identifying criminals to an ability to detect the scent of fear emitted by the guilty ...

A dog bringing his snout close to my crotch would make me a bit nervous - maybe nervous enough to appear guilty. What about people who are just afraid of dogs?
I don't have 100% faith in the dogs. I've watched several alert to cookies and leftover fried chicken - guess maybe the handlers were in such a hurry to get working they neglected to feed them first.

[meyer]

A dog sniffing my crotch won’t be smelling fear - instead, he’ll need smelling salts to be revived after I whack him upside the head. Invasive boostards.

[metesky]

I’m witchoo.

[rmh47]

A dog's remarkable sense of smell is not infallible, nor is the dog's handler.

When police use a dog to sniff for drugs in a person's vehicle in order to obtain probable cause for a search of that vehicle, have you ever noticed that the dog very often "alerts" out of sight of the police car's dash camera? Also, any capable handler can get his dog to alert if he, the handler, wants him to.

I remain deeply suspicious of the use of dogs by police for these types of blanket searches.

Also, how do you "cross examine" a dog in court?

[Neidermeyer]

Also, how do you “cross examine” a dog in court?
*****************************************************
If I were a judge I’d allow that and if “officer Dogbert” is unable to enunciate a response I would dismiss/disallow any evidence turned up on the basis of that alert..

[Neidermeyer]

Also, any capable handler can get his dog to alert if he, the handler, wants him to.
*********************************************************
Absolutely ... we had a city fair this weekend ,, one of the “shows” was a display of the police canine unit ,, 4 officers , 2 old timers , 2 newbies .. they did their various tricks and the dogs alerted just as the officers explained they would,, I don’t know if it was an unseen command or if the officer rubbed a little catnip here and there to simulate marijuana ,, either way that’s enough to raise doubts about the possible validity of any alert being false or invented by the handler.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Try getting a cat to do anything useful — you will die of old age waiting...

They amuse children, and I've heard they occasionally catch mice!

[grey_whiskers]

East Germany *PING*.

[freedomfiter2]

I remain deeply suspicious of the use of dogs by police for these types of blanket searches.

I agree. No matter how well trained a dog is it should not be used for probable cause searches.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I’ve trained dogs all my life, Guide dogs, hunters, police and war dogs.

A good trainer with the right dog can accomplish almost anything.

But I can get a dog to alert on any person, just because I twitch my eyebrows.

If I was a cop with a mission, I could then get probable cause on anyone, just by secretly signaling my dog to alert.

In a totalitarian PC state like England, that could spell real trouble for the subjects.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

This will be called racist.

[Rick.Donaldson]

So we are all thinking it’s “cool” to be able to have a dog sniff out “aggression” or “guilt” then?

/sigh

[DieHard the Hunter]

> So we are all thinking it’s “cool” to be able to have a dog sniff out “aggression” or “guilt” then?

“Cool” probably isn’t the right word: it trivializes.

I think a well-trained dog is a good, useful tool that LE can and should use wherever it makes sense to do so. I would prefer to trust a well-trained intelligent dog than an untrained human, every time. Their senses of smell and hearing are much better than ours, and their instincts are much sharper.

We have absolutely no compunction about inventing electronic gizmos and obscure technologies, and putting blind faith in them. I can see no reason why we shouldn’t use dogs in a similar manner.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I do.

they are DOGS.

Human beings can all be mistrusted, including LE personnel. I prefer to have human beings making their own, mistrusted, and sometimes incorrect witness reports than trusting even the most well-training animal to “fingering” a suspect (or in this case, sniffing one).

No “WE” don’t put “blind faith” into “technology”. I just happen to actually WORK on one of those types of “gizmos” and “obscure” technological devices which are right more than any dog will ever be.

I’m not trivializing the “cool” part either, believe me, I work with people who think that technology is cool and use it because they think this... when in fact, they don’t have a clue how it functions, nor what to do with the data it gives them.

Further more a dog - trained or not costs money to “operate” and has to be trained, and retrained constantly to properly “tweak” behavior.

I do NOT think that a dog trained to “detect guilt” whether it is 100% accurate or NOT is right.

Not in this country.

We are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, NOT by an animal.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> I just happen to actually WORK on one of those types of “gizmos” and “obscure” technological devices which are right more than any dog will ever be.

If it came down to a dispute between an electronic gizmo’s readings and my German Shepherd’s instincts, I’d go with the dog every time.

> Human beings can all be mistrusted, including LE personnel. I prefer to have human beings making their own, mistrusted, and sometimes incorrect witness reports than trusting even the most well-training animal to “fingering” a suspect (or in this case, sniffing one).

Why? By your own admission humans can be mistrusted. I’d go one further and say most human beings SHOULD be mistrusted. They are often either mistaken or lying: incredibly unreliable witnesses. So why would you prefer them over a well-trained dog? That makes no sense.

> Further more a dog - trained or not costs money to “operate” and has to be trained, and retrained constantly to properly “tweak” behavior.

Crikey! — and your “gizmos” run on air, and cost nothing to run? No hardware maintenance, no software upgrades, no training, no batteries, no re-calibration, no support helpdesk...? Shyeah right!

That’s just not credible.

> I do NOT think that a dog trained to “detect guilt” whether it is 100% accurate or NOT is right.
>
> Not in this country.
>
> We are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, NOT by an animal.

Humans are animals — incredibly unreliable and inaccurate animals. Given the choice between being “proven” guilty by an unreliable human or a well-trained dog, I’d go with the dog. Every time.

[Rick.Donaldson]

If it came down to a dispute between an electronic gizmo’s readings and my German Shepherd’s instincts, I’d go with the dog every time.

Dogs might recognize someone by smell, but they might have to go out for a walk too. A hand geometry reader, or a retinal scanner don't take lunch breaks, can identify the normal users on a daily basis without continual recalibration every day. Dogs have to eat, sleep, take a crap and want to go play.

Why? By your own admission humans can be mistrusted. I’d go one further and say most human beings SHOULD be mistrusted. They are often either mistaken or lying: incredibly unreliable witnesses. So why would you prefer them over a well-trained dog? That makes no sense.

And so can dog OWNERS, dogs themselves and any society that brings in animals to do the dirty work of a human (in this case, identity people for instance) is prone to using ANY tool, regardless of whether it is an animal or a computer for misdeeds. And this is supposed to make using dogs "better" somehow to identify if someone is "guilty"?????

You're missing the point here.

Crikey! — and your “gizmos” run on air, and cost nothing to run? No hardware maintenance, no software upgrades, no training, no batteries, no re-calibration, no support helpdesk...? Shyeah right!

I never said, nor implied any such thing. However systems we use for security do not require "recalibration". They do use electricity. I'd prefer to swipe a badge reader, enter a PIN and talk to a computer than to have a dog sniff my crotch. Sorry, that's just me. Fortunately for YOU, were you to visit me, you'd not be subjected to such a ridiculous and debasing event as having your crotch sniffed.

Humans are animals — incredibly unreliable and inaccurate animals. Given the choice between being “proven” guilty by an unreliable human or a well-trained dog, I’d go with the dog. Every time.

Herein lies the problem with your concept.

Human beings are, by defintion mamals, thus animals. However, we think, we reason, and we can logically determine right from wrong, as well as good from bad. A dog is nothing more than a dog, and a dog with a human handler therefore is no better than any other human being without one. You're attempting to put some sort of higher ability onto an animal that has been trained by "flawed humans", therefore, the dog is still a dog. You may CHOSE to go with the dog, every time. Me? I chose people, and if you were one of those who tried to force me to chose a dog... I'd have to shoot the dog, and you as well. Simple.

[R. Scott]

Around here that’s considered assaulting a police officer.