Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Austin tech company makes software to detect concealed guns
kvue ^ | June 16, 2021 | Bryce Newberry

Posted on 06/16/2021 8:55:52 AM PDT by bgill

A local company is working to make workplaces and schools safer as more people return to normal activities.

Athena Security, an Austin-based technology company, uses a heat source reference point (HSRP) blackbody device and a thermal camera to help detect a concealed weapon. The system can also detect body temperature, check for a face covering and ask health screening questions...

An Austin employment attorney said there are not legal concerns when it comes to companies using the technology.

"Texas law, in general, affords employers broad latitude to monitor employees’ actions in the workplace. The key is that they just have to be on notice of those," said Karen Vladeck, a partner at Wittliff Cutter, PLLC.

(Excerpt) Read more at kvue.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: bgill

What they need to do is make cell phone scramblers legal in-certain places. Work places need this now. It is ridiculous how any people are working distracted. You can’t police the phones everywhere. They are a constant distraction!


41 posted on 06/16/2021 10:41:50 AM PDT by 9422WMR (45 1. Lie, cheat, steal. It’s how the democRATS operate. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

the body scanners have been available in prisons since 2000, they are just tuning them for distances, and they stopped using them in airports due to operators sharing pics of hot honeys and faces. the movie “total recall” showed the uses of weapon scanners. its coming


42 posted on 06/16/2021 12:05:59 PM PDT by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

doesn’t have too, then it becomes probable cause.


43 posted on 06/16/2021 12:07:50 PM PDT by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

“That’s all been addressed in decades of case law.”

About all that settled case law, you might not have noticed, but DC is in the hands of a revolutionary socialist coup government. You need to stop thinking in terms of what is in “case law”, and what is simply technologically possible. Because THAT is what they will do.

It’s also not legal to lock you in your house for a year and forbid travel.


44 posted on 06/16/2021 12:51:46 PM PDT by DesertRhino (Dog is man's best friend, and moslems hate dogs. Add that up. ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24
" That’s simply not the law. You might wish it to be the case and might advocate for the change in the law, but it isn’t the settled law as of the moment nor of the past 200 years. See eg; United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984); The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government . . .” Walter v. United States, 477 U.S. 649, 662 (1980). See also: See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 932-35 (W.D. Tex. 1998); Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 2007 PA Super. 369, 939 A.2d 363, 368; People v. Phillips, 805 N.E.2d 667, 673-74 (Ill. App. 2004); United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 993 (7th Cir. 1998); State v. Horton, 962 So.2d 459, 463-464 (La. App. 2007). "

Like I said lawyers will be along any second citing court cases to the contrary and the reality is these cases prove very little if anything.

United States v. Jacobsen has virtually no bearing on this discussion at all and determined only that in this particular case the private party did not violate the fourth amendment. That has nothing to do with the issue we are talking about and the case simply isn't relevant and the decision does not apply.

The question is can a private entity perform the acts of and conduct itself with the authority of government and the answer to that question is absolutely not. A private entity cannot levy taxes, cannot arrest someone, cannot prosecute someone, cannot jail someone and the can't search anyone or anyone's property. Those are all the functions of government and government in the US must be ratified by the people and then must conduct itself in a Constitutional manner which makes random arbitrary searches illegal. The question that must be asked to determine if searches by private businesses are legal is simple. Is this entity government or not government. If the answer is not government then they cannot conduct themselves as such. This is where the line is drawn.

This can be seen by my extreme test where a private entity decides they are going to do strip searches for patrons who have paid to enter the venue. Anyone can see that would not fly. Then one would ask what about electronic searches? We have technology today that can see right through peoples clothes as used at airports on a limited basis. Could Home depot use this technology? Of course not. So where is the line? The answer is Home Depot can't do any searches because they are not part of our ratified government.

45 posted on 06/16/2021 1:33:21 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24
"That’s how it works. Read the cases I cited."

The cases you cited are not relevant all all.

46 posted on 06/16/2021 1:36:51 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

1. The initial claim put forth in the thread was that it was “UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

2. Various Statutes DO in fact authorize private individuals to arrest or detain individuals, and the shopkeeper’s privilege has long been recognized in common law and statutory law. I would like you to cite specific authority for your novel version of the “government/private” distinction that you seek to create.

3. There may be in fact various civil remedies for various breaches of privacy, but these have to be looked at on a State by State basis.


47 posted on 06/16/2021 1:59:58 PM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

They are very relevant. Look at the question that was asked.

I understand that you aren’t a lawyer, but you should be able to read.


48 posted on 06/16/2021 2:00:30 PM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24
" They are very relevant. Look at the question that was asked. I understand that you aren’t a lawyer, but you should be able to read. "

I'm not a lawyer, but being a lawyer does not mean you understand the law on any level. One can easily graduate law school today and totally suck at litigating. You forget half the time lawyers like yourself LOSE your arguments. I think you need to brush up on reading skills because if you cited those cases in support of actual litigation on invasive electronic searches you would end up looking like a fool.

49 posted on 06/16/2021 2:21:12 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24
And by the way. I'm not convinced you are a lawyer either. Are you?

Have you litigated any test cases?

What is your record litigating civil cases in the area?

50 posted on 06/16/2021 2:25:30 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

You are playing the game that lay people typically play when they can’t cite to any authority for their position other than what they wish the law would be.

I noticed that you completely dodged what I posted to you. (That’s not arguing by the way.)

So again, please cite a specific case in support of your novel position. Just one.

I’ll be waiting.


51 posted on 06/16/2021 2:31:30 PM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson