[iamben]

Yes! I saw a presentation a couple of years back from police dog trainers. Different dogs would specialise in different things - drugs, guns, and amazingly - hard disks! They train them specifically to do so. What blew my mind was the reward was always just a tennis ball. But the dog was soooo happy to get the ball for a short amount of play when it did well.

[smt88]

Drug-sniffing dogs are a myth[1]. They're used as a pretext for illegal searches, not to detect drugs.

I suspect this is similar. "Detecting off-gassing" is vague enough to sound like it makes sense, but there's a variety of materials in electronic devices and many of the ones that off-gas (like plastic) are found in millions of other products.

1. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-03/fact-check-are-drug-d...

[IggleSniggle]

Your citation pretty clearly demonstrates that drug-sniffing dogs DO work. And anybody who has ever had a dog sniff something out would find this to be an obvious fact.

The omitted figure is how large the sample size is. If the dog sniffs 100,000, and identifies 10 as having drug odor, but only 2 of the 10 are currently in the possession of drugs, that doesn't really indicate that the dog "has a failure rate of 75%" because it doesn't take into account any of the "negative identifications." We don't know how many of those other identifications were false negatives, but certainly I wouldn't expect 25% of the population to be carrying illicit drugs at any given time, and especially not in scenarios where there may be a checkpoint with a dog involved.

The dogs may be misused, but that doesn't make their ability a myth, and neither does this article claim that a dog can't sniff out the trace scents of a drug. It carefully skirts around this assertion, because dogs absolutely can sniff out drugs. They're just not infallible, and may also be used as pretext.

[15155]

Drug dogs detect the high vapor pressure of the drugs themselves.

What exactly exists in an SD card that doesn't exist in basically every other silicon-based consumer electronic product?

[cwillu]

It's not that the off-gassing silicon is storage, it's that it's hidden.

[Mordisquitos]

But in the case of drugs there would be a clear motivation fuelling the alleged myth: to perform illegal searches based on the fake prior of "illegal drugs" having been sniffed by the dogs. That does not work for electronics.

Carrying or distributing certain drugs is illegal, and thus a sniffer dog ostensibly detecting them can be grounds for reasonable suspicion and a search. Being suspected of carrying electronics, on the other hand, is not grounds for a search. That is, of course, unless these dogs are claimed to be trained to sniff out only electronics storing child pornography... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[VHRanger]

Having trained a dozen dogs in scent detection: Drug dogs are not a myth.

Dogs really dog learn to detect scents.

They're used unethically by handlers in police work however, yes.

[orjandus]

Well, there's a chance that people had used drugs or smoked before, and the smell might still be present. The article acknowledges this, so it's not entirely a myth. While dogs can make mistakes, it's not definitively incorrect.

[t-3]

That's not how the dogs are used. They are told to signal, it's not a mistake. It's a tool of intimidation and a performative gesture towards probable cause. Officers without dogs will just claim "smells like weed" or "your eyes are bloodshot" or a million other things.

When actually searching for drugs, they prefer to destroy the vehicle outright, kick in any box speakers, tear off door panels and fabric, cut open seats, pull out spare tires, etc. They never ever use a dog to find the location of drugs in the car, only for the excuse that drugs might be in the car.

[multjoy]

Someone’s never done a proper search and is just parroting what they’ve read on the internet.

[t-3]

Of course I've never done a search, I'm not a cop... I've been searched many times though, and what I described, I've seen and experienced. Maybe you've done too many trainings and don't know what happens in real life?

[chrisandchris]

Your article does not fully support the claim.

> Whether or not the dogs were "incorrect" was a definitional question for Dr Malins.

The dog was accurate, however the dogs definition of accurate (there is some minimal smell) vs. the enforment officers (i need some smell so i have a ground for search) vs. the people (i walked through a cloud of smell) might be very different, which makes the measure "accurate" - well - very inaccurate.

[_a_a_a_]

> Drug-sniffing dogs are a myth

your link does not support that.

[tokai]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=Dru...