This is more-or-less complete rubbish. Does a "porn" image file have a different odor than a non-porn image file? Only a credulous loon would believe a headline like that.
I'm not even sure that "the devices that carry it" actually makes sense either, even though the article says: "Because the chemical URL can smell is distinct for storage devices, he isn't confused by remote controls or garage door openers." I'm going to have to call BS on this - the article lumps DVDs, USB storage, and memory cards as "storage devices".
Yeah, this article is bunk. It's a pure police PR plant. If this kind of information is just floating around, part of common knowledge, then police can use "porn dogs" to find "evidence" at will.
The idea is to find any storage devices you hid when they serve a warrant, not to do spot checks for porn. It doesn't matter if the dog finds your car keys or the TV remote you lost in the couch, if it eventually finds your stash of illegal music or that video tape you forgot to take back to Blockbuster that they're trying to bust you for.
Really, you don't need to apologize for the Utah police being dumb enough to repeat that "special scent only storage devices give off" rubbish. It's OK, the US Supreme Court almost always says we citizens have to give police a pass based on their verified Good Intentions.
But it's still stupid to believe that yourself. "Storage devices" (except maybe DVDs or CD ROMs) are made of the same components with the same processes as Tee vee remotes, cell phones, laptops, you name it. They're not going to smell special, even to a dog, and they're really not going to smell special if there's porn on them. Bits are bits, dude.
Either URL is a fake (likely) or he just alerts on subconscious clues from the policeman (highly likely). He's going to be like those drug-sniffing dogs that mainly detect cheese and sausage: the police will end up finding and returning a lot of lost remotes, and using fishy evidence in court, contributing to disrespect of law enforcement, and the US legal system in general.
I'm not even sure that "the devices that carry it" actually makes sense either, even though the article says: "Because the chemical URL can smell is distinct for storage devices, he isn't confused by remote controls or garage door openers." I'm going to have to call BS on this - the article lumps DVDs, USB storage, and memory cards as "storage devices".
Yeah, this article is bunk. It's a pure police PR plant. If this kind of information is just floating around, part of common knowledge, then police can use "porn dogs" to find "evidence" at will.