At 09:27 AM 8/13/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote:
Tim writes:
I don't see how "remote scanning" of the population at large, without probable cause, is much different from the cops listening in from a distance with parabolic antennas. Both cases involve detection of signals emitted from the target. And yet such long-distance interception is not allowed without a warrant.
I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of being a (pot) grow house. Peter Trei trei@process.com
There was just such a decision in Washington state about a year ago, as I recall. However, as I recall there has been a contradictory decision elsewhere, so the law isn't clear. It seems to me that the main problem with such "evidence" is not the search itself, but the interpretation of the results: Having a hot house isn't a crime, and indeed it was not practically detectable before IR viewers. And an IR viewer only tells you the house is hot; it doesn't say why its hot. Apparently, when the "justice system" gets a new toy, it subtly adjusts its standards to use that toy, regardless of minor issues such as right and wrong. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com