----- Original Message ----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Sampo A Syreeni <ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi> To: Multiple recipients of list <cypherpunks@openpgp.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:52 AM Subject: Re: police IR searches to Supremes
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Steve Furlong wrote:
Supreme Court to hear thermal peeking case By MICHAEL KIRKLAND
<<snip most of the article>>
I don't see how any rational mind could see this type of search as allowed under the US 4th Amendment. Too bad no jurist has asked my opinion.
Well, I think that as long as a conventional photograph is taken from a public place, it does not constitute a punishable breach of privacy. What's so very different about doing the same thing with IR?
Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
You probably don't understand how this IR technology works. And you almost certainly don't understand how American police are SUPPOSED to treat such evidence. This system merely allows one to measure the temperature of the outside surface a building without touching it. (modulo emissivity issues). Alone, that tells you practically nothing about the contents of the building. Now, American police are supposed to work on the standard of "probable cause." While, thank heaven, I'm not a lawyer, I have experience with the high level of dishonesty in various police-type organizations in America. "Probable cause" OUGHT to mean that the police have determined that, more likely than not, a crime is being committed as evidenced by a particular piece of evidence. But evidence of a warm house is just and only that: Evidence of a warm house. That warmth may be due to no more than a lack of insulation, a mis-set thermostat, an invalid who requires higher temperature to feel comfortable, etc. No, the problem is that the cops take what would constitute reasonable evidence of a warm house, and parlay it into supposed "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. Totally bogus concept. Extreme stretch. What the police are REALLY doing is "wowing" some marginally-intelligent judge with high-tech, diverting attention from the fact that the evidence doesn't actually support what it would need to support to obtain the warrant.