CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes
Sampo A Syreeni writes:
. . .
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
One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. IR equipment is capable of seeing far more from outside a house than just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.
At 08:50 PM 9/27/00 -0400, you wrote:
just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.
surveillance, regarless of the inevitable (sp?) conversation about the need/desire for it, is by nature invasive. so it seems that you'd mean "unacceptably invasive" (heh, interesting thought)... i agree. it's somewhat humorous and somewhat sad, but i find myself, frequently, angry with the idea of being restricted in the use of technology (like the FCC "don't broadcast" or whatever concept) just because it's protecting someone elses claim on the "airwaves" or whatever medium i'd be using, and then there's the heat idea... not really TOO much different in concept. not enough anyways. so there's the trick, does one fight for a middle ground? or take a Pole? like the idea of free speech... is everyone free? or do we start handing out restrictions? or EVERYONE'S FREE-if you have a license. ? cuz when you get to the SELECTIVITY thing, you might not like what you get...
Richard Fiero wrote:
One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. IR equipment is capable of seeing far more from outside a house than just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.
It's only illegal for the proles to have the cell phone reception-capable EM equipment. The Public's Intrepid Guardians can use it with no meaningful restrictions. And of course the pigs need to be able to check on the activities of the proles. All together now: It for the chiiiiiildren! Pigs and, even more so, prosecutors and judges who perform or allow this kind of invasion should be severely sanctioned. At the least, any case which might _possibly_ have been tainted by illicit data acquisition should be dismissed. Throwing the offenders into a cell block wearing nothing but a sign saying "Bad Cop" and holding a tube of K-Y might be appropriate for repeat offenders. Killing, as Tim suggested at least once, is probably not a good idea, at least for the run-of-the-mill violators. While in principle I might think it's a good idea, in practice if a cop does something he knows he'll be killed for, he has much reduced reasons not to go completely rogue. Ta, SRF -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Fiero wrote:
One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated.
That is one part of legislation I find completely unbelievable. I view it as a case of people having far too high expectations of privacy which shouldn't be kept up artificially. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Richard Fiero wrote:
One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. IR equipment is capable of seeing far more from outside a house than just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.
Certainly gives a new twist to TEMPEST. I suppose now if you wanted to tempest your home, you'd additionally have to install randomly "blinking" heat generators. Hmmm, something like a big grid of resistors where they get turned on and off at random. You might want the resistors to spell out "Mind your own business, pigs!" when viewed with a thermal device, but of course this kind of thing will only attract their attention. You could also use peltier coolers, but they generate heat on the other side. Another option would be to get big huge water circulators and call it art - there are a few restaurants here in NYC where they have water running over glass panes. It's a nice calming waterfall effect. :) -- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
sunder wrote:
Another option would be to get big huge water circulators and call it art - there are a few restaurants here in NYC where they have water running over glass panes. It's a nice calming waterfall effect. :)
That's a good idea. It should stop the laser-off-the-windows accoustic snooping, too. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, sunder wrote:
Another option would be to get big huge water circulators and call it art - there are a few restaurants here in NYC where they have water running over glass panes. It's a nice calming waterfall effect. :)
I think your walls would start to mold after a time. Best to get rid of laws that allow survelience by means that cannot be rationally avoided by the average citizen. This "peeking through walls" crap has to go. (Of course, the law and order crowd will find some horseman to trot out as to why they need that and more.) I wonder if the average citizen can buy this sort of equiptment? Would be interesting to start scanning the houses of LEA officials and see what kind of justification they use to try and stop you. alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Steven Furlong wrote:
sunder wrote:
Another option would be to get big huge water circulators and call it art - there are a few restaurants here in NYC where they have water running over glass panes. It's a nice calming waterfall effect. :)
That's a good idea. It should stop the laser-off-the-windows accoustic snooping, too.
-- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Alan Olsen wrote:
I think your walls would start to mold after a time. Best to get rid of laws that allow survelience by means that cannot be rationally avoided by the average citizen. This "peeking through walls" crap has to go. (Of course, the law and order crowd will find some horseman to trot out as to why they need that and more.)
No, we simply need to demand that probably cause be required prior to any police action against any party. As a parallel example, review the CNN homepage regarding the case about drug stops/searches. Seems a cop told the person 'you don't have any rights'... That cop deserves to get a better understanding of the 2nd. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Alan Olsen wrote:
I wonder if the average citizen can buy this sort of equiptment? Would be interesting to start scanning the houses of LEA officials and see what kind of justification they use to try and stop you.
I think one of the average-people-only laws would do it. For instance, call it stalking. I'm not quite sure how police officers on active duty could be found to 'stalk' anyone, even if found in possession of an IR camera. Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
participants (7)
-
Alan Olsen -
Jim Choate -
POF -
Richard Fiero -
Sampo A Syreeni -
Steven Furlong -
sunder