Re: Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant?
Chaos Universe wrote: # Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? # If so then why is the frequency of the radiation an issue? What this list needs is another space-cadet to answer him. Yer one of them whacky left-handers, ain't cha? ---- The point at which you start peering into someone's castle without a warrant is considered by some to be "too-far", and deserving of constitution claims of protection. It's no longer a human peering in, it's a cyborg. A Thermal Imaging search of a home without a warrant is a technological attack on privacy. Whitfield Diffie, Distinguished Engineer---Security at Sun Microsystems: "An essential element of freedom is the right to privacy, a right that cannot be expected to stand against an unremitting technological attack." Therefore the issue of frequency is an issue. What's the frequency, Jimmy?
Diffie should stick to cryto, outside of that he's an idiot and doesn't know of what he speaks. Hell, all those socialists at Sun seem to be idiot savants. If it was only a thermal imaging device involved it might fly (like a bird can cross your property line with impunity). However, all the thermal image device does is frequency shift the radiation to a range that IS VISIBLE BY HUMAN EYES. It's still a human being looking at the image and making evaluations of it. Further, I'd like to see the definition of 'search' that is dependent upon the mechanism, there is no such definition. 'Search' is about intent, not method. 'Mechanism' is certainly NEVER mentioned in the 4th. Where did this extra stricture come from? Where is it's justification? "Why" and "How" are irrelevent in respect to a search. That one WANTS is sufficient. And, no. I'm no 'leftie'. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 George@Orwellian.Org wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
And what should you stick to?
If it was only a thermal imaging device involved it might fly (like a bird can cross your property line with impunity).
And what says that I can't shoot down a bird that flies over my property provided my property is large enough to prevent me shooting bullets through the neighbors' windows?
Does it? Yes. Does it allow the user to see through blinds? Yes. Does it allow the user to see through some kinds of walls? Yes. Wait, what was that first word there again? You know "blinds?" The word implies something. Reasonable expectation of privacy in your home. Seeing through said blinds violates this. Is inserting a listening device in your home illegal? Yes, if you're not the owner, yes, if you're not a LEO with a warrant. Is listening to the vibrations of a metal object inside said house using microwaves? Yes, ditto. Is bouncing a laser off a window? Yes. Indeed the technology used doesn't matter. The frequency doesn't matter. Violating the reasonable expectation of privacy does. i.e. if you can't hear it as you're passing by without additional help, if you can't see it as you're passing the house without additional help, reasonable privacy applies. Some may even argue that if you're outside someone's house and see something happening inside the house is okay, but videotaping it and broadcasting/selling it might not be. YMMV... - i.e. your neighbors are doing it infront of the window, and you videotape it. Selling it might violate some laws depending on your city/state. -- ----------------------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 ------------
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sunder wrote:
Well that depends on the sort of bird and where your property is.
Yeah, a clear invasion of privacy without probably cause to 'unlock' or remove those blinds.
Reasonable expectation of privacy in your home. Seeing through said blinds violates this.
The term 'reasonable expectation' does not appear in the Constitution and most certainly doesn't appear in the 4th. Read the 10th for a better description of what that means. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
Non endangered generic duck for example. Assume it's hunting season. Now assume it's a radio controlled flying bot with a camera. Can I shoot it down if it's flying over my land and I recognize it for the spook gear it really is?
Yeah, a clear invasion of privacy without probably cause to 'unlock' or remove those blinds.
Probable cause != warrant. Probable cause is needed to obtain one. Not the same thing. Search warrants do not allow cops to remove blinds from windows. They allow them the ability to search a specific location for specific items for which they have presented a judge probable cause that they'll find said items. It does not allow for open ended surveilance - i.e. a fishing expedition.
Newsflash, neither does the word 'privacy'. Hence it's not a constitutional issue, though it should be. It is however a 4th ammendment issue as it involves "searches" by government types. -- ----------------------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 ------------
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sunder wrote:
No, I'm not going to let you argue the general by picking a specific that fist your argument. You can't shoot at aircraft of any kind at any time, even model ones.
No, you can't shoot at aircraft of any kind at any time that aren't yours. Call the FAA on this one. If you're on your property and the air vehicle is something like higher than 500ft you can't shoot it then either it's no longer in 'private airspace' (look into the license free experimental aircraft for the flight ceiling, it's been years since I did anything like this.). I do experimental rocketry and one of the projects I wanted to work on was a 'rocket wars' where two rockets tracked each other. When I contacted the FAA they said they would not issue a waiver irrespective of insurance issues. A bird <> aircraft. I'm quiting here 'cause you only get sillier. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
George＠Orwellian.Org -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Sunder