Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
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
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote:
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.
The decision you refer to was effectively overruled.
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
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
participants (2)
-
Black Unicorn -
jim bell