Chaos Universe wrote: # 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. It used to be one had to go into a house to search it. That takes a search warrant. Now, technology means you can view things from outside the home that you previously needed a warrant for. Thus, this too should need a warrant. What is the relationship between 'search' and mechanism? Reread the "Then the Supreme Court ruled" part of my previous post. ---- # # And, no. I'm no 'leftie'. Hard to believe, considering your main concern was frequencies and not privacy. You even admit the information is NOT visible by human eyes without the hardware. As far as I'm concerned you've outed yourself as an alien species, just visiting this planet. NANU-NANU.