TIME.com: Nation -- Supreme Court: Relax. The Heat is Off
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,130076,00.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me try again after reading Time's Q&A and the responding attorney claiming that anything inside a home is protected but nothing outside it is. My question concerns the methodology of "illuminating" or "radiating" an object, say, within a home, in order to acquire signal that may be striking that object, say emissions from an electronic device but not escaping to the outside under there own momentum. Peter Wright in "Spycatcher" describes use of this technology to acquire signal from crypto machines, French as I recall. There was discussion of this here a while back, in connection with the contraption concealed by the Soviets behind the great seal in the US Embassy in Moscow. Wright analyzed that contraption for the US to understand how it worked. Wright is not altogether precise in describing the methodology nor that of other counterintelligence tools he and others invented, but some of them appear to be related to acoustic analysis. (Wright and his father worked for Marconi which specialized in producing classified comsec products for the UK military and secret services.) In any event, if a method is used to acquire signal *within* a home, would that acquisition be forbidden by the thermal decision? That is, if a signal is sent into a home to acquire an interior signal, is that a violation? This may seem to be similar to a bug planted just outside the face of an exterior wall of a home, or reading the vibrations of window glass, but I'm trying to imagine an alternative technology to these, perhaps one that remains classified. BTW, there has been speculation that NONSTOP and/or HIJACK are codewords for acoustic vulnerabilities of the sort I'm fumbling with. The reason I'm pursuing this is that I've been told we are not asking NSA the right questions to be answered under FOIA, that there is technology which has not been revealed in public and whose names are secret. But we haven't been able to determine what to ask besides stuff usually associated with TEMPEST.
if the signal is your own, and it would not exit the home by its own force, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy by a 9-0 vote of about any SCt since Taft died. Well, 7-2 anyway. However, if the signals are from outside, received in the home (isn't that what Wright was after?), the issue remains a bit unclear. I, you see, don't necessarily have the same reasonable expectation in *your* home. MacN On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, John Young wrote:
Let me try again after reading Time's Q&A and the responding attorney claiming that anything inside a home is protected but nothing outside it is.
My question concerns the methodology of "illuminating" or "radiating" an object, say, within a home, in order to acquire signal that may be striking that object, say emissions from an electronic device but not escaping to the outside under there own momentum.
Peter Wright in "Spycatcher" describes use of this technology to acquire signal from crypto machines, French as I recall. There was discussion of this here a while back, in connection with the contraption concealed by the Soviets behind the great seal in the US Embassy in Moscow. Wright analyzed that contraption for the US to understand how it worked.
Wright is not altogether precise in describing the methodology nor that of other counterintelligence tools he and others invented, but some of them appear to be related to acoustic analysis. (Wright and his father worked for Marconi which specialized in producing classified comsec products for the UK military and secret services.)
In any event, if a method is used to acquire signal *within* a home, would that acquisition be forbidden by the thermal decision? That is, if a signal is sent into a home to acquire an interior signal, is that a violation?
This may seem to be similar to a bug planted just outside the face of an exterior wall of a home, or reading the vibrations of window glass, but I'm trying to imagine an alternative technology to these, perhaps one that remains classified.
BTW, there has been speculation that NONSTOP and/or HIJACK are codewords for acoustic vulnerabilities of the sort I'm fumbling with.
The reason I'm pursuing this is that I've been told we are not asking NSA the right questions to be answered under FOIA, that there is technology which has not been revealed in public and whose names are secret. But we haven't been able to determine what to ask besides stuff usually associated with TEMPEST.
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, John Young wrote:
Let me try again after reading Time's Q&A and the responding attorney claiming that anything inside a home is protected but nothing outside it is.
Well, this is pretty much pure bullshit. The LE folks are hip to using ir imaging to figure out who is running a whole lotta lights inside at night to determine who is doing home cultivation. They use this technique as probable cause to request a (rubber stamped) search warrant. Not the other way around. This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
This note below by "cubic-dog" is nonsense. The Suprmee Court explicitly ruled this week that "this type of surveillance" is *not* permitted without a warrant because it is invasive. -Declan On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:05:12AM -0400, cubic-dog wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, John Young wrote:
Let me try again after reading Time's Q&A and the responding attorney claiming that anything inside a home is protected but nothing outside it is.
Well, this is pretty much pure bullshit.
The LE folks are hip to using ir imaging to figure out who is running a whole lotta lights inside at night to determine who is doing home cultivation.
They use this technique as probable cause to request a (rubber stamped) search warrant. Not the other way around.
This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
This note below by "cubic-dog" is nonsense.
The Suprmee Court explicitly ruled this week that "this type of surveillance" is *not* permitted without a warrant because it is invasive.
-Declan
Wow Declan, Shame on me for not checking my facts. I'm rather amazed. This is pretty contrary to the standard behavior of these folk, but the vote was close and the dissent strongly worded. Thanks for keeping me honest. That said, in reality, I don't expect this to make much difference. The cops have this technology, they will use this technology.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, cubic-dog wrote:
This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
How can any sort of search be 'non-invasive'? Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
eyes, ears, etcetera On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, cubic-dog wrote:
This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
How can any sort of search be 'non-invasive'?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
"...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;"
Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a distinction between a 'search' and 'the method of search'. Some methods may be more physically invasive than others, but the 4th doesn't talk to the process or act, only the intent. The intent to search is ALWAYS invasive. On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, cubic-dog wrote:
eyes, ears, etcetera
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, cubic-dog wrote:
This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
How can any sort of search be 'non-invasive'?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 05:02 PM 06/14/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, cubic-dog wrote [incorrectly--wcs]
This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
How can any sort of search be 'non-invasive'?
Looking in your car windows is non-invasive. Looking in your house windows with binoculars is non-invasive - you're shipping photons to the public outside world, and they're just picking them up the way they'd go through your garbage cans, which is also non-invasive. Shining bright spotlights in your windows at night to see through your curtains is probably invasive. Looking through your house walls with infrared goggles strikes me as really tacky but in some sense non-invasive. It's nice that the Supremes decided that seeing through walls without a warrant is not ok, because normal people can't see through walls, but it actually was a bit of a stretch. And technology has moved from night-vision goggles being used Russian military equipment at gun shows to $100 things you can buy at Fry's (which work outside but don't see through walls), but soon enough anybody will be able to see through walls if there's enough market. (Anybody can already do that just like police can now, but the hardware's expensive enough that most people don't bother. Steven Wright has a line about "I couldn't tell if they were cops or just people dressed up as cops, but that's really all that cops are anyway...")
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 05:02 PM 06/14/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, cubic-dog wrote [incorrectly--wcs]
This type of surveillence is allowed without warrent because it is non-invasive.
How can any sort of search be 'non-invasive'?
Looking in your car windows is non-invasive.
^^ ^^^^^^^^ Then why do you use the word 'in'... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Bill Stewart -
cubic-dog -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Mac Norton