Tom Ritter writes: | On 24 June 2015 at 22:26, <dan@geer.org> wrote: | > Paraphrasing Bonnie Raitt, let's give 'em something germane | > to argue about. In particular, what do I have wrong here: | > | > http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015/0617/Opinion-Th... | | I'm far from certain, but I think what you have wrong is the notion | that wavelength doesn't matter. I think the courts have decided it | does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc.#U.S._Supreme_Court | | Specifically, "most of the general public lacks the expertise to | intercept and decode payload data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network." | Therefore the notion that you can point whatever sort of 'camera' you | want at people to capture them isn't accurate. (The other relevant | case is that the police do need a warrant to point infrared cameras at | people's houses.) Well, now we are into dueling Supreme Court cases; see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html Kyllo v. United States (2001) Despite the Court's attempt to draw a line that is "not only firm but also bright," ante, at 12, the contours of its new rule are uncertain because its protection apparently dissipates as soon as the relevant technology is "in general public use," ante, at 6-7. Yet how much use is general public use is not even hinted at by the Court's opinion, which makes the somewhat doubtful assumption that the thermal imager used in this case does not satisfy that criterion. In any event, putting aside its lack of clarity, this criterion is somewhat perverse because it seems likely that the threat to privacy will grow, rather than recede, as the use of intrusive equipment becomes more readily available. That reads, to me, that what the public adopts limits what I can do or expect. http://geer.tinho.net/geer.rsa.28ii14.txt We Are All Intelligence Officers Now ... In short, we are becoming a society of informants. In short, I have nowhere to hide from you. --dan