CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes

[Ken Brown]

Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Steve Furlong wrote:
> 
> >>  Supreme Court to hear thermal peeking case
> >>  By MICHAEL KIRKLAND
> >
> ><<snip most of the article>>
> >
> >I don't see how any rational mind could see this type of search as
> >allowed under the US 4th Amendment. Too bad no jurist has asked my
> >opinion.
> 
> Well, I think that as long as a conventional photograph is taken from a
> public place, it does not constitute a punishable breach of privacy. What's
> so very different about doing the same thing with IR?

Or hearing a scream from inside a building? Or *listening* for a scream
from inside a building?

Most people on this list will be angry at the police action because we
don't see any reason why growing hemp in your room should be a crime.
But the police in question do think it is a crime (or pretend to think
it is a crime because if they didn't they would lose their job). That's
got nothing to do with whether or not it is OK to look at someone's
house with a fancy camera.

If you, or the police, want to take photos of my house, go ahead. I
can't stop you. It's not invisible.  You can see it from the train
(though not from the street - which messes up parcel deliveries - some
of them  won't get out of their vans if they can't see the front
door...). It is painted yellow. Sometimes there are bright lights on.
Sometimes it gives off heat. What do I care? It isn't my heat any more -
I've just vented it into the atmosphere.  If I cared about it I guess
I'd get insulation. Or low-temperature lighting.

Talking of which there is a hydroponics shop about a mile from where I
live. I went in once. Usually gardening shops (like DIY shops) have a
mixture of older people & young couples starting out in  a new home. The
clientele here was strangely different...


Ken