CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes

[POF]

At 08:50 PM 9/27/00 -0400, you wrote:
>just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly
>invasive, in my opinion.

surveillance, regarless of the inevitable (sp?) conversation about the
need/desire for it, is by nature invasive. so it seems that you'd mean
"unacceptably invasive" (heh, interesting thought)... i agree. it's
somewhat humorous and somewhat sad, but i find myself, frequently, angry
with the idea of being restricted in the use of technology (like the FCC
"don't broadcast" or whatever concept) just because it's protecting someone
elses claim on the "airwaves" or whatever medium i'd be using, and then
there's the heat idea... not really TOO much different in concept. not
enough anyways.  so there's the trick, does one fight for a middle ground?
or take a Pole? like the idea of free speech... is everyone free? or do we
start handing out restrictions? or EVERYONE'S FREE-if you have a license. ?
cuz when you get to the SELECTIVITY thing, you might not like what you get...