Automated DB searches and the 1st

[David Honig]

At 09:13 AM 7/2/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>                                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.
>
>
>I contend that to run an automated search on a face taken by a
>surveillance camera requires probable cause on each of the faces searched.
>That there might be a criminal in a crowd is not sufficient probable cause
>to run searches on all persons in the crowd. It violates their 'personal
>security'.

The counter to this perspective is that its been considered 'reasonable' to
look at someone's face (in the optical) for a long time.  It is not
considered 'reasonable'
(ergo, not constitutional in the US) to ask folks to remove their camoflage
and attire, so the IVth protects citizens.  Wear the groucho glasses as a
protest.

Whether active or passive observation using extra-optical radiation is a
'search'
is currently a hot topic.  (Passive, and typically civilian, observation
includes 
checking out folks' underwear using IR sensitive cameras; Pol/mil observation
includes active mm & xray irradiation and reception, and the recently
disallowed
passive IR observation of homes.)  Would face-surveillance cams that
snarfed IR
and got your facial blood vessel patterns be unreasonably searching?