[NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
jim bell
jimbell at pacifier.com
Tue Aug 13 18:31:32 PDT 1996
At 09:27 AM 8/13/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote:
>
>Tim writes:
>
>> I don't see how "remote scanning" of the population at large, without
>> probable cause, is much different from the cops listening in from a
>> distance with parabolic antennas. Both cases involve detection of signals
>> emitted from the target. And yet such long-distance interception is not
>> allowed without a warrant.
>
>I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a
>judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager
>could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of
>being a (pot) grow house.
>Peter Trei
>trei at process.com
There was just such a decision in Washington state about a year ago, as I
recall. However, as I recall there has been a contradictory decision
elsewhere, so the law isn't clear.
It seems to me that the main problem with such "evidence" is not the search
itself, but the interpretation of the results: Having a hot house isn't a
crime, and indeed it was not practically detectable before IR viewers. And
an IR viewer only tells you the house is hot; it doesn't say why its hot.
Apparently, when the "justice system" gets a new toy, it subtly adjusts its
standards to use that toy, regardless of minor issues such as right and
wrong.
Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com
More information about the Testlist
mailing list