Slashdot Mirror
Does Cheap Tech Undermine Legal Privacy Protections?
bfwebster writes "Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who focuses on legal issues regarding information technology (I own a copy of his book Computer Crime Law) raises an interesting issue about a 2001 Supreme Court decision (Kyllo v. United States) that prohibited police from using a thermal imaging device on a private home without a warrant. (The police were trying to detect excess heat coming from the roof of a garage, as an indication of lamps being used to grow marijuana inside.) The Court made its decision back in 2001 because thermal imaging devices were 'not in general use' and therefore represented a technology that required a warrant. However, Kerr points out that anyone can now buy such thermal imaging devices for $50 to $150 from Amazon, and that they're advertised as a means of detecting thermal leakage from your home. In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?"
Omar Little will use one to find the houses to steal from
The linked item is not an imager, it's a glorified thermometer. I wish you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked, they still started in the $3-4K range.
The imager police where using was just that - an imager. This is just a cheap infrared thermometer. It's like comparing a motion sensor to a video camera, or your finger to your eyes.
I literally laughed out loud when this post insinuated that a $150 thermometer was equivalent to a $5000+ vanadium oxide microbolometer.
Dumb.
I think the question should be, how invasive and how common the technology should determine whether it can be used. Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $20 or because everyone has one? If everyone has one, then no one should expect to have privacy from it. If not, they only a specialist would have them, and special equipment would require special permissions, AKA a warrant.
I don't know whether the ruling is still sound, but it seems to me the original ruling was stupid anyway. If you're using anything, readily available and commonly used or not, to get a glimpse of what is going on inside a place you don't have a legal right to enter, how is it different than actually entering?
Whale
Thermal cameras used by the cops still cost quite a bit. We had one in the Heat & Mass lab in college and you had to give up your drivers license and student ID to borrow it out, and you couldn't even leave the building.
The cheap devices on Amazon just look like non-contact temp sensors with some fancy electronics. If someone was trying to snoop around my house with one of the devices you linked to they'd probably be close enough to hit with a baseball bat.
This is the cheapest I could find however something like this is probably required to do what you're afraid of.
Still a valid question, but the 'cheap technology' isn't quite there yet.
the police will just buy that info.
Once again any way to deflate the value of privacy.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
not in general use
v.s.
commonly available
Just because you can buy it "cheap", does not mean a "clear majority" of people would know it is a possible spy attempt. ... (insert crime here)
i.e., you need to close your blinds so people can not see you
OTOH:
wiretapping is commonly known as a possibility, yet you still need a court order (ignoring patriot act-for sake of argument).
Also ignoring, that most people believe cell phones are secure.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
I fail to see how the price drop in thermal imaging devices gives any law enforcement body the right thermally image process a residence without a warrant.
Frankly, the "not in general use" quote, if it is indeed from SCOTUS, scares the hell out of me. It's disturbing that a rather highly regarded bench could be rather myopic with regard to the implementation of technology with regard to the 4th Amendment.
Then again, they allowed 'eminent domain' through, so anything's possible I guess. Yea, I went there..
Any interception of the electromagnet spectrum without a warrant should be illegal. Be it cellphone transmission, infra-red heat "leaking" from the garage or 2.4ghz radio "leaking" from my wireless ap or cordless phone.
I don't see how the availability of technology or tools lessens the legal safe-guards of my 4th amendment rights.
There are still similar restrictions on tools such as using binoculars to look into peoples windows. Even if thermal imaging becomes much more common place it is hard to see how it would not be any less restricted.
I thought that it was more about the expectation of privacy that people have inside their own homes and not just the ability to peer inside it.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The correct heading would've been: "Does Cheap Tech Ease Police Work?" And the answer is, yes it does. The court didn't declare marijuana-growing legal — it just said, that when the cops need to go out of their way to get information, they need a warrant. Once the devices, that were rare in 2000, become common place enough for each cruiser to have one, the information could be considered "in plain view" and no warrant is needed.
Even more generally, the cheap tech makes things hitherto impossible or very hard, possible or even easy. If, indeed, the our concerns were really for privacy (rather than for obstructing justice, when it goes after crimes we feel shouldn't be crimes), we should worry about anyone using these and similar devices to, for example, "see through" walls, curtains, or bushes. If you can use them to take a picture of a rabbit in the night, your neighbor — or some "reality show" — can film you rolling in hay...
Indeed, some time ago Animal Planet was presenting wonderful movies of African fauna. They were shot at night in such darkness, that the cats themselves couldn't see the cameras or each other. But the cameras saw them, and the picture was quite good... Roll forward a few years, and sponsorship by a heavy-weight like Mutual of Omaha will no longer be necessary to obtain such equipment...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?"
Anything reasonably available to you should be available to the police. Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item. Therefore, a warrant should be required because what they're looking for is not in plain sight. Think of telescoping lens and using infra-red to see through drapes to spy on people having sex. In this case, though the technology is readily available, the average person wouldn't do this. There is therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy that people aren't doing this for lawful purposes. Having sex in front of the bay windows of your house, during the day, without pulling the drapes back -- a passerby could see that, and therefore the police can bust you for indecent exposure.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Perhaps the government should mandate that the TSA has to catch a certain number of terrorists a month or face losing their jobs? You know, like how speeding tickets etc work? That would make them work harder than these machines will.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
In all honesty, I and many folks I know could rig up a cheap explosive using some crap around the house and some chemicals in my garage for less than $50 bucks. The components are far more prevalent than these thermal imaging devices. That doesn't mean I should start using these explosives for fishing or concrete removal. Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature. It doesn't matter whether or not it is cheap, widespread, or used in everyday life, it still needs to be handled responsibly to be safe.
Could a police force buy a thermal imager and use it with little configuration? Sure. Does that mean that it should be used without any proper checks for responsibility by another government branch? No. Gathering data on a citizenry, like blasting chunks of my driveway apart with a homemade pipe bomb, is inherently dangerous. Sure, they are dangerous for other reasons and have different consequences, but they are both dangerous. So, yes, the Supreme Court's ruling is still sound. There have to be checks for responsibility for the use of dangerous tech. If a government agency wants to use such tech, then another government agency should provide those checks...like a warrant. It really is that simple. Trying to convince irrational and power hungry folk of that, though, is another matter entirely.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Even if they did it with telepaths or clarivoyants it would still be an invasion of privacy.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Just because someone is naked does not make it pornography. In the case of scanners, it might be a violation of privacy, but that is quite different than kiddie porn.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
You thought wrong... If something is "in plain view", then police needs no warrant to follow-up. For an obvious example, if a cop hears a shot inside a house, he needs no warrant to start investigating. Further, if the window/curtains are open and he can see a crime, his observations can (and should!) be used in court.
Similarly, if we the humans were equipped to detect infra-red light, the police wouldn't have had no problem that's described in the write-up. Arguably, the humans are so equipped now — and that's, what the article is about...
For example, 100 years ago we didn't really have electric lights and thus could barely see at night — without street lights. So, to notice something in your yard at night back then, the cops needed a warrant (for they had to drag some serious lightning equipment). Today they'll see it in their cruiser's headlights driving by and it is thus "in plain view".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I had the impression people prosecuting minors sending among themselves just naked pics don't seem to think so...
One that hath name thou can not otter
If thermal imaging devices REALLY are that cheap, then there is a grand opening for people who want to do good.
The constitution only prevents cops (and their agents) from collecting the thermal imaging data. It's perfectly lawful for citizens to scan their world. If a neighbor happens to detect a heat pattern far outside the norm along with all sorts of unusual foot traffic, then they could share the information with the cops and do their neighborhood a good turn.
I've thought about toxic chemical sensing in the context of Kyllo. Does this mean that the government can't drive around the neighborhood using enhanced sensing technology to detect poisonous chemicals (think meth manufacturing)? I would sure hope not.
Agreeing with the other responder and you might find this interesting. Looks like those across the pond disagrees with you.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court was wrong, they are ignoring basic physics.
When a home emits energy in the infrared spectrum, how can it be illegal for the police (or anyone else) to have it impact upon them.
It isn't the police's fault that the homes energy hit them, it is the home owner's. You can't make it illegal for someone to observe that energy is hitting them.
Why should price or availability matter? All that is required to do a search is a baseball bat and some aggression, yet this type of search is outlawed without a warrant, in spite of its technical ease.
That's because when they do it to you without your consent, it's okay.
When you do it to yourself of your own free will, it's a crime.
In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
IMO, the matter of the court's ruling on that basis is irrelevant.
If I have a briefcase full of documents and leave it on the table in the coffeeshop while I use the bathroom, a police officer is not allowed to open it and look inside without a warrant. Certainly "opening a briefcase" is technology in common use. The Supreme Court's ruling may not be valid, but the 4th amendment still stands. While unavailability of technology may be an additional limitation on government authority, the availability of technology does not grant the government new authority which it does not have under The Constitution.
Of course, this hangs on my personal and deeply held belief that "unreasonable" must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended in the minds of the liberty-oriented thinkers who wrote it.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The Supreme Court of Canada took it in another direction in R. v. Tessling (Wikipedia summary). Basically the SCC asked whether there was a significant privacy interest in images that don't provide any precise information on what's happening inside the home. This speaks to both points. The first is that the SCC determined that those images are not particularly invasive. You can see heat patterns, but no specific activities. The second point here is the emphasis on the subject matter of the image, and not whether the technology to produce that image is widely available.
Thus with the SCC's stance, it seems that if there exists some technology that can look through the walls of a home and see precise activity, then that technology would at least require a warrant.
In any event, I don't know if Kyllo's decision was that weak in the first place as to hinge on the question of whether a technology is widely/cheaply available. A much more important aspect of Kyllo seems to be the emphasis put on the "sanctity of the home". If the Court hears a similar case in the future, I'm positive that the sanctity of the home question will play a huge role in the decision.
As the article even states, "The Supreme Court announced the following rule: “when . . . the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Because infrared temperature sensing was not in “general public use,” the thermal imaging was a “search” that required a warrant. "
Regardless of whether or not the price has gone down, if the item is still not in "general public use", then we are looking at the same situation. Price of a device should not matter at all about whether or not an item is in "general public use".
Whether they like it or not, whether the price has gone down or not, until the item is in general public use, they need a warrant.
The world is how you make it
An extension ladder up the side of the house to look into the attic windows is pretty low-tech.
It's not just the 'low-tech' issue. It's about police power, Fourth Amendment, and due process.
Pulling a visitor out of their car and interrrogating them about what is going on inside the house is pretty low-tech also. It's just intrusive. Non-intrusive tech is subject to reasonable limits, just like high-tech etc.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.
I'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties. But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen doesn't have access to. So it seems like maybe it was a bogus, or overly optimistic, ruling.
I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods. They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community. But banning their use outright is silly.
If the police are using something stronger than bi-focals to look at your house, they ought to have a warrant. That means they ought to have reasonable suspicion that a _specific_ crime is being committed.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
fuck haterz
Because the barriers to the government are far lower than someone of modest means.
I remember an episode of Weeds where the government finds a stolen cross by its signature (hanging parallel to the floor) in the garage of a home. While fictional, I don't think it is far from the truth. I do know that we've had satellites that can spot a single plant of MJ in a field of corn, though there is just too much data to go through (maybe with modern processing this has changed?)
But the "right to privacy" that we enjoy is something like widespread use. If every cellphone camera had a thermal imager on it, that would be "widespread". But as long as you have go out and buy these things for specific use, then they are not in widespread use. For instance I recently bought a HP3325 function generator. It was over $4000 new, but I got it for $200, many years later on a 2nd hand market. Still these devices are not in widespread use, because we have no need for them in everyday life. And we just don't have uses for thermal imagers. (I realize that I'm talking to /., so we'd be the most interested in them for fun and research, but I don't see the same level of interest across society at large) It would at best be compared to a power washer or welder. Sure, people can afford them, but few have them.
I even expect laws to be passed to protect our privacy from thermal imagers, since they are less-offensive that upskirt cellphone pics. Where the imager needs to stretch IR into the visible range, upskirt pics only need a particular angle of naturally visible matter.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Consider this: what if, instead of excess heat, marijuana growing operations frequently gave off yellow smoke as a byproduct. This smoke could be observed by the naked eye. Would the police have the authority to observe the smoke without a warrant, and deduce from that what they may?
I don't really see this as being much different. The only difference is that the byproduct is invisible to the naked eye. Thermal imaging violates their privacy no more than a simple visual scan of the property would.
we have this fancy thermal imager that can see through walls like they arn't there. It detects such subtle changes in temperature you can see the entire inside of the house with excellent clarity from a few hundred feet away. Mind you owning this device is illegal because of the potential for abuse we have exception because it is used for fire dept / search & rescue. But in the wrong hands its a scary device like cops cruising the neighbourhood mind you cops tend to break the law more than your average citizen especially when it comes to traffic violations ( one of our local cops constantly brags about taking 10 min to drive what should be 25 min at the speed limit just to go to the next town for a coffee)
I have no professional legal experience but do have experience in thermal imaging technology (used the Agema 210). The thermal imagers are a world apart from cheap touchless IR temperature probes. Imagers can detect absolute temperature at far greater detail and accuracy than an IR probe.
Good IR probes (like the Raytek cited above) have a spot ratio of 12:1 meaning at 12' away the temperature is an average reading over a 1' diameter circle. The sensors are not temperatures corrected, most assume 74-76F ambient temps. If you read from a reflective surface like aluminum siding or white paint you can kiss any accuracy goodbye.
Using a cheap IR probe to detect growing operations would be irresponsible and completely ineffectual.
One day Terahertz imagers will be cheap, what then?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
It's not being suggested that thermal scanners be "banned outright", merely that a warrant be required for their use and for evidence gathered with them to be submissible.
Results of thermal imaging on a home can be used as a reason to look more closely for evidence that will allow police/dea to get a search/arrest warrant.
The supreme court decision simply prevents a heat signature from being the only reason for a search warrant to be issued. A high electric bill and excessive heat is enough for a warrant from most judges =(.
get yer goshdarn medical grow card for fuqz sake!
That's the craziest interpretation of "in plain view" I think I've heard. Wiretapping equipment is cheap so it should it be available to the local police without a warrant because, in your estimation, we can "see" the electronic signals with equipment cheaply?
To take the argument to its absurdity, crowbars are cheap so the police should be able to bust into your house without a warrant?
Make pot legal. Then the police can stop wasting tax money enforcing unjust laws against victimless crimes, and we can tax the stuff to fund better security for our schools to ensure that the stuff stops falling into the hands of our children.
What if glasses that could see though any matter became common place, would that mean we should never have a reasonable expectation of privacy? No way. Any surveillance that requires more than human eyes and a visible light source should have a warrant IMO.
If temp detection becomes so common that people expect their neighbors to be doing it, then and only then would it be OK for the police to do it. That would require some kind of strange fad like CB became.
Similarly, it is not the price of high end audio espeionage equiptment that makes it illegal, but instead the fact that I would be shocked if I found out my neighbors were hooking them up to their wall and listening to me.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Ever heard the saying "privacy of your/my own home"? Of course we all have. Anything that allows law enforcement to monitor activity inside the home should require a warrant. Soon technology will be readily available that can detect and create a video image from simple body heat or even skin temp flucuations. Law Enforcement does not have the right to monitor how hot we are, or extrapolate our possible mood, remotely. Especially if we are at home.
If we start seeing this level of scanning by law enforcement then I am going into the home spectrum shielding sales and installation business
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Heck. They've been doing that for decades. When my mother was working for city government (late 50s/early 60s), she used to tells us stories she'd been told from cops who bragged about turning on the lights and siren to speed through town in order to get to the Steak-N-Shake in time to have lunch with their buddies.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The decision wasn't based on technology not being in general use.
The 2001 decision was based on the ideals behind the consitution, that what you did in your home was your business and that using technology to see inside the home wasn't something the founding fathers thought of when writing the consitution, but clearly went against the spirit of the law. The spirit being that what you do in your home that doesn't bother anyone is your business until it puts someone else in danger or becomes obvious to the outside observer.
At the time no one would have imagined that the outside observer could see through walls in a few hundred years.
The supreme court decided that just because some unpredicted technology was invented, doesn't mean that its allowed to be used.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Of course it still applies.
You said that the court decided that thermal images required a warrant. Why would that change with cheaper thermal imagers? Your question only makes sense if the court allowed it *without* a warrant.
Even if they could use a thermal imaging device, how would that solidify their accusations exactly?
Courts have ruled that if you throw something away in your garbage, that you have given up your expectation of privacy for anything in the trash can. Okay, I can see that, since after all, it's headed to the dump. It is not reasonable to expect that stuff to remain private.
However, it seems reasonable to not expect someone to peer through the walls of your house using a thermal imager. If that's okay, then is it also okay to sit outside your house with a laser microphone and listen to the conversations going on? If so, how do you square that with the fact they need a warrant to tap your phone line?
If cops want to bust these people, why not say there was a strong smell of weed growing. I don't think you have an expectation of privacy for that. If there weren't enough plants to generate a smell outside the house, then MYFB and go bust a real bad guy.
" In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?"
It's still sound as long as (my) marijuana is still illegal!
I will find it ridiculous if officers just drive around with thermal imaging devices trying to find marijuana growers and bust them. You are in essence invading privacy trying to get an idea of what's inside someone's house. What if x-ray vision devices come to market? Will cops be able to take a peek without a warrant? I'll laugh the day cops try to bust a house that's growing a bunch of non-illegal ferns.
In plain view means just that, in plain view. Even using your analogy of headlights on a police cruiser, you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.
The spirit of the law is that people have the right to do just about whatever they want in their house, behind closed doors/walls without being subject to a "casual inspection" by the police. Sure, it allows some people to do "bad things" without getting caught sometimes, but more importantly, it keeps the government from being able to micromanage your daily life.
Sure, because of "global terror" and a bunch of other scary words, people are more readily giving up their personal rights for "safety", but that doesn't automatically make it a good/smart thing.
Basically, if it isn't grossly obvious that you're doing something illegal, the Police should leave you the hell alone and go find someone who IS breaking the law in public. In my experience, that's not a very difficult thing to find...
Being cheap is not the only requirement — it should also be in routine use for other, routine, purposes. For example, infra-red equipment can be (indeed, is) used to better see at night. If the cops notice a surprisingly hot wall, the discovery could be (part of a) probable cause for a search warrant...
No, because action (of busting in) would required to do so — not merely observation. They obviously can't just walk-in, even if door were unlocked...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sadly, it does.
Apparently the crop growing people need one of these devices to help figure out how to best insulate their house and lower the cost of heat lamps needed for their "hydroponic tomatoes".
We should be helping these industrious entrepreneurs any way we can to help the environment, and lower their operating costs.
The cost of one of these devices would be paid for with energy savings alone, as there would be nearly no heat escaping.
Just my $.02
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm astounded by some of the comments here. Just because the technology to invade one's privacy is cheap and commonly available is no reason to expect we would give up our privacy. Suppose there existed the cheap technology to read the contents of a brief case at any time. A person's papers are clearly protected, and so is their home and other private spaces. There was an interesting case of counter espionage here: http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2008/12/the_cinderella_affidavit_vs_ba.html Cops were enticed into violating the law and now face perjury charges. I'm sure they'll be aquitted, because that is how our system works. At least the will stop their unlawful behavior for some time I'm betting.
Of course not. But what if the cops begin using night vision goggles to better see at night? That technology is in wide use by the military, which means, it may soon find civilian law-enforcement market — and legitimately so, for it will be quite helpful to the police at night. Walking or driving by a marijuana-growing lab, the cops can find the surprising heat to be in plain view — and there is nothing wrong with that, really...
Mmm, "grossly obvious" is too high a standard — that's what is needed to convict. "Probably" is what's specified by the Constitution as required to perform a search.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's the craziest interpretation of "in plain view" I think I've heard. Wiretapping equipment is cheap so it should it be available to the local police without a warrant because, in your estimation, we can "see" the electronic signals with equipment cheaply?
To take the argument to its absurdity, crowbars are cheap so the police should be able to bust into your house without a warrant?
Your arguments are absurd, the original argument wasn't.
A private citizen can legally stand on the street and point a thermal imaging device at your house. Furthermore, such devices are relatively easy to get and cheap.
Wiretapping is not legal for a private citizen to do.
Breaking into your house with a crowbar is not legal for a private citizen to do.
The short of it is that if it's legal and relatively easy for any average joe to do, then why should the cops have to jump through hoops to do the same thing?
Thermal imaging is a bit trickier. Frankly, I have no problem with the cops doing it, as any Joe could do the same. However, I have a problem with the law that makes them want to do it in the first place (marijuana should be legal, IMO).
GROWER PROTIP: Ordinary glass blocks infrared. Line the external walls with sheets of glass and voila, FLIR cameras see nothing. You still need to vent the heat out somewhere though, so I recommend running cold water pipes out into the ground somewhere. This is only if you're serious, of course.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
http://www.eyeclops.com/
I use one of these in my darkroom so I can see without effecting photographic film. Night-vision, at least, is certainly approaching "common use".
There needs to be a "bright line" on this - that line should be "Any use of sensing devices beyond that of an unaugmented human, constitutes an illegal search."
That would include remote thermal measuring devices, setting up cameras to watch a house, use of sound amplification, etc.
For that matter, I would prefer that a warrant be required even to post an officer to watch continuously - i.e. the bright line should be "no more than the equivalent of casual, unaugmented observation". So a police officer could drive by a location, but setting up surveillance would require a warrant. But I don't expect we're likely to see that sort of roll-back of surveillance powers.
this is so retarded. don't even imply that as an argument. oh no, someone in the neighborhood might be growing pot let's conduct sweeps aim cheap sensors at them. you can't use that reasoning in such a sweeping way. it's a god damn pandora's box you fascists.
anyhow, general use, does not equal cheap either. do you have a thermal image scanner? if you do... wtf?
are you trying to be like the predator or something? get a life nerd!
If the photos are supposed to be sexually arousing in nature, it is kiddie porn. A naked picture of a minor is not automatically porn though. There are plenty of "art" pictures of naked minors that are perfectly legal.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Hmm... couldn't you take that $100 thermometer and mount it on a stepper motor gimbal system. You could then scan a grid of points on the house and use a computer to produce a thermal map out of the results. Voila, DIY thermal imager for about $200.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Of course in reality this is a case where multiple concerns must be weighted against one another. In the real world there are competing effects.
Specifically you need to weigh safety against privacy. Obviously when safety fails you're dead. When privacy fails you're at worst shamed. So it is acceptable to break privacy restrictions to increase safety.
Welcome to the real world.
Of course, there's a much bigger question that gets raised by all this: If we've come to the point where the best way to enforce a law against growing pot is to run a heat sensor by everyone's house and see what comes up, maybe it's not worth the effort. Fourth Amendment issues are one of the major arguments for putting an end to the war on drugs.
I am officially gone from
Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $20 or because everyone has one? If everyone has one, then no one should expect to have privacy from it.
That's not what "expectation of privacy" in the legal sense means.
It does not mean "can you expect your privacy to be secure, even from folks who don't give two shits about your privacy." That's security, not privacy.
"Expectation of privacy" means could a person reasonably expect for their privacy to be respected in that situation. It has nothing to do with how easy it is to disrespect the privacy. If you're talking at a restaurant in a public place with people all around you, no reasonable person would expect their conversation to remain private. However if you are at home, then you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though all it takes is a simple drinking glass, literally ancient technology, pressed against your door to allow someone to overhear you.
Your have an expectation of privacy in your mail, even though most of the time the simple "technology" of holding the fucker up to a light is sufficient to read it. Nevertheless, to use that mail against you, they need a warrant to acquire it.
If not, they only a specialist would have them, and special equipment would require special permissions, AKA a warrant.
A police officer needs no special equipment to search me on the street. However they still require special permissions to do so.
The whole "technology" issue is a red herring. Cops don't get to violate my privacy even when it's easy to do without any technology at all. So why does technology change anything?
The enemies of Democracy are
"... if it's legal and relatively easy for any average joe to do, then why should the cops have to jump through hoops to do the same thing?"
That's a good way of phrasing it.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard because they are granted certain powers that the average joe doesn't have. They also have a long history of abusing their powers to squelch political dissent by singling out various individuals and organizations for "special" treatment. If the police have a reason to suspect that a person is running a drug operation out of their home, then they should have no problem getting a court to sign off on a thermal imaging of the property. Otherwise, it just gives the police another tool to target political dissidents.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard
Higher standard than what though? There's nothing illegal, immoral, or in any way wrong about somebody pointing a FLIR camera at your house. What "standard" do you propose to apply to prevent a policeman from doing something that is in no way wrong for any private citizen to do?
What you are suggesting strikes me as absurd. You're basically saying that it would be in some way a violation for a cop to point an FLIR camera at a house, but not a violation for a citizen to do the exact same action while the cop looks over his shoulder.
Now, I do grant you that there is a difference between pointing a camera at a single building because of "information received" vs. flying over neighborhoods in helicopters with a FLIR camera searching for heat sources indiscriminately. The former is fine by me, the latter is not, mainly because the latter is not about enforcing the law, it's about using anti-drug-laws to produce income sources for the police department themselves.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
In plain view means just that, in plain view. Even using your analogy of headlights on a police cruiser, you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.
But keep in mind, that's largely an artifact of how walls and roofs have always been designed to block visible light, without checking for whether they also block transmission of information contained in temperature and infrared waves. Had humans been capable of perceiving and processing this information just like visible light -- and kept the same privacy standards -- walls and roofs would have been designed to hinder this kind of information gathering.
And maybe in the future, they will be, and you'll be expected to take such measures if you want privacy. What happens when people start getting bionic eyes that can be switched at will to detection of different parts of the EM spectrum?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
From the ruling.
It does not say specifically that a devide that was in general public use would be allowed, but it did narrow this particular decision.
The court also drew a strict line at the barrier to the home. The three dissenters even said that in this case the product just measured the temperature of the exterior of the home, and that other factors such as melting snow in one area could be used to determine the same facts. The 6 member majority took the long view in calling it a search in the hopes of curtailing the use of future technology that would be able to "see inside" the home.
I would like to point out part of Stevens' dissent:
It should be obvious that legislators do not do this, and also that law enforcement will use every tool at their disposal whether it invades privacy or not. We wouldn't have court cases like this, like the one about listening in with a hyper-sensitive microphone on a conversation in a phone booth or like tracking cars with GPS without a warrant if that weren't the case.
What could be discerned from just checking the temperature of the outside of the house? For one, couldn't you tell when someone was taking a hot shower or bath by how hot the outside of the bathroom wall was? It seems like the frequency and duration of bathing in ones own home would be something that normally couldn't be discerned without entry into the home. The protections aren't there for the protection of criminals, but to protect the entire public's privacy. It's not just about whether the evidence can be used in a court case, but whether the police should be performing the surveillance at all.
For another thing, I hope that it took a whole lot more evidence than the thermal tapes to get the warrant to search the house. My dad had a beautiful garden and use to raise plants indoors also. I would hate to think that the police would come knocking down our door for that reason, or because we had a tanning bed or heat lamp.
I can buy audio receivers/amplifies and listen into my neighbors conversations from the street. Does that mean that, since I'm not looking *inside* their home, it's okay?
Here in the South West, we call that stalking.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Cameras are in common use. This doesn't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains. If they attempt to look inside the house, in any way, with any technology that ever comes up, without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up. Not disciplined, but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman's house.
Now, that's what makes sense and should happen. In reality, with the fucked up judges in this country, they might arbitrarily rule that the cops can put a camera in your ass, and rule it illegal to crap it out.
This sentence no verb.
no warrant
That's the craziest interpretation of "in plain view" I think I've heard. Wiretapping equipment is cheap so it should it be available to the local police without a warrant because, in your estimation, we can "see" the electronic signals with equipment cheaply?
It would be better if you had tried to tackle his example dealing with light, and try to show that either it is invalid as given, or it does not have direct correspondence to thermal equipment.
the court made a mistake. the need for a warrant should not come from the ubiquity of such equipment, but from the fact that it constitutes a search. they are using these devices to look INSIDE your home. everything the police do should be documented and open to review.
Police can pull you over using automobile technology that is in common use. Doesn't mean that they can pull everyone over for funsies.
Because using one to look into a yard is totally fine, sans warrant, sans probable cause, sans anything. Even if nothing in the yard is otherwise perceptible to anyone. Cut to cheech and chong "swimming."
The problem with 4th amendment jurisprudence is that all of the people bringing challenges, and thus defining the law, were totally guilty. Therefore, in every case before the court, it it is easy to conclude that what ever search happened was necessarily reasonable, because it produced solid evidence of crime. Kyllo was an aberration, probably because Scalia had had oral surgery that day.
We need more people to challenge, on constitutional grounds, the searches and seizures that produced no actual evidence.
Umm, no. I'm not saying that what happened is morally right, but I would say you're implying that the orchid growing was directly responsible for why he was arrested. It's not, nor was it due to 'grow lights' suspected for drugs (which is what this slashdot discussion implies). It was for paperwork requirements.
You can rephrase this to support a nearly opposite point of view: the pot growing is so evil, that it not only ......, but also endangers our Constitution. Depends on the cause, that you rhetoric is trying to help.
No. The one and only argument is (or ought to be), that the people don't want pot-growing to be illegal. This is not, however, the case. Until it is, police absolutely must use everything legally available to them to fight it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard
Higher standard than what though?
By higher standard I don't think he is referring to morals, but that a higher standard of accountability should come with more power.
Your arguments are absurd, the original argument wasn't.
Yes it was, but it was only absurd by following the logic of the OP. "In plain view" means "in plain view", not "in plain view with equipment strapped to my head". The second you move away from that there's no guarantee where it will end.
You're basically saying that it would be in some way a violation for a cop to point an FLIR camera at a house, but not a violation for a citizen to do the exact same action while the cop looks over his shoulder.
Requiring the cooperation of a citizen is one more check than there was before so I'd prefer that to nothing. The legal system can sort out the loopholes.
Now, I do grant you that there is a difference between pointing a camera at a single building because of "information received" vs. flying over neighborhoods in helicopters with a FLIR camera searching for heat sources indiscriminately. The former is fine by me, the latter is not, mainly because the latter is not about enforcing the law, it's about using anti-drug-laws to produce income sources for the police department themselves.
Fishing expeditions are supposed to forbidden by the constitution but you wouldn't know it these days.
so there is a line there somewhere only nobody knows where. I wonder how much destroying lives nonsense is done in the name of justice and kids protection.- I guess using brains could help but prosecuting people according to the latter of law is easier.
In plain view means just that, in plain view. Even using your analogy of headlights on a police cruiser, you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.
Helicopter. It may not necessarily see THROUGH your roof, but it still has a good Point of View. I have no problem with a helicopter though, so long as it still uses observation methods that more or less follow the same pattern of human sensory perception.
The spirit of the law is that people have the right to do just about whatever they want in their house, behind closed doors/walls without being subject to a "casual inspection" by the police.
It's not just your home. The entire idea centers around the 'expectation of privacy'. It appears that the expectation is diminishing NOT because of a sudden desire to share with the world, but because of zealous law enforcement. After all, who doesn't want to succeed at their job AND make it easier at the same time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Surreptitious_DNA_collecting That link is an example of how law enforcement gets creative with the assistance of scientific advance. Fifty years ago, the thought of someone identifying you uniquely by digging your coffee cup out of the trash at a crime scene and swabbing it would have been absurd. Now, it's just common practice.
Basically, if it isn't grossly obvious that you're doing something illegal, the Police should leave you the hell alone and go find someone who IS breaking the law in public. In my experience, that's not a very difficult thing to find...
Bad logic. Some of the most heinous crimes are those which are not readily visible. Pedophiles are basically invisible. Stupid drug dealers get caught, but smart ones and distributors farther up the food chain remain free people. I've seen these often enough to understand why law enforcement digs around. Doesn't mean I'm personally willing to trade privacy for a cleaner world, but the 'reasonable person' is.
My Google Profile
No. The one and only argument is (or ought to be), that the people don't want pot-growing to be illegal. This is not, however, the case.
Even if we buy that argument (which I don't: constitutional issues trump majority rule in the US), you still lose your argument:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may062009/mj_zogby_5-6-09.php
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34651/most_americans_support_legalizing_marijuana
I am officially gone from
Webcams, consumer cams and the like can detect near-IR, in the 700-800nm range. Thermal IR is in the 2500-10000nm range, and consumer cams are totally blind to it.
The only way a cheap webcam can see thermal IR is if the object they're looking at is just below red-hot.
is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
Hell yea!
The spice must flow!
Phone conversations are point-to-point, not a broadcast. Even Cell phones are at least encrypted.
IR emissions from your house is a broadcast of info. Just like your wireless router, if you don't want people getting into your broadcasts, lock it down. ie, insulation
So who gets to decide if they are arousing? Perverted prosecutors?
One that hath name thou can not otter
That is the $64,000 question, isn't it? Ultimately a judge will. As the quote goes "I can't define pornography, but I will know it when I see it."
"But this one goes to 11!"
"...though of course that will be pornography only to me; hence an example of me wanting to force the standards of my perverted mind into law" (what's missing from that quote IMHO)
One that hath name thou can not otter
You stated, that police inability to stop pot-growing using legal methods is, in itself, evidence, that pot-growing ought to become legal. This was and remains non-sense: police ought to keep trying to find legal methods to fight the crime until they prevail (or it stops being a crime).
But your idea — that law-enforcement's imperfections ought to mean, the things they fight aren't really crimes — is ridiculous on its own. For obvious examples, consider murder. Or rape. Or theft/burglary. All of these have been illegal for centuries and millenniums, but keep occurring — despite police fighting them and using un-Constitutional (and otherwise really bad) methods for that on occasion.
Do you propose, we just give up and legalize those things?
The link quotes 53% in favor vs. 43% opposing legalization. Well, if true, then what's the problem in Congress?... Are they too busy nationalizing health-care (despite far fewer people favoring that )? Whatever — if Americans want it legalized, it will happen eventually — but until then, police ought to treat it as a crime it is and keep looking for ways to fight it (legally).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.