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?"

Comments

Re:Binoculars are still restricted

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right dude... I'll take it off.

Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.

[InlawBiker]

I bet she was growing weed under her clothes. You should have arrested her ass.

Re:Price and Prevalence Shouldn't Effect Legality

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I'm an engineer, redundancy is part of my job. =P

Re:Not the same.

[FrankieBaby1986]

Did you see the customer review?

Under Amazon's recommendation of this item as a great gift idea, I bought one for my new golden lab. He wasn't very thrilled with it. After gnawing on it a little (no too much damage), it just sat in the corner of his doghouse collecting shedded hair and drool.