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:Stupid Question

[MosesJones]

Even if they did it with telepaths or clarivoyants it would still be an invasion of privacy.

Err no it wouldn't, that would be just a waste of tax-payers money on a load of mumbo jumbo that doesn't work.

BIG difference between a technology that works (thermal imaging, wire taps, etc) against those that don't (astrology, divining, clairvoyants). Its like saying there is no difference between a massive super computer and a cardboard box with the word "computer" scribbled on it with wax crayon.

Someone needs to read the case files again

[BitZtream]

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.