Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches

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@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@pacifier.com

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote:

> 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@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.

The decision you refer to was effectively overruled.

> 
> 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@pacifier.com
> 

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li