Quote:
Originally posted by russotto
...
The courts have held that if the cops can see in your window from the street, what they see is admissable without a warrant. But if they have to use binoculars or a telescope to do so, it's not admissable. Use of IR imaging is no different than use of a telescope in that respect, IMO.
|
Russotto has gone right to the heart of the contraversy. What constitutes extraordinary equipment? IOW a human cannot receive radio signals. But a human can monitor his neighbor's portable phone using external equipment - radio receiver. The receiver, even with single sideband or designed to receive phase modulated or wideband signals, is not extraordinary. However, currently, a receiver capable of decrypting Qualcomm's CDMA digital phone transmissions is considered extraordinary.
Any device capable of receiving (and especially measuring) IR transmissions is not considered extraordinary. However what about a laser light that receives vibrations off of glass?
As usual, we elect congressman who were more concerned with a birthmark on Clinton's penis than on developing consistent privacy laws. Not only are they neglegent on copyright law, waste time attacking the IRS after Congress created the mess, and empower harassment telemarketeers. Now Congress must again force the courts to make law - to decide what is normal reception and what is extraordinary violations of privacy.
Ever wonder how much personal wealth Jesse Helms has collected as a lifetime 'public servant'? Or Dan 'scumbag' Burton of IN? Or Robert 'porkbarrel' Byrd of WV? Did you read of Lawless from Montgomery County attacking Penn State because students organized a Sex Faire - to disseminate information on sex- gasp!!! Where are these lifetime government employees when it comes to addressing the serious questions of law? We have the incumbant lawmakers we deserve - forcing the courts to make laws.