Quote:
Originally posted by tw
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.
|
This isn't about portable phones, or any other item which deliberately broadcasts RF. This is about snooping on the inside of people's houses based on incidental EM emissions. For these purposes, even visible light devices such as binoculars and telescopes are not allowed; your neighbor looking through your window from his with a telescope can be charged as peeping tom, and if the cops do it from their unmarked van, the evidence is inadmissable. Using IR devices to do the same thing is a step beyond the use of binoculars and telescopes. And beyond that is millimeter-wave technology like that described in the link above. If the courts accept the IR evidence, it's no step at all to allowing the cops to routinely use millimeter wave devices to see what's going on in anyone's house at any time.