Court to hear IR heat signature case

[Dagnabit]

Wow, that's some great work. You mean to say you hand-chiseled out those grooves in the main beams? Damn. And the off-sized windows on the side there, very tasteful indeed.

It's way better than the McMansions around here, where they put a huge giant picture window right above the entrance, where everyone can see you going up the stairs because there's no way to curtain that off.

Good work sir, my hat is officially off.

[tw]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
Hey, yeah, they did say that in this case, if he had purchased lights that have cooling systems, he would have an expectation of privacy. That makes no sense at all with modern technologies. Every wireless caller has an expectation of privacy. Probably only 5% know whether their phone contains any encryption or whatnot. Nobody expects their body temperature to be broadcast 100 yards.

All analog phone conversations and most portable phone conversations have no privacy. No intelligent person should ever have expectantions for privacy unless the product specifically claims such protection. Some portable phones are encrypted or use frequency hopping; therefore inform you of this privacy feature. In Cell Phones, only digital, such as Qualcomm's CDMA, provides privacy.

"Every wireless caller has an expectation of privacy" is simply not based upon common sense. Tune your TV to the Channel 82 regions to listen to cell phone conversations. Where is that privacy?

Your expectations of privacy are only when you make the extra effort to obtain that privacy. Landlines have that expectation of privacy. Portable phones do not, if not expressly stated. For that matter, AT&T analog cell phone have an option where the user can listen in on every other call being handled by that cell. Read the book "Takedown".

I expect anyone who transmits their body temperature to be observable at 100 yards just like you transmit the color of your clothes to TV cameras every day. We were measuring same thermals in Texas back in early 1980s. This is not rocket science. It is a simple, conventional electromagnetic receiver; similar in concept to a radio receiever. You transmit electromagnetic waves - be it light, heat, radio, gamma, etc - then you have no expectations of privacy - unless you take sufficient measures to protect your privacy.

[Dagnabit]

That's the point. Every <i>intelligent</i> person has no expectation of privacy on wireless calls of any kind. Every <i>unintelligent</i> person thinks they're somehow protected. Probably by that same government that will break their privacy at will.

What if an unintelligent person finds out that wireless calls are at risk, and puts aluminum foil around their windows to protect the wireless transmissions from getting out. Does <i>that</i> person have an expectation of privacy?

[Griff]

Many thanks Dag. Thats my work from chain saw to paint brush. We've still got a long way to go. I did all the joinery by hand, though I roughed some out with a power drill. Just exploring innapropriate technology.

http://www.shelterinstitute.com/

Pat and Patsy Hennin, a truly remarkable couple run a business teaching folks to build there own homes. Their classes are a great deal of fun and really effective. She is a architect/engineer and he is a builder who trained as a lawyer but decided not to be evil. The students run from hippies to retired folks to college kids to young couples. Its intensive and interesting with some pleasant evenings of beer drinking interspersed.

[russotto]

I'm not going to argue with tw point by point.

But here's the kind of thing that's next if routine, unwarranted surveillance in other-than-visible parts of the EM spectrum are upheld:

http://www.millivision.com/partners.html

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.

[tw]

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
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.

That guy just sounds a tad bit uptight...perhaps he's just mad because HE didn't think of it or couldn't make it. Turd...

[Undertoad]

You're probably right. Lawless has a history of attacking the state university system and there are rumors that it's because he didn't get something he wanted out of West Chester.

Lawless is utterly, utterly clueless. Apparently he's the laughingstock of the rest of the assembly.

He wanted to run against the Republican clique for county commissioner last election. The reason: well he's tired of working in Harrisburg, he wants to be closer to home. It would have been a nice bloodbath, but somebody talked him out of it.

Which only meant that he ran unopposed for his assembly seat for the 3rd time in a row.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw

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.

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
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.

If using binoculars and telescopes was a crime, then there are 100,000 criminals on Manhatten Island. I never read where use of binoculars to look into another's home was a crime. If true, then Channel 6's Sky Watch helicopter or the LAPD helicopter would be illegal. They respect a person's privacy but are not legally banned from looking inside those windows.

RF vs visible light vs infared - they are all electromagnetic wave transmissions - all same concepts in the eyes of the law. For that matter that IR detection unit we were using 15 years ago in TX was simpler than a radio receiver. What monitors your TV remote? An expensive, exotic device or a simple diode attached to a single chip detector? IR receivers are common, everyday devices. IR radiation is easily monitored and is not exotic, high tech equipment. IR receivers are even routine in 35 mm cameras. Would you ban all infared film sales because it might violate people's privacy?

If your house transmits incidental radiation, then that radiation is for all to monitor. If incidental radiation was so important to your privacy, then 'you' are responsible to protect your privacy. We do it every day. Its called plywood, siding, insulation, sheetrock and paint.

The original point is that electromagnetic monitoring laws, orginally applicable to longwave radio, also applies to all other electromagnetic wave transmissions. For privacy from telescopes, cover the windows. For privacy from IR recievers, install walls. If you don't want your neighbors to see your nuclear reactor, then install gamma ray shields. No problem. You have no expectation of privacy unless you create that privacy.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw


If your house transmits incidental radiation, then that radiation is for all to monitor. If incidental radiation was so important to your privacy, then 'you' are responsible to protect your privacy. We do it every day. Its called plywood, siding, insulation, sheetrock and paint.

Window coverings don't block IR. Paint doesn't block millimeter wave radar. Does every home have to be made into a Faraday cage, with heat pump and a somehow-hidden heat sink, before you'll consider that people might just have an expectation of privacy in their homes?

[alphageek31337]

Russoto (sorry for any misspellings) raises a hell of an interesting point. When should you be allowed to expect privacy due to simple human decency. You can find a way to find anything out from someone if you want to under these assumptions; simply find an angle they haven't covered. Hell, even our trash is public domain, as old-school dumpster diving crackers and carders could attest. At some point, the law should cover our privacy just because human beings need and deserve it. You should not have to go to extreme measures (custom wiring, extra insulation, etc) just to keep these jack-booted, gestapo thugs (or, for that matter, your jack-booted, gestapo neighbors) out of your damn business. How long before we're keeping a statue of our equivalent of Stalin in the middle of the Mall @ D.C.?

Everyone knew someone would bring up communism, I figured I'd be the first. Glad that's out fo my system


communism iraq I bomb weapon Love death terrorist Echeleon iran assassinate And president white house Carnivore

Steve

[Griff]

Alpha, that is one gorgeous rant! My brother and I got into a thing where we sent e-mails back and forth listing only "good" things designed to trip the system. life liberty fraternity justice property rights truth forgiveness Arkansas oops Texas equality blonde bombshell Cayman Islands

[Chewbaccus]

Still stickin' it to the NSA, eh Steve?

Ahh, so many wrongs to right upon becoming King of America, so little time to issue proclamations for them all...

(senses the Scales of Topic beginning to shift)
~Mike

[Edited by Chewbaccus on 03-12-2001 at 05:24 PM]

[tw]

Originally posted by alphageek31337
...When should you be allowed to expect privacy due to simple human decency. You can find a way to find anything out from someone if you want to under these assumptions; simply find an angle they haven't covered. Hell, even our trash is public domain, as old-school dumpster diving crackers and carders could attest. At some point, the law should cover our privacy just because human beings need and deserve it. You should not have to go to extreme measures (custom wiring, extra insulation, etc) just to keep these jack-booted, gestapo thugs (or, for that matter, your jack-booted, gestapo neighbors) out of your damn business.

The above question was previously answered correctly. However if did not understand the original concept, then first reread those posts. For example, Russotto talks about millimeter microwave transmissions which are already defined in that previous post - which must ignore my previous post to be relevant.

If you still don't understand, current concepts in privacy laws make illegal that millimeter microwave or X-rays. If you transmit standard electromagnetic waves (light from your clothes, body heat, portable phone conversations, etc), then those transmission are open for everyone to receive. However if another transmits X-rays to violate your privacy, then that was illegal. Where is this sudden worry about privacy coming from? First understand the orignal post before jumping to this emotional fear.

Again the concepts are misrepresented. You don't need exotic insulation to protect IR transmission. Only the paranoid say otherwise. You don't even need plywood. Tar paper is sufficient for IR privacy. Privacy from binoculars - is called curtains. Get back into reality people. Those jack-booted thugs are in the minds of the mentally unstable. Existing privacy laws have been quite consistent - although may require courts to upgrade what Congress has failed to define.

You have no expectation of privacy unless you create that privacy. We overbuild to protect privacy everywhere. However if a man creates so much heat that even those trival, inexpensive IR detector receive it; and if he does not even insulate the attic, then everyone should know that he has a jungle for an attic. It takes no genius to see which house has no frost or snow every morning on the roof.

Furthermore, the original premise on which this worry is created is rediculous. The real issue is the theme of the movie Traffik. The real issue is not privacy. We have privacy concepts that are sufficient in our laws - it is just being misrepresented here with mythical microwave people detectors that don't transmit microwaves. The problem of a heated attic is the nonsense WE have with drugs - as exemplified by the movie Traffik.

It is not an issue of privacy. It is an issue of a rediculous War on Drugs. If you ever thought, after VietNam, that such as war would succeed, then you have a serious problem with reality. Traffik is what Federal Agents in the Drug wars were telling us in the 1980s. It takes a few decades for our brains to hear what our ears have heard from those who do the work. Still today, many don't understand the reality in Traffik.