At 01:13 PM 31-10-99 -0800, John Gilmore wrote:
>The actual decision is readable here. Personally I side with the
>dissent.
>WESTERN FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES
>POLICE MAY CONDUCT THERMAL IMAGING SURVEILLANCE
>ON PRIVATE HOMES WITHOUT WARRANT
>
>Court Reverses: No Warrant Needed for Thermal Imaging
This makes no sense at all. Like the distinction between cordless
and cell phones for whether they need a warrant to eavesdrop on.
When the police or FBI need to bring TEMPEST-gathered evidence
into court, I wonder whether we'll get the same answer. (Of course
we will. The case will inevitably be made on some obviously-guilty
multiple child-murderer, and the precedent will promptly be used
to eavesdrop on local reporters about to break police brutality scandals,
political opponents of the mayor, and anyone else who needs
some police scrutiny. After all, you can't expect us to win the Glorious
War on Drugs if the citizens think they have *rights* or something.)
--John
--John Kelsey, Counterpane Internet Security, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP: 5D91 6F57 2646 83F9 6D7F 9C87 886D 88AF
