Sampo A Syreeni writes: > . . . > >Well, I think that as long as a conventional photograph is taken from a >public place, it does not constitute a punishable breach of privacy. What's >so very different about doing the same thing with IR? > >Sampo Syreeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. IR equipment is capable of seeing far more from outside a house than just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Mac Norton
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Sampo A Syreeni
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Steve Furlong
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes jim bell
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Sampo A Syreeni
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes David Honig
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes David Honig
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Richard Fiero
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes POF
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Steven Furlong
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Sampo A Syreeni
- IR "TEMPESTING" (was Re: police IR sear... sunder
- IR "TEMPESTING" (was Re: police IR ... Steven Furlong
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Michael Motyka
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Harmon Seaver
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Tim May
- Re: police IR searches to Supremes Sampo A Syreeni