Re: police IR searches to Supremes
I'm having a very difficult time comprehending how plant lights could even remotely be construed as "probable cause" -- don't the courts have any idea of the millions of little old ladies (and whoever) who use plant lights for their house plants? Or of the multitudes who use them to jump start gardens every Spring, or the many who actually grow veggies hydroponically in their basement? -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian Arrowhead Library SystemVirginia, MN (218) 741-3840 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us
Re: police IR searches to Supremes
At 3:10 PM -0400 9/28/00, Harmon Seaver wrote: I'm having a very difficult time comprehending how plant lights could even remotely be construed as "probable cause" -- don't the courts have any idea of the millions of little old ladies (and whoever) who use plant lights for their house plants? Or of the multitudes who use them to jump start gardens every Spring, or the many who actually grow veggies hydroponically in their basement? Beside the point, from their point of view. "Probable cause" is a an excuse, not a requirement to act. Meaning, if they subpoena the records of Alice's Hydroponics or Bob's Lamp Shop and discover that the purchases were made by a little old lady, they don't _have_ to launch a S.W.A.T. raid and call in the napalm strikes. But if they cross-correlate the list they get from the subpoenaed records with other lists they have, they may find some ripe targets for a raid. Similar to what happened here in Santa Cruz County, where a Soquel-based hydroponic company had its parking lot staked out by narcs with binoculars. Likely-looking perps (long hair, VW vans, whatever) entering the store had their license plates recorded. The home addresses were quickly found. A few months later the electric company had its billing records subpoened. Those who had shown a nonseasonal jump in electricity usage following their visits to the hydroponics store were considered for raids. Several folks were raided. (Apparently no shoot outs with the narcs, as these were mostly hippy-dippy potheads, no doubt afraid of having babyklling assault weapons.) By the way, imagine what Big Bro will be able to do by further cross-correlating these lists with lists of rifle owners (courtesy of our new gun registration laws), and with other records. No wonder Oracle is selling so much software to LEAs. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
IR TEMPESTING (was Re: police IR searches to Supremes)
Richard Fiero wrote: 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. Certainly gives a new twist to TEMPEST. I suppose now if you wanted to tempest your home, you'd additionally have to install randomly "blinking" heat generators. Hmmm, something like a big grid of resistors where they get turned on and off at random. You might want the resistors to spell out "Mind your own business, pigs!" when viewed with a thermal device, but of course this kind of thing will only attract their attention. You could also use peltier coolers, but they generate heat on the other side. Another option would be to get big huge water circulators and call it art - there are a few restaurants here in NYC where they have water running over glass panes. It's a nice calming waterfall effect. :) -- --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
IR TEMPESTING (was Re: police IR searches to Supremes)
sunder wrote: Another option would be to get big huge water circulators and call it art - there are a few restaurants here in NYC where they have water running over glass panes. It's a nice calming waterfall effect. :) That's a good idea. It should stop the laser-off-the-windows accoustic snooping, too. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: police IR searches to Supremes
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Steve Furlong wrote: Supreme Court to hear thermal peeking case By MICHAEL KIRKLAND snip most of the article I don't see how any rational mind could see this type of search as allowed under the US 4th Amendment. Too bad no jurist has asked my opinion. 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
Re: police IR searches to Supremes
At 06:52 AM 9/27/00 -0400, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: 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? Heh, maybe someone should take some IR (video with IR filter removed) pictures of Janet Reno, and publish. (Then again, maybe not.)
Re: police IR searches to Supremes
- Original Message - X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Sampo A Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:52 AM Subject: Re: police IR searches to Supremes On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Steve Furlong wrote: Supreme Court to hear thermal peeking case By MICHAEL KIRKLAND snip most of the article I don't see how any rational mind could see this type of search as allowed under the US 4th Amendment. Too bad no jurist has asked my opinion. 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 You probably don't understand how this IR technology works. And you almost certainly don't understand how American police are SUPPOSED to treat such evidence. This system merely allows one to measure the temperature of the outside surface a building without touching it. (modulo emissivity issues). Alone, that tells you practically nothing about the contents of the building. Now, American police are supposed to work on the standard of "probable cause." While, thank heaven, I'm not a lawyer, I have experience with the high level of dishonesty in various police-type organizations in America. "Probable cause" OUGHT to mean that the police have determined that, more likely than not, a crime is being committed as evidenced by a particular piece of evidence. But evidence of a warm house is just and only that: Evidence of a warm house. That warmth may be due to no more than a lack of insulation, a mis-set thermostat, an invalid who requires higher temperature to feel comfortable, etc. No, the problem is that the cops take what would constitute reasonable evidence of a warm house, and parlay it into supposed "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. Totally bogus concept. Extreme stretch. What the police are REALLY doing is "wowing" some marginally-intelligent judge with high-tech, diverting attention from the fact that the evidence doesn't actually support what it would need to support to obtain the warrant.
Re: police IR searches to Supremes
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
At 08:50 PM 9/27/00 -0400, you wrote: just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion. surveillance, regarless of the inevitable (sp?) conversation about the need/desire for it, is by nature invasive. so it seems that you'd mean "unacceptably invasive" (heh, interesting thought)... i agree. it's somewhat humorous and somewhat sad, but i find myself, frequently, angry with the idea of being restricted in the use of technology (like the FCC "don't broadcast" or whatever concept) just because it's protecting someone elses claim on the "airwaves" or whatever medium i'd be using, and then there's the heat idea... not really TOO much different in concept. not enough anyways. so there's the trick, does one fight for a middle ground? or take a Pole? like the idea of free speech... is everyone free? or do we start handing out restrictions? or EVERYONE'S FREE-if you have a license. ? cuz when you get to the SELECTIVITY thing, you might not like what you get...
