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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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,
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"
