archive
index
gp originals
google i
google ii
celebrating porn
idiot voters
| Notice: GeekPress is back up and running, thanks to Paul! It's still a not-so-serious tech news blog, but the format is significantly looser. Diana, having given up programming for philosophy, has her own philosophical blog NoodleFood. More of her work can be found at DianaHsieh.com. |
| Is thermal imaging an invasion of privacy? |
| 4:01:01 am mst / 21 February 2001 found by paul / filed in legal / source NY Times 85 hits / 3 comments / 0 e-mails |
| The Supreme Court will decide on the question of whether it is an invasion of privacy for the police to use a thermal imaging device outside of a house which generates a picture of the heat emission pattern from within the house. The article does a good job of summarizing both sides, as well as discussing the nuances of a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. |
| I tend to think that if your house is spewing photons and you haven't taken any steps to insulate it or otherwise block their transmission to the rest of the world, then the information you emit is fair game for others. |
 |
| Comments |
| This comment board has been retired. |
| others things... by MysteriousStranger 9:04:10 am mst / 21 February 2001 / # 1 |
| Of course this should mean everyday citizens should be able to do with as they please for "uninvited" TV, satellite, military, and other electromagnetic signals.
|
| Spewing photons . . . by MysteriousStranger 11:41:02 am mst / 21 February 2001 / # 2 |
Don't you think if you DID shield your house so that it appeared unduly cold on IR, that the cops would consider that justification to bust you as well? I see your point about spewing photons, but ultimately I can't agree. It's not like the cops are just walking down the street and getting smacked in the face with the light from grow lamps. They are going out in helicopters with really expensive equipment and scoping houses one by one. That is a search, even if it doesn't require entering the premises. Your phone lines emit ER. I bet with a sufficiently sensitive detector and enough processing you could tap someone's phone line without ever touching their property. Should the cops be able to listen in on your phone conversations, without a warrant, as long as you are spewing the ER? What about the (real? mythical?) lasers that can record conversations based on the vibrating of your windowpanes? I'm sure the list could be a lot longer, and will get longer still as technology advances. Thinking about this is depressing. It doesn't bode well for privacy. Maybe David Brin is right. But I can't help thinking that the 4th amendment was a good idea in spirit, and not just an archaic notion that won't matter when it is technologically outdated. |
| The key is to look inconspicuous by paul 2:31:02 pm mst / 21 February 2001 / # 3 / reply to # 2 |
| Your point about one's house looking suspiciously cold is a good one. I imagine that people who want to protect their privacy will choose to camouflage their houses so that they give off fake heat signatures that look just like everyone else's, rather than sticking out as unusually hot or cold. Of course that will be more expensive than simply shielding it, but for some people it will be worth it. |
| e-mail paul |