4 ms·

These issues have actually been litigated in court. The broad consensus is that yes, the police can use a surveillance plane can take pictures of you without f

These issues have actually been litigated in court. The broad consensus is that yes, the police can use a surveillance plane can take pictures of you without first obtaining a warrant (Florida v. Riley), but no, they can't use infrared camera to look inside your home without a warrant. (Kyllo v. United States) None of these cases are really analogous to the Tor case. Generally speaking, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy that information that you voluntarily provide to a third party will be kept confidential. This is why the police doesn't need a warrant to get your phone records or to obtain your IP address. You bring up mail, which is an interesting case. Conents of a sealed mail IS protected by the Fourth Amendment - it's just that the government usually relies on the "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement (basically, showing that there is probable cause to search the mail but that there is no time to obtain a warrant). The government can't just mass-open all sealed mails and look at their contents.

rtpg 11y ago
Just to add a bit more information, the Kyllo v. US case was decided based on what a person would reasonably expect a member of the public to own. Many people have planes that fly about, drones or whatnot. So you could expect random members of the public to have ways of taking arial pictures of your house. Therefore those do not violate your right to privacy. It's very unlikely for a member of the public to own a helicopter with an infrared camera, so using it without a warrant is a violation of privacy. The basic example used by a court is binoculars. Most people have access to binoculars, and own them. So if you do something next to your window, police can totally look through your windows with binoculars and act on the information.
harry8 11y ago
A helicopter with an infrared camera costs about $100.
- deftnerd 11y ago
  I believe he is referring to a thermal imaging camera, which can see heat sources. They're still somewhat an expensive specialty item. The police used to use them to look for people growing marijuana in their attics, but higher courts now say that would require a warrant.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    He may be, but over the last few years some models have come out with much lower prices: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/23/review-flir-one-and-seek-bring-thermal-imaging-to-iphone http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/23/review-flir-one-an... I wouldn't be surprised if there are usable thermal imaging sensors out there for $100.
nkurz 11y ago
It's probably worth noting that Kyllo is one of the cases where the recently deceased Justice Scalia's "conservatism" produced a decision favorable to privacy advocates: We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton, 445 U. S., at 590. That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright— which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no "significant" compromise of the homeowner's privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward. "The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens." Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 (1925). Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=158400455911157...

rtpg 11y ago

Just to add a bit more information, the Kyllo v. US case was decided based on what a person would reasonably expect a member of the public to own. Many people have planes that fly about, drones or whatnot. So you could expect random members of the public to have ways of taking arial pictures of your house. Therefore those do not violate your right to privacy. It's very unlikely for a member of the public to own a helicopter with an infrared camera, so using it without a warrant is a violation of privacy. The basic example used by a court is binoculars. Most people have access to binoculars, and own them. So if you do something next to your window, police can totally look through your windows with binoculars and act on the information.

harry8 11y ago

A helicopter with an infrared camera costs about $100.

deftnerd 11y ago
I believe he is referring to a thermal imaging camera, which can see heat sources. They're still somewhat an expensive specialty item. The police used to use them to look for people growing marijuana in their attics, but higher courts now say that would require a warrant.
- nkurz 11y ago
  He may be, but over the last few years some models have come out with much lower prices: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/23/review-flir-one-and-seek-bring-thermal-imaging-to-iphone http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/23/review-flir-one-an... I wouldn't be surprised if there are usable thermal imaging sensors out there for $100.

nkurz 11y ago

It's probably worth noting that Kyllo is one of the cases where the recently deceased Justice Scalia's "conservatism" produced a decision favorable to privacy advocates: We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton, 445 U. S., at 590. That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright— which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no "significant" compromise of the homeowner's privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward. "The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens." Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 (1925). Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=158400455911157...