Uh. Humans see in vis. You aren't protected against intrusion in vis because everyone would reasonable expect that intrusion, can easily anticipate it, and you

Uh. Humans see in vis. You aren't protected against intrusion in vis because everyone would reasonable expect that intrusion, can easily anticipate it, and you'll be monitored by your any passers by in vis. This is called a reasonable expectation of privacy. You don't have one in the visible spectrum for things visible outside of your property to arbitrary passers by. Super-duper sensing devices can potentially violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. The decision in Kyllo was pretty clearly explained by the court. "there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. We think that obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U. S., at 512, constitutes a search— at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the 35 *35 information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search."