7 ms·

Seems like this logic would also allow police to use WiFi to see through the walls of your house? https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-detec

by floxy 3y ago

Seems like this logic would also allow police to use WiFi to see through the walls of your house? https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-detect-human-locations-poses-within-a-room https://www.tomshardware.com/news/wi-fi-routers-used-to-dete...

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
"sense-enhancing technology like the camera function of an iPhone that is in general public use." the language doesn't make it clear whether "in general public use" is the full scope or "in general public use, for the purpose adopted by law enforcement in this case". iPhones and wifi are in general public use; the former is widely used to illuminate or look at things, the latter is rarely, if ever, used to see through the walls of a house. If that's even a thing.
- bagels 3y ago
  Does it define "sense enhancing"? X-Rays could enhance vision by converting x-rays in to visible light.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  The closest thing I can think of is "in common use", as (poorly) defined in Caetano v Massachussets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
- tpxl 3y ago
  > If that's even a thing. You'll be happy to learn IEE 802.11bf standardized wifi sensing granular enough to do gesture detection. When that becomes ubiquitous in ISP provided routers, your friendly neighbourhood police will be one warrant away from tracking your movement around your house.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
henryfjordan 3y ago
No, the ruling goes out of it's way to say that putting something on the front seat of a car doesn't provide an expectation of privacy. Your home is very different in the eyes of the law. You can't use IR cameras to see into a home already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Edit: After re-reading, I think you may have a point that Wifi is a commonly-used technology and might technically be allowed. It might depend on whether your phone or wifi router could be used as a detector with the right software. I'd imagine the supreme court might change the standard if that happened though. They generally treat the home as more sacred.
- TomatoTomato 3y ago
  What about the trunk of your car?
  - tptacek 3y ago
    You have an expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, but it's less firm than that of your house --- your trunk can be searched without a warrant to "inventory" it if it's merely impounded, without suspicion or an arrest. If the police had a device that enabled them to see into car trunks, it would likely constitute a search requiring "reasonableness" to use it.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Which it should be noted, they do. Semi-truck sized x-ray machines exist, especially at border control, but also elsewhere, and is used to see inside of semi-trucks. Using that same device against a car seems entirely feasible. But as you point out, if they impound the vehicle, they can just inventory the trunk directly, assuming they have the key. If you have a locked safe in the trunk, I don't think they're (legally) allowed to x-ray it to find out what's inside of that, although they can parallel-reconstrution their way to having a reason after the fact.
      - tptacek 3y ago
duxup 3y ago
The courts in the US have been pretty specific about car vs home. They don’t seem to treat them as the same.
- websap 3y ago
  Too bad for the unhoused I guess?
  - duxup 3y ago
    I don’t know. I do know the courts treat homes and cars differently.
- seanw444 3y ago
  Ironically, there have been SCOTUS rulings that state that your vehicle is an extension of your home.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    I'm gonna use this next time my (Marine) cousin asks me for a ride to the airport. God bless the 3A
    - somebodynew 3y ago
      This reminds me of one of my favorite court cases, a rare application of the 3rd amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey A prison tried to break a strike of workers who lived in prison dorms by replacing them with members of the National Guard, until a court ruled that this constituted illegally quartering soldiers in their homes.
saveferris 3y ago
Ohhhh, now that is interesting. I think I'd say you don't have an expectation of privacy when you park your car on a public street, people can look into the windows and if they are tinted then using a device to "see" through the tint doesn't go over the line to circumvent your expectation of privacy - if items were in the trunk....maybe that elevates the expectation of privacy but leaving something on the seat or something that can be seen looking into the windows of a car parked out in public seems like you should not expect a high level of privacy. Your house/apartment on the other hand...you should expect a high/higher level of privacy there, even looking into the windows - if something is found looking into the windows it should not be admissible as evidence without a warrant. I do not know if the law actually distinguishes privacy if it's a car vs a residence.
- more_corn 3y ago
  It does. Your car is on a public street. You have no expectation of privacy on a public street. Also the law explicitly addresses tint. You cannot tint the windshield and front windows past a certain poknt. Your home is private . You have an expectation of privacy there.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    This isn't accurate. You do have some enforceable expectations of privacy in a motor vehicle parked on a public street --- the trunk, the contents of the glove box, the contents of closed containers in plain view in the passenger's compartment. What you don't get is privacy for any of the parts of the car that would ordinarily be in plain view to someone outside the car.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    Of course there are limited expectations of privacy in a vehicle. The glovebox, trunk, a box in the back seat, a duffel bag in the front seat, anything concealing the contents has an expectation of privacy. And no, you don't just automatically lose your 4th amendment rights just because you're on a public street. Tinting laws are for motor safety, not for the surveillance state. Notably, limousines are fully tinted in the rear as well as most passenger buses. And of course, cargo vans etc are fully enclosed.
nonameiguess 3y ago
Those were WiFi routers inside the room. They didn't see through walls. Unfortunately, I don't see how the logic wouldn't basically be sound based on the existing criteria that, if technology existed and was in widespread public use that allowed ordinary people to routinely see through walls, then yes, being behind a wall would not give you a reasonable expectation of privacy. Assuming we ever reach that point, the Supreme Court would either need to come up with a new test of what constitutes a search or we'd need to ban such devices so people could still expect privacy in their own homes.
- floxy 3y ago
  >They didn't see through walls. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-walls-using-wi-fi-routers https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-wa...
adolph 3y ago
Also the new generation of mm wave radar devices, which can see through some materials. Here is a good rerun of an Andreas Spiess video covering some recent-ish sensors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-Rrwf1vr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-Rrwf1vr0

by floxy 3y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

"sense-enhancing technology like the camera function of an iPhone that is in general public use." the language doesn't make it clear whether "in general public use" is the full scope or "in general public use, for the purpose adopted by law enforcement in this case". iPhones and wifi are in general public use; the former is widely used to illuminate or look at things, the latter is rarely, if ever, used to see through the walls of a house. If that's even a thing.

bagels 3y ago
Does it define "sense enhancing"? X-Rays could enhance vision by converting x-rays in to visible light.
Ancapistani 3y ago
The closest thing I can think of is "in common use", as (poorly) defined in Caetano v Massachussets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
tpxl 3y ago
> If that's even a thing. You'll be happy to learn IEE 802.11bf standardized wifi sensing granular enough to do gesture detection. When that becomes ubiquitous in ISP provided routers, your friendly neighbourhood police will be one warrant away from tracking your movement around your house.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

henryfjordan 3y ago

No, the ruling goes out of it's way to say that putting something on the front seat of a car doesn't provide an expectation of privacy. Your home is very different in the eyes of the law. You can't use IR cameras to see into a home already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Edit: After re-reading, I think you may have a point that Wifi is a commonly-used technology and might technically be allowed. It might depend on whether your phone or wifi router could be used as a detector with the right software. I'd imagine the supreme court might change the standard if that happened though. They generally treat the home as more sacred.

TomatoTomato 3y ago
What about the trunk of your car?
- tptacek 3y ago
  You have an expectation of privacy for the contents of your trunk, but it's less firm than that of your house --- your trunk can be searched without a warrant to "inventory" it if it's merely impounded, without suspicion or an arrest. If the police had a device that enabled them to see into car trunks, it would likely constitute a search requiring "reasonableness" to use it.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Which it should be noted, they do. Semi-truck sized x-ray machines exist, especially at border control, but also elsewhere, and is used to see inside of semi-trucks. Using that same device against a car seems entirely feasible. But as you point out, if they impound the vehicle, they can just inventory the trunk directly, assuming they have the key. If you have a locked safe in the trunk, I don't think they're (legally) allowed to x-ray it to find out what's inside of that, although they can parallel-reconstrution their way to having a reason after the fact.
    - tptacek 3y ago

duxup 3y ago

The courts in the US have been pretty specific about car vs home. They don’t seem to treat them as the same.

websap 3y ago
Too bad for the unhoused I guess?
- duxup 3y ago
  I don’t know. I do know the courts treat homes and cars differently.
seanw444 3y ago
Ironically, there have been SCOTUS rulings that state that your vehicle is an extension of your home.
- klyrs 3y ago
  I'm gonna use this next time my (Marine) cousin asks me for a ride to the airport. God bless the 3A
  - somebodynew 3y ago
    This reminds me of one of my favorite court cases, a rare application of the 3rd amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey A prison tried to break a strike of workers who lived in prison dorms by replacing them with members of the National Guard, until a court ruled that this constituted illegally quartering soldiers in their homes.

saveferris 3y ago

Ohhhh, now that is interesting. I think I'd say you don't have an expectation of privacy when you park your car on a public street, people can look into the windows and if they are tinted then using a device to "see" through the tint doesn't go over the line to circumvent your expectation of privacy - if items were in the trunk....maybe that elevates the expectation of privacy but leaving something on the seat or something that can be seen looking into the windows of a car parked out in public seems like you should not expect a high level of privacy. Your house/apartment on the other hand...you should expect a high/higher level of privacy there, even looking into the windows - if something is found looking into the windows it should not be admissible as evidence without a warrant. I do not know if the law actually distinguishes privacy if it's a car vs a residence.

more_corn 3y ago
It does. Your car is on a public street. You have no expectation of privacy on a public street. Also the law explicitly addresses tint. You cannot tint the windshield and front windows past a certain poknt. Your home is private . You have an expectation of privacy there.
- tptacek 3y ago
  This isn't accurate. You do have some enforceable expectations of privacy in a motor vehicle parked on a public street --- the trunk, the contents of the glove box, the contents of closed containers in plain view in the passenger's compartment. What you don't get is privacy for any of the parts of the car that would ordinarily be in plain view to someone outside the car.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Of course there are limited expectations of privacy in a vehicle. The glovebox, trunk, a box in the back seat, a duffel bag in the front seat, anything concealing the contents has an expectation of privacy. And no, you don't just automatically lose your 4th amendment rights just because you're on a public street. Tinting laws are for motor safety, not for the surveillance state. Notably, limousines are fully tinted in the rear as well as most passenger buses. And of course, cargo vans etc are fully enclosed.

nonameiguess 3y ago

Those were WiFi routers inside the room. They didn't see through walls. Unfortunately, I don't see how the logic wouldn't basically be sound based on the existing criteria that, if technology existed and was in widespread public use that allowed ordinary people to routinely see through walls, then yes, being behind a wall would not give you a reasonable expectation of privacy. Assuming we ever reach that point, the Supreme Court would either need to come up with a new test of what constitutes a search or we'd need to ban such devices so people could still expect privacy in their own homes.

floxy 3y ago
>They didn't see through walls. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-walls-using-wi-fi-routers https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/see-through-wa...

adolph 3y ago

Also the new generation of mm wave radar devices, which can see through some materials. Here is a good rerun of an Andreas Spiess video covering some recent-ish sensors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-Rrwf1vr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU-Rrwf1vr0