34 ms·
It's the fuzziness that these backscatter machines bring in that's the problem. Is it really a search if you're bouncing invisible light through an object and
by daenz 14y ago
It's the fuzziness that these backscatter machines bring in that's the problem. Is it really a search if you're bouncing invisible light through an object and measuring latencies? Does the concept of a search fundamentally mean "discovering property that was previously unknown"? Or is there a clause to that definition, something like "unless it is readily visible"? Can any legal guys chime in on what the definition of a search is?
- beambot 14y ago"Unless it's readily visible" in which spectrum? Whether X-ray, terahertz, microwave, UHF, or visible light... it's all just electromagnetic radiation. Seems weird to make distinctions. To me (and trust me, IANAL) it seems that any law governing a "camera" should be equally-applicable.
- mistercow 14y agoIt's actually a pretty easy line to draw; the spectrum is the visible spectrum of the average human. The reason is that this makes it trivial for citizens to know what constitutes "in plain sight", and thus to control what lies in plain sight. If it bothers you that a legal matter is based on fuzzy lines defined by human physiology, then welcome to the entirety of pretty much all law everywhere.
- Jtsummers 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States IR sensors used on a home constituted a search so could not be used without a warrant. This would likely end up in a similar ruling, especially since it can provide more detail than that the walls and roof are hotter than they ought to be.
- daenz 14y ago> The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 That's a very narrow victory though.
- Jtsummers 14y agoStill a victory. And, as I pointed out, this tech has much greater potential for interpretation as search as it's providing greater detail than "roof and walls are hot".
- dpeck 14y agoSeems like almost everything to come before the court comes back with a 5-4 ruling, at least everything important. Ideology is wired into the justices as much as it is everyone else.
- adolph 14y agoI read somewhere that the prevalence of narrow victories is by design (or evolution maybe): 1. the court chooses what cases to hear and is unlikely to spend time on anything they all agree on; 2. the body of precedent is large enough so that lower courts aren't making decisions the court would overturn with a wide margin; 3. the parameters of a majority opinion are written to get 5 of 4, anything else is overkill or watered down.
- bugmenot 14y agoThis does not include June 2012 Blueford v. Arkansas (6-3, Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, on May 24, 2012) Coleman v. Johnson (9-0, Per Curiam, on May 29, 2012) Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on April 2, 2012) Gonzalez v. Thaler (8-1, opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on January 10, 2012) Greene v. Fisher (9-0, opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on Nov. 8, 2011) Howes v. Fields (6-3, Opinion by Justice Alito, on February 21, 2012) Kawashima v. Holder (6-3, Opinion by Justice Thomas, on February 21, 2012) Lafler v. Cooper (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 21, 2012) Maples v. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (7-2, opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on January 18, 2012) Martel v. Clair (9-0, Opinion by Justice Kagan, on March 5, 2012) Martinez v. Ryan (7-2, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 20, 2012) Messerschmidt v. Millender (6-3, on February 22, 2012) Minneci v. Pollard (8-1, opinion by Justice Breyer, on January 10, 2012) Missouri v. Frye (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 21, 2012) Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (9-0, Opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on April 18, 2012) Perry v. New Hampshire (8-1, opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on January 11, 2012) Rehberg v. Paulk (9-0, Opinion by Justice Alito, on April 2, 2012) Setser V. United States (6-3, Opinion by Justice Scalia, on March 28, 2012) Smith v. Cain (8-1, opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, on January 10, 2012) Vartelas v. Holder (6-3, Opinion by Justice Ginsberg, on March 28, 2012) Wetzel v. Lambert (6-3, per curiam opinion, on February 21, 2012) Wood v. Milyard (9-0, Opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on April 24, 2012)
- CWuestefeld 14y agoMaybe not. Although I don't believe this should be allowed, one can make an argument that the expectation of privacy when in the home is much greater than when one is out in the street, or even in one's car. In addition to privacy, I'm just as concerned about the potential danger of exposure to X-rays.
- bigiain 14y agoI wonder if the van operators have considered how readily those X-rays could be detected. By the sort of people who might want "advanced notice" that they're about to be under surveillance?* I wonder how long it'll be before things like this become "prohibited items" to regular citizens to own: http://www.cooking-hacks.com/index.php/documentation/tutorials/geiger-counter-arduino-radiation-sensor-board http://www.cooking-hacks.com/index.php/documentation/tutoria... A network of those with bluetooth or wifi connections, spread around critical intersections around the place where you're particularly concerned about your privacy could give you more than enough time to reconfigure things into something that'll look quite different on an x ray screen... *Or the sort of people who construct IEDs?
- CWuestefeld 14y agoIANAL, and I'm sure that I'm in the minority with this view. But I understand the 4th Amendment to engender a freedom from scrutiny. If they don't have any reason to thing we're doing evil, they should mind their own business, regardless of the degree of physical intrusiveness involved. Just having the government, or its computers, paying attention to us all the time violates this principle.
- baddox 14y agoAs I just commented [0], I believe the same thing. I would point out that "freedom from scrutiny" shouldn't necessarily apply to relationships between private citizens. I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies between private citizens (so it's not wrong for a neighbor to observe my house), but when it comes to government resources (i.e. taxpayer money) the standard should be much stricter. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191486 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4191486
- CWuestefeld 14y agoThat it's government being restricted by the right to privacy goes without saying. As part of the Bill of Rights, it restricts only the government[1]. The intent of the BoR is just to keep the government from meddling, not to prevent the people, as those directly creating the culture and society, to react as they see fit. The government isn't permitted to stop us from saying bad things [2], but you're perfectly free to respond to the offensive comments of your neighbor. A court mind find someone innocent of a crime as a result of "technicalities" from the the 4th Amendment, but you're still free to shun a person that you believe to be evil. [1] And, without explicit incorporation by the Court under the 14th Amendment, it applies only to the federal government and not the states. That seems pedantic, but it was only very recently that this was recognized for the 2nd Amendment, for example. [2] Which doesn't stop them from doing so anyway; see recent legislation about cyber-bullying, for example.
- granfalloon 14y agomy memory of criminal procedure is fuzzy, but i believe a search is generall defined as an invasion of a "legitimate (or reasonable?) expecation of privacy." so of course, disputes generally hinge on whether someone's subjective expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable or legitimate. when i get a minute i'll edit this post with some examples!
- forgotAgain 14y agoWhy do it at all if there is nothing discernible in the results?
- baddox 14y agoIt's certainly not the actual legal definition of a search, but I would like it to be defined very broadly, something like "the use of government resources (i.e. taxpayer money) to observe or inquire about any private citizen on private property." Even though it's perfectly legal for a neighbor to notice something potentially suspicious about me (e.g. that I travel a lot or have a lot of guests), I don't think that taxpayer money should be used for concerted observational efforts without some form of court order.