6 ms·

I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court sy

by imroot 12y ago

I have a really hard time believing that this will pass constitutional muster if this ever the use of this device ever gets challenged or gets into the court system. One's home is generally sacrosanct -- there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.

throwaway90999 12y ago
There's already been a ruling saying this isn't ok: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Kyllo was about thermal imaging but the opinion is quite clear. There's a much, much stronger case for thermal imaging equipment than there is for a device which probes via radio waves.
- bjt2n3904 12y ago
  Just a few thoughts. Very simplistically... FLIR is a special camera that detects infra-red light. IR is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted from objects with heat. RADAR emits a more "traditional" radio wave, and then detects objects when the radio wave reflects back. Unlike FLIR (which is passive), I would consider RADAR to be active. I would think (rather naively so) that the case against using RADAR without a warrant would be stronger, given that the government would have to actively affect your house. To play devil's advocate, the pot grower was emitting a signal in the FLIR case... Anyone more educated than I able to cast light (haha) on this?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    One nice thing about the Supreme Court is that every ruling comes with at least one (or two if the ruling is not unanimous) experts explaining the situation. And if any of the remaining Justices disagree, or feel that something was left out, of those two opinions, they can add their own. In this case, the dissent wrote: Unlike an x-ray scan, or other possible "through-the-wall" techniques, the detection of infrared radiation emanating from the home did not accomplish "an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises," and: While the Court "take[s] the long view" and decides this case based largely on the potential of yet-to-be-developed technology that might allow "through-the-wall surveillance," ante, at 38-40; see ante, at 36, n. 3, this case involves nothing more than off-the-wall surveillance by law enforcement officers to gather information exposed to the general public from the outside of petitioner's home. All that the infrared camera did in this case was passively measure heat emitted. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/
    - throwaway90999 12y ago
      Indeed. The ruling is quite clear that penetrating radio waves into the residence is presumed to be unacceptable. Even the dissent in Kyllo (FLIR) agrees on this point in regard to x-ray.
  - Sir_Substance 12y ago
    But consider: Your house is constantly saturated with radio waves from TV stations, radio stations, wifi etc. What if I were to design a device that passively received reflections of these signals rather then generating it's own to achieve the same function as the device in this post. So I now have the same result, but I am "merely" receiving reflections, rather then making my own. There is no difference in the function, this is rules lawyering at its best. I am willing to let police observe emissions on visible wavelengths ONLY because that is a slippery slope to not being allowed to look into windows. Anything you need a device to view is not ok to view without a warrant, no matter the technique.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      If you look at Gizmo's quotes, I think it's pretty clear they considered these kinds of technology tricks in deciding Kyllo, and 'taking the long view' that high tech collection of passively emitted information requires a warrant. I think the general approach is it's the result that matters, not the specific approach, e.g. 'expectation of privacy'.
gizmo686 12y ago
Kyllo v. United States [1] Law enforcement used a thermal imaging camera to detect hotspots consistent with marijuana growth inside Kyllo's house. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a 4th amendment violation. [1]http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508
- baddox 12y ago
  That's pretty close. I could see it going the other way just as easily.
  - andymcsherry 12y ago
    I would argue the opposite. The dissenting opinion's rationale doesn't hold up in this case > Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building. In the case of thermal imaging, you measure light waves that is already leaving the building. In the case of radar, you are actively sending in light waves to bounce off the inside and return to you.
    - baddox 12y ago
      That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous). Of course, they could come up with a workaround. Like perhaps it's not a violation of property rights for invisible and virtually harmless waves to enter private property, and if they happen to bounce off something and come back to the source for collection and analysis, so be it.
      - gizmo686 12y ago
        It is most certainly not a violation of property rights; radio waves are a notable exemption to normal property rights. Not to mention the fact that their are many other radio waves that already enter your private property. They still would need to argue that it is not a 4th amendment violation.
honeybooboo123 12y ago
One's home is, demonstrably, not sacrosanct anymore. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America. This (too?) will sound like hyperbole, but.. get out while you can. Look, the staggering insanity of North-Korea has lasted for more than half a fucking century. Would you like to spend the rest of your life in North-Korea? What about an equivalent America?
bsder 12y ago
Parallel construction. Once they know what they need to, then they'll make up a "legal" construction for how they got that information.

by imroot 12y ago

throwaway90999 12y ago

There's already been a ruling saying this isn't ok: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States Kyllo was about thermal imaging but the opinion is quite clear. There's a much, much stronger case for thermal imaging equipment than there is for a device which probes via radio waves.

bjt2n3904 12y ago
Just a few thoughts. Very simplistically... FLIR is a special camera that detects infra-red light. IR is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted from objects with heat. RADAR emits a more "traditional" radio wave, and then detects objects when the radio wave reflects back. Unlike FLIR (which is passive), I would consider RADAR to be active. I would think (rather naively so) that the case against using RADAR without a warrant would be stronger, given that the government would have to actively affect your house. To play devil's advocate, the pot grower was emitting a signal in the FLIR case... Anyone more educated than I able to cast light (haha) on this?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gizmo686 12y ago
  One nice thing about the Supreme Court is that every ruling comes with at least one (or two if the ruling is not unanimous) experts explaining the situation. And if any of the remaining Justices disagree, or feel that something was left out, of those two opinions, they can add their own. In this case, the dissent wrote: Unlike an x-ray scan, or other possible "through-the-wall" techniques, the detection of infrared radiation emanating from the home did not accomplish "an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises," and: While the Court "take[s] the long view" and decides this case based largely on the potential of yet-to-be-developed technology that might allow "through-the-wall surveillance," ante, at 38-40; see ante, at 36, n. 3, this case involves nothing more than off-the-wall surveillance by law enforcement officers to gather information exposed to the general public from the outside of petitioner's home. All that the infrared camera did in this case was passively measure heat emitted. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/
  - throwaway90999 12y ago
    Indeed. The ruling is quite clear that penetrating radio waves into the residence is presumed to be unacceptable. Even the dissent in Kyllo (FLIR) agrees on this point in regard to x-ray.
- Sir_Substance 12y ago
  But consider: Your house is constantly saturated with radio waves from TV stations, radio stations, wifi etc. What if I were to design a device that passively received reflections of these signals rather then generating it's own to achieve the same function as the device in this post. So I now have the same result, but I am "merely" receiving reflections, rather then making my own. There is no difference in the function, this is rules lawyering at its best. I am willing to let police observe emissions on visible wavelengths ONLY because that is a slippery slope to not being allowed to look into windows. Anything you need a device to view is not ok to view without a warrant, no matter the technique.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    If you look at Gizmo's quotes, I think it's pretty clear they considered these kinds of technology tricks in deciding Kyllo, and 'taking the long view' that high tech collection of passively emitted information requires a warrant. I think the general approach is it's the result that matters, not the specific approach, e.g. 'expectation of privacy'.

gizmo686 12y ago

Kyllo v. United States [1] Law enforcement used a thermal imaging camera to detect hotspots consistent with marijuana growth inside Kyllo's house. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a 4th amendment violation. [1]http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508

baddox 12y ago
That's pretty close. I could see it going the other way just as easily.
- andymcsherry 12y ago
  I would argue the opposite. The dissenting opinion's rationale doesn't hold up in this case > Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building. In the case of thermal imaging, you measure light waves that is already leaving the building. In the case of radar, you are actively sending in light waves to bounce off the inside and return to you.
  - baddox 12y ago
    That's certainly true using that reasoning (which, incidentally, I think is ridiculous). Of course, they could come up with a workaround. Like perhaps it's not a violation of property rights for invisible and virtually harmless waves to enter private property, and if they happen to bounce off something and come back to the source for collection and analysis, so be it.
    - gizmo686 12y ago
      It is most certainly not a violation of property rights; radio waves are a notable exemption to normal property rights. Not to mention the fact that their are many other radio waves that already enter your private property. They still would need to argue that it is not a 4th amendment violation.

honeybooboo123 12y ago

One's home is, demonstrably, not sacrosanct anymore. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America. This (too?) will sound like hyperbole, but.. get out while you can. Look, the staggering insanity of North-Korea has lasted for more than half a fucking century. Would you like to spend the rest of your life in North-Korea? What about an equivalent America?

bsder 12y ago

Parallel construction. Once they know what they need to, then they'll make up a "legal" construction for how they got that information.