From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 06:34:37 +0800
To: unicorn@schloss.li (Black Unicorn)
Subject: Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960815131921.1400A-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <199608151851.NAA09462@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi all,

> On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Forwarded message:
> > 
> > > Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 22:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
> > > From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
> > > Subject: Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
> > > 
> > > Correct.  No warrant is required to observe that which is freely collected
> > > after eminating from the residence of another and observed off his
> > > property.
> > > 
> > > Same concept applies to the "sniff" test and ariel views into greenhouses.
> > 
> > Pitty somebody doesn't bring a suite against the FCC under this logic. It
> > would particularly impact radar detectors, cell phones, and other types of
> > scanners.
> 
> Uh, what is the chain of logic that supports this suit exactly?

Simple actualy. The police don't need a warrant to collect such information
because it is in the public domain (ie not private and therefor requiring
a search warrant and probable cause). Therefore anybody (not just cops)
can pick it up.

It is becoming more and more popular for governments to limit the ability
of scanners and other such detectors to pick up information supposedly 
to protect privacy. The above states that if it is eminating from the
residence (and by extension person) and is picked up off their property,
perhaps on or in public space then it is fair game. Clearly we have
two current standards for evidence collection which are directly at odds.

States such as N. Carolina (per extension via the 14th) should be 
prohibited from regulating or otherwise controlling possesion and use
of radar detectors (in this case) which are currently illegal for
private persons to operate. If the police don't need a warrant to
collect information then citizens are equaly able to recieve that
information as well. Since the above ruling states that as long as the
emissions are eminating from the site and the reception takes place
other than at the site (in this case, being inside the police car)
, perhaps along a public highway, then no privacy is involved. This
means that citizens have a right, by extension, to know when they are
being beamed by radar.

This same chain of logic can be extended to cell phones and such as
well.

This connection is even clearer when one realizes that the only difference
between IR and your cell phone eminations is frequency. The intermediate
vector boson in both cases is a photon.

It is similar to arresting somebody for wearing a blue shirt but letting
the person wearing the red shirt go free. The rationale being that since
the frequency of the blue shirt is higher it is fundamentaly different
then the red shirt.

This ruling is prima facia evidence that the judicial system as a whole
has no clear grasp of technology, not just Internet technology.


                                                     Jim Choate