From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 05:05:17 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199608151851.NAA09462@einstein>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960816112851.24799C-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> 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.

This argument breaks down when one looks at the difference between state
action and private action.

Were one to follow this logic, it would come to pass that citizens could
get warants to search neighbor's residences.

> 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.

Fair game for law enforcement use and can be presented in court, yes.
And, I might add, there is a different standard for voice communications
however carried.  The heat from a indoor pot garden is a different matter,
and incidently, the matter on which the question was presented.

> 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.

There is the additional matter of the obstruction of justice issues..

>I< tend to agree with you, but I see the arguments on the other side as
well.

> If the police don't need a warrant to
> collect information then citizens are equaly able to recieve that
> information as well.

How EXACTLY does this follow?

> 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.

Again, you need to distinguish law enforcement purposes and private
purposes.
 
> This same chain of logic can be extended to cell phones and such as
> well.

And yet you need a warrant to intercept cell phone conversation.

> 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.

And the fact that cellphones carry voice communications.

> It is similar to arresting somebody for wearing a blue shirt but letting
> the person wearing the red shirt go free.

ANd having the blue shirt say "kill the president" maybe would even out
your example.

> The rationale being that since
> the frequency of the blue shirt is higher it is fundamentaly different
> then the red shirt.

No, the rational being that the blue shirt carries a communication more
complicated than a simple speed reading, or heat emmission.

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

I think you are mistaken.

> 
>                                                      Jim Choate
> 
> 

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li