Court to hear IR heat signature case - Page 3

Griff · 03-13-2001, 07:01 AM

Our county jail up here recently had a crack down to try to reduce their drug problem. Along with all the usual stuff, some guy was actually brewing beer in his cell. Give away all our civil liberties and all you'll have is a population that needs to self-medicate. This one is not winnable.

russotto · 03-13-2001, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw

The above question was previously answered correctly. However if did not understand the original concept, then first reread those posts. For example, Russotto talks about millimeter microwave transmissions which are already defined in that previous post - which must ignore my previous post to be relevant.

Tom, the millimeter wave technology is passive. No transmission necessary. Just a detector. Just like IR.

tw · 03-13-2001, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russotto
Tom, the millimeter wave technology is passive. No transmission necessary. Just a detector. Just like IR.

So what inside your house is transmitting millimeter radar waves so that outsiders can monitor your privacy?

Are you saying that your privacy is violated if a microwave oven leaks microwaves? What in the house creates these higher frequency (millimeter) electromagnetic waves?

alphageek31337 · 03-13-2001, 10:04 PM

I'm sensing a pervasive theme here, and one I can agree with. The war on drugs is going the way of prohibition in the 1920s. We simply couldn't stop alcohol then, despite our best intentions, and we created a criminal market that led to murders, increase in jail population, and a general feeling of well-being. That same thing is happening now; the American drug laws are creating crime rather than stopping it. Drugs are illegal, which means there is a very lucrative market for those who are willing to dip into them (I know a low-level guy, operating out of a trenchcoat, who pulls in $1k a week, easy). With such a black market, comes fierce competition (ie rival drug dealers killing each other), and an intense effort by addicts to get the money they need for the drugs, but whatever means necessary. I advocate personal responsibility when it comes to such matters. Drug laws should be repealed so that safe, gvmt.-regulated (make a note of this, this'll probably be the only time I advocate government regulation in public) drugs are available on the free market. I think that the average Joe (assuming the average Joe to be over 21 years old and of relatively good health) is responsible enough to decide himself whether he wants to use a drug, or any type of drug. People fear that responsibility, because if someone acts irresponsibly, they can do damage. So people have a habit of looking for a Big Brother to watch over them closely, take away that responsibility, and make things easy. Such is the case with drug laws.

What we must advocate is responsibility and education. With these two things, there would be no need for such laws. Give people the chance to do something, the ability to screw up, and the knowledge that there will be consequences if they screw up, and you'll end up with better people.

Which brings me to another rant on that lack of consequences in american society, but I must rest for the eve (if I rant more than twice a day, my blood pressure goes up so high that I squirt blood from my nose).

I'll leave you with that, and prepare my next tirade

Steve

Griff · 03-14-2001, 07:47 AM

"Drug laws should be repealed so that safe, gvmt.-regulated (make a note of this, this'll probably be the only time I advocate government regulation in public) drugs are available on the free market." Go back to Cuba, pinko. <sarcasm>

tw seems comfortable with arguing for some consistancy in privacy laws as they are already interpreted. I am comfortable with the idea of taking prudent steps to ensure my neighbor or some other private person only knows what I wish him to know. However, since law enforcement have virtually unlimited resources, due to assett forfiture, I expect them to be held on a tighter leash. A peeping Tom neighbor is one thing, he could do much harm, but he cannot legally kick in my door, seize my assetts, and throw me in prison (temporarily since I am virtue personified). I'm not comfortable with allowing any observation of light outside the visible spectrum, without a search warrant.

russotto · 03-14-2001, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw

Quote:

Originally posted by russotto
Tom, the millimeter wave technology is passive. No transmission necessary. Just a detector. Just like IR.

So what inside your house is transmitting millimeter radar waves so that outsiders can monitor your privacy?

People. Inanimate objects. Read the site whose I posted.

Dagnabit · 03-14-2001, 10:59 AM

Griff says, <i>"I am comfortable with the idea of taking prudent steps to ensure my neighbor or some other private person only knows what I wish him to know."</i>

Yup. Yup yup yup.

Not only does it take into account futher invasions of privacy that we can't anticipate, like Russotto's example. There are certain to be new ways to violate privacy, such as concentrating our data and running bots over it.

Let's see, under the tw system this would be permissible: cameras are mounted on poles outside our houses. They have face recognition so they record and timestamp our coming and going. Cameras at public places like malls also have face recognition and record our presence. Once we buy something on a card, our identity is linked up with the mall system forever, matching the identity to the face. Our writings on the net are watched and any writings that can't be identified are run over authoring-recognition systems to determine identitites. It's all possible now...

If we want to have a civil society, my theory is, the authorities must be held to not only the same level but a higher level of civility. People must be trusted and not controlled.

alphageek31337 · 03-14-2001, 01:08 PM

Quote:

"Drug laws should be repealed so that safe, gvmt.-regulated (make a note of this, this'll probably be the only time I advocate government regulation in public) drugs are available on the free market." Go back to Cuba, pinko.

Where do you get communism from that? What I'm advocating is that, instead of getting drugs that have been through the hands of at least 5 or 6 other guys, each of which having probably cut it with another unknown substance and mixed it with other drugs in order to increase his profits, you get a drug made by a private drug company, but regulated by the government to make sure you GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!! If it weren't for government regulation, what keeps a company from selling something as aspirin that's 99% filler and 1% some stronger narcotic. It'd be more profitable that way, but would you want to buy it? You know you're safe with aspirin, but when it's this unknown drug mixture, you don't know if it could be ineffective or, even better, kill you.

Maybe you oughta keep your militance in check until you develop a little better foresight

Steve

Griff · 03-14-2001, 02:02 PM

I was kidding.

alphageek31337 · 03-14-2001, 02:27 PM

All apologies, my sarcasm filter wasn't working right, and that one slipped from "Sarcastic Joke" all the way to "Short-sighted Flame". I take back all personal attacks.

Imperialist plutocrat bastard.

Steve

Griff · 03-14-2001, 03:34 PM

"Imperialist plutocrat bastard." Thats more like it.

tw · 03-14-2001, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russotto
Tom, the millimeter wave technology is passive. No transmission necessary. Just a detector. Just like IR.

That is not passive, requires a transmitter, and will probably have the size and abilities similar to PET and CAT scanners. To detect guns, etc the millimeter waves are transmitted like X-rays are to examine baggage. The original definitions of what constitutes invasion of privacy still holds consistent. Consistency - not irrational science fiction based upon personal fears - is what is required in laws to protect privacy.

Privacy and its underlying principals were correctly defined previously. The only way this consistency can be defeated is to hype science fiction concpets that just don't exist - neither in theory nor in practice. Millimeter imaging under the current laws requires a transmitter and special, receiving equipment intended only to violate standard privacy equipment known as siding, plywood, insulation, sheetrock, and paint. By the concepts of current laws, this millimeter imaging system is similar to wiretapping - requires a court order.

Police Departments cannot even afford a machine to measure the darkness of tinted car windows (something that violates safety of those outside the car and should be banned everywhere for the protection of all other motorists and pedestrians). Now those same police will purchase millimeter wave imaging equipment that will even be too big for a pickup? Get real. Stop with the science fiction based only upon personal fears. The fear is not based upon logical conclusions and legal precedents.

Griff · 03-15-2001, 01:40 PM

Here is a good place to go for legal commentary on cases like this one.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/

Griff · 03-15-2001, 02:12 PM

lifted from a Barton Aronson column on the site "...The limits of this approach are especially acute when Fourth Amendment cases involve unusual technology. Thermal imaging has been around for years, but it's a fair bet that most people have never heard of it, and don't really have an opinion about it. Moreover, the history or availability of technology is not much of a guide to Fourth Amendment opinions. Telescopes have been around forever, and you can buy them in any store, but you still can't use very high-powered ones to peer into house windows without a warrant."

Thermal imagery, as presently used is according to Aronson pretty clumsy, not showing much detail. I assume it gives the sort of information you could extrapolate from a copy of the electric bill. I assume, maybe wrongly, that the police need a warrant to get that info unless its made available for dumpster divers. If this door is opened and thermal imagery improves to the level of the "high-power" telescope, however that would be defined, will its use be curtailed? rumor/inuendo section -some other guy on the message board at the site said the windows were boarded up. reasonable expectation of privacy?

Griff · 06-12-2001, 07:12 AM

Some good news from the SC.

http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20010...tsearchdc.html

'To withdraw such a minimum expectation of privacy against unreasonable searches would permit ``police technology to erode the privacy'' guaranteed by the Constitution, Scalia said.'

The bad guys on this one were-"Dissenting were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy."

"Stevens said the privacy interest was ``trivial'' at best. He said a homeowner who wants to engage in activities that produce extraordinary amounts of heat could conceal that from outsiders simply by making sure the home was well insulated."

Interesting note, Thomas was the swing vote on this one and chose liberty.

03-13-2001, 07:01 AM	#31
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Winnin' the war Our county jail up here recently had a crack down to try to reduce their drug problem. Along with all the usual stuff, some guy was actually brewing beer in his cell. Give away all our civil liberties and all you'll have is a population that needs to self-medicate. This one is not winnable.

03-13-2001, 10:04 PM	#34
alphageek31337 Enemy Combatant/Evildoer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 263	The War On Americans I'm sensing a pervasive theme here, and one I can agree with. The war on drugs is going the way of prohibition in the 1920s. We simply couldn't stop alcohol then, despite our best intentions, and we created a criminal market that led to murders, increase in jail population, and a general feeling of well-being. That same thing is happening now; the American drug laws are creating crime rather than stopping it. Drugs are illegal, which means there is a very lucrative market for those who are willing to dip into them (I know a low-level guy, operating out of a trenchcoat, who pulls in $1k a week, easy). With such a black market, comes fierce competition (ie rival drug dealers killing each other), and an intense effort by addicts to get the money they need for the drugs, but whatever means necessary. I advocate personal responsibility when it comes to such matters. Drug laws should be repealed so that safe, gvmt.-regulated (make a note of this, this'll probably be the only time I advocate government regulation in public) drugs are available on the free market. I think that the average Joe (assuming the average Joe to be over 21 years old and of relatively good health) is responsible enough to decide himself whether he wants to use a drug, or any type of drug. People fear that responsibility, because if someone acts irresponsibly, they can do damage. So people have a habit of looking for a Big Brother to watch over them closely, take away that responsibility, and make things easy. Such is the case with drug laws. What we must advocate is responsibility and education. With these two things, there would be no need for such laws. Give people the chance to do something, the ability to screw up, and the knowledge that there will be consequences if they screw up, and you'll end up with better people. Which brings me to another rant on that lack of consequences in american society, but I must rest for the eve (if I rant more than twice a day, my blood pressure goes up so high that I squirt blood from my nose). I'll leave you with that, and prepare my next tirade Steve __________________ The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. ---Friedrich Nietzsche

03-14-2001, 02:27 PM	#40
alphageek31337 Enemy Combatant/Evildoer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 263	Griff All apologies, my sarcasm filter wasn't working right, and that one slipped from "Sarcastic Joke" all the way to "Short-sighted Flame". I take back all personal attacks. Imperialist plutocrat bastard. Steve __________________ The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. ---Friedrich Nietzsche

03-14-2001, 03:34 PM	#41
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	gotta note when I think I'm bein' funny "Imperialist plutocrat bastard." Thats more like it.

06-12-2001, 07:12 AM	#45
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Hooray! Some good news from the SC. http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20010...tsearchdc.html 'To withdraw such a minimum expectation of privacy against unreasonable searches would permit ``police technology to erode the privacy'' guaranteed by the Constitution, Scalia said.' The bad guys on this one were-"Dissenting were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy." "Stevens said the privacy interest was ``trivial'' at best. He said a homeowner who wants to engage in activities that produce extraordinary amounts of heat could conceal that from outsiders simply by making sure the home was well insulated." Interesting note, Thomas was the swing vote on this one and chose liberty.

03-14-2001, 07:47 AM	#35
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	"Drug laws should be repealed so that safe, gvmt.-regulated (make a note of this, this'll probably be the only time I advocate government regulation in public) drugs are available on the free market." Go back to Cuba, pinko. <sarcasm> tw seems comfortable with arguing for some consistancy in privacy laws as they are already interpreted. I am comfortable with the idea of taking prudent steps to ensure my neighbor or some other private person only knows what I wish him to know. However, since law enforcement have virtually unlimited resources, due to assett forfiture, I expect them to be held on a tighter leash. A peeping Tom neighbor is one thing, he could do much harm, but he cannot legally kick in my door, seize my assetts, and throw me in prison (temporarily since I am virtue personified). I'm not comfortable with allowing any observation of light outside the visible spectrum, without a search warrant.

03-14-2001, 10:59 AM	#37
Dagnabit High Propagandist Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 115	Griff says, <i>"I am comfortable with the idea of taking prudent steps to ensure my neighbor or some other private person only knows what I wish him to know."</i> Yup. Yup yup yup. Not only does it take into account futher invasions of privacy that we can't anticipate, like Russotto's example. There are certain to be new ways to violate privacy, such as concentrating our data and running bots over it. Let's see, under the tw system this would be permissible: cameras are mounted on poles outside our houses. They have face recognition so they record and timestamp our coming and going. Cameras at public places like malls also have face recognition and record our presence. Once we buy something on a card, our identity is linked up with the mall system forever, matching the identity to the face. Our writings on the net are watched and any writings that can't be identified are run over authoring-recognition systems to determine identitites. It's all possible now... If we want to have a civil society, my theory is, the authorities must be held to not only the same level but a higher level of civility. People must be trusted and not controlled.

03-14-2001, 02:02 PM	#39
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	I was kidding.

03-15-2001, 01:40 PM	#43
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Here is a good place to go for legal commentary on cases like this one. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/

03-15-2001, 02:12 PM	#44
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	lifted from a Barton Aronson column on the site "...The limits of this approach are especially acute when Fourth Amendment cases involve unusual technology. Thermal imaging has been around for years, but it's a fair bet that most people have never heard of it, and don't really have an opinion about it. Moreover, the history or availability of technology is not much of a guide to Fourth Amendment opinions. Telescopes have been around forever, and you can buy them in any store, but you still can't use very high-powered ones to peer into house windows without a warrant." Thermal imagery, as presently used is according to Aronson pretty clumsy, not showing much detail. I assume it gives the sort of information you could extrapolate from a copy of the electric bill. I assume, maybe wrongly, that the police need a warrant to get that info unless its made available for dumpster divers. If this door is opened and thermal imagery improves to the level of the "high-power" telescope, however that would be defined, will its use be curtailed? rumor/inuendo section -some other guy on the message board at the site said the windows were boarded up. reasonable expectation of privacy?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)