RE: Latest 4th amendment case...
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 17:53:07 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:13:58 -0400
>From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>SUBJECTReply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>I'm surprised nobody has commented yet on the ruling just issued from
>the Supreme Court, where a gentleman growning pot in his attic was
>busted based on evidence from an infrared camera that viewed the heat of
>the grow lamps through the walls of his house. The SCOTUS ruled that
>this is an intrusion into the privacy of the home, and set a standard
>that use of high tech equipment to enable police to view people's
>private property to a greater degree than by normal unaided human
>observation requires a search warrant. They stated that the degree of
>privacy an individual has cannot be determined by the present state of
>technology, that privacy rights have an absolute standard boundary that
>is irrespective of changes in our society like technology. Note that
>this heavily smacks of a natural rights argument.
>
>This is a great day for privacy advocates, and the alliance of 6
>conservative and liberal judges in this ruling indicates that
>libertarian issues like this are gaining a serious audience in the
>court.
>
>NOTE: Spike is hereby warned to keep his flying snooper microbots out of
>my airspace! ;-)
>
Wouldn't this ruling also in principle outlaw as legitimate non-search-warrant tools the laser-bouncing listening devices that are focused on windowpanes to eavesdrop on conversations?
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:06 MST