Is thermal imaging an invasion of privacy? What do you think?

[AndrewR]

The Supreme Court is apparently going to hear a case involving law enforcement use of thermal imaging equipment which identified a large heat source in the attic of a man. That led to the issuance of a search warrant which netted about 100 marijuana plants growing in his attic with the use of heat lamps. The man is arguing that it was an illegal search.

What do you think? Interesting case. Here's the story.

 

[Ladies Man]

it's illegal

the guy will win

 

[fdiskboy]

Yep. Unless they have a warrant. I would think that thermal imaging might fall under the same type of statutes as wiretapping and the like.

Of course, who cares if they are invading your privacy, unless you have something to hide?

 

[xtreme2k]

Of course, who cares if they are invading your privacy, unless you have something to hide?

I have nothing to hide
but that doesnt mean I will

- walk out naked
- keep my main door open when I am both out or at home

My point is even if we have nothing to hide, there is still no need for others to look.

 

[loup garou]

I agree with fdiskboy (OMG!). It can be a useful tool to find criminal evidence, but only when applied as a regular search would be (with a warrant). I didn't read the article (can't at work)--is this similar to the IR sensors the LAPD use on their helicopters? If so, I wouldn't want the police flying over my neighborhood and "peeking" through my walls to see if anything illegal was going on.

 

[OS]

Invasion of privacy. The reason walls are opaque is that we don't want people looking inside our homes. Thermal imaging defeats this. In fact, this is one step away from setting up giant xray cameras at people's homes.

 

[vi edit]

Tough call. The article says that it wasn't the thermal imaging alone that led to the warrant. They used electric bills and an informant as well. Not that those can really be weighed very heavily.

One side of me says that it was possibly uncalled for.

The other side of me says good job to the cops. I look at like this - what if it hadn't been marijuana that they found being harvested. What if the house owner had a meth lab in there and the cops could somehow use thermal imaging to find that out? Anybody that knows anything about the nature of meth labs knows that if not practiced carefully, they are more or less a time bomb waiting to explode. If It had been a meth lab, and the guy was living next door to me, I probably would have taken the cops out for coffe and and donuts for possibly saving my life.

I really can't come to a conclusion on it. I see how it can be abused, but it also can prove to be a useful tool to aid other information in obtaining a warrant.

 

[Tauren]

I personally don't think it is. If they used x-ray vision and could see into my house...That would be.

 

[Capn]

I don't really feel it is. I couldn't give a damn if someone is taking any kind of picture of my home. We build walls to protect us from the environment and regular onlookers. If people have a problem with thermal imaging then I suggest they install more insulation in their homes. It is vitally different than wiretapping. Besides, it's the excess heat and lack of insulation in his house that is emitting the infrared.

 

[AndrewR]

For those that think this is illegal, how does the radiation of heat energy differ from the radiation of light energy? If it doesn't, then is it also illegal for a police officer to LOOK at a house (that's mentioned in the article)? Since it's legal for police to use a helicopter to look over a fence, would it be illegal for them to look in an open window?

If we are talking about energy radiating from the house, then I cannot see a way to call this an "invasion". If we are talking about wall-penetrating technology, then that's another animal. From what I read, it sounds like they were using the device to measure the heat emanating from the house through the attic and not using it to "see" into the attic.

 

[konichiwa]

In my opinion the difference is that with this thermal imaging technology they can see beyond barriers that you have put up specifically to prevent peering eyes. That is the invasion of privacy in my opinion.

<< From what I read, it sounds like they were using the device to measure the heat emanating from the house through the attic and not using it to &quot;see&quot; into the attic >>

But they are in essence looking at what's inside this guy's attic, right? So whether it's not scientifically correct, in effect they are looking at what you're keeping private.

 

[Azraele]

Offhand, I'd say it sounds illegal, but after reading the article a bit, I changed my mind.

<<In 1991, a narcotics task force was investigating whether Kyllo?s neighbors were growing marijuana at a triplex house.>>

Obviously there was cause for suspicion and they weren't randomly singling him out. Second, they obtained a warrant which is what police do when they have due cause for suspicion. I don't see any breach of rights here unless cops go using the device randomly trying to find lawbreakers. Were that the case, then yes, I'd say it's an infringment of privacy.

 

[gunf1ghter]

If they had a warrant the &quot;search&quot; is legal, otherwise I say it's an invasion of privacy.

The excuse that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about has been used to erode a lot of the freedom we have in this country.

 

[AndrewR]

I still rely on the radiation theory. With the conservative court, this is likely to come down in favor of legality, but we'll see. It's quite an interesting case. I think I'll see if I can find the appellate opinion.