Lots of things are illegal when the government does it, but not when regular people do it. That's like, a major part of the constitution. Here's what's relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
> Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.
how does SC intends to differentiate light in visible spectrum from IR or radio spectrum? this is absurd, there should be some clarity of thought on this, either you allow monitoring on all frequencies of light or none. I can understand carveouts for banned/non-public use frequencies but a blanket order must respect privacy.
Uh. Humans see in vis. You aren't protected against intrusion in vis because everyone would reasonable expect that intrusion, can easily anticipate it, and you'll be monitored by your any passers by in vis.
This is called a reasonable expectation of privacy. You don't have one in the visible spectrum for things visible outside of your property to arbitrary passers by.
Super-duper sensing devices can potentially violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The decision in Kyllo was pretty clearly explained by the court.
"there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. We think that obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U. S., at 512, constitutes a search— at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the
35
*35 information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search."
> how does SC intends to differentiate light in visible spectrum from IR or radio spectrum? this is absurd, there should be some clarity of thought on this, either you allow monitoring on all frequencies of light or none.
I guess it should depend on what information is collected and how long the surveillance is. A camera picks up mostly visible light and if it's pointed at a house for months on end that's a major problem. Police can use radio waves to see through walls and track your actions inside your home from the outside, or fly overhead and see what you're doing using thermal cameras and that's much much more invasive but can take place in minutes.
> Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.