THE heat that American citizens generate in the privacy of their own homes
should remain a private matter, a court has ruled.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, Oregon, last month overturned
a conviction for growing marijuana, ruling that the snooping method used by
police was an invasion of privacy. The case, which may go all the way to the US
Supreme Court, is the latest example of how modern technology is throwing
privacy laws into disarray.
When police in Oregon suspected that Danny Lee Kyllo was growing pot plants
in his home, they called in a high-tech snooper, the Agema Thermovision 210.
This infrared camera can see through walls to detect warm objects, including the
lamps used to nurture marijuana plants. Officers saw high levels of heat coming
from Kyllo鈥檚 home.
Advertisement
With that evidence, the police obtained a search warrant and found a
marijuana farm, weapons and drug paraphernalia. Kyllo faced a prison sentence of
more than five years. Now his case will have to be retried.
Several courts had previously ruled that infrared radiation is 鈥渨aste heat鈥�,
and therefore fair game for the police to look at. 鈥淎nything you throw away,
cops can pick up and search without a warrant,鈥� notes David Banisar, a lawyer
with the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington DC.
But the Ninth Circuit decided that infrared searches violated Kyllo鈥檚
鈥渞easonable expectation鈥� of privacy. John Henry Hingson, his lawyer, thinks the
ruling will threaten law enforcement agencies鈥� plans to use other high-tech
snoopers, such as millimetre-wave imagers that can see objects through walls.
鈥淭his decision will be reviewed by the Department of Justice very, very
carefully,鈥� he says.
Prosecuting attorney Robert Thomson says that his team is talking to the
justice department about fighting on鈥攖o the Supreme Court, if
necessary.
The arguments surrounding infrared and millimetre-wave cameras are the latest
wrinkles in an increasingly confused debate about technology and privacy. It is
illegal to eavesdrop on cellular phone conversations, but until the 1994
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) banned the practice, a
1991 Supreme Court ruling made it perfectly acceptable to listen in to a
conversation conducted on a cordless phone鈥攅ven though the only
fundamental difference between the phones is the frequency they transmit on. The
issue gets more confusing by the day. As 快猫短视频 went to press,
the US cellular phone industry was threatening a lawsuit to clarify the CALEA,
claiming that 鈥渢he FBI is requesting surveillance capabilities that go beyond
the law鈥�.
Cassidy Sehgal, a lawyer in Washington DC with the American Civil Liberties
Union, notes that e-mail and digital telephony鈥攙oice messages carried over
the Internet鈥攃urrently have little or no privacy protection. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hotly
debated right now,鈥� she says.
The way forward lies with clear laws on the degree of protection citizens can
expect from the prying eyes and ears of the whole range of snooping
technologies, argue civil libertarians. But these show no sign of being passed.