Thermal Imaging Decision Applicable to TEMPEST?

[Sidney Markowitz]

John Young wrote:
> Remote acquisition of electronic emissions, say from outside a
> home, are not currently prohibited by law as far as I know. And
> the language of the thermal imaging decision makes it applicable
> to any technology not commonly in use.

IANAL, but when I read the decision it seemed to apply to new
technologies that are equivalent to entering someone's house and looking
around without a search warrant. Looking ahead, it may someday be
possible to make the walls of someone's home effectively transparent,
and the ruling says it is illegal to use such technology in situations
where it would be illegal to enter the house.

There's an article by someone who is a lawyer at
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/columns/fl.aronson.techprivacy.03.19/
where he defines the question in this case as

"Is thermal imaging more like going through your garbage (which courts
have allowed) or more like looking into your window with a high-powered
telescope (for which courts generally require a warrant)?"

The article goes on about the decision process in cases like this.

I think it is clear that a Supreme Court judge might consider technology
to effectively look through walls to see whatever is there as being in a
different class than technology to remotely detect the details of use of
electronic equipment, in the same way that a telescope looking in the
window is different from sifting through garbage.

 -- sidney
    sidney at sidney.com



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com