<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_1728216</id>
	<title>Does Cheap Tech Undermine Legal Privacy Protections?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262713440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bfwebster writes <i>"Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who focuses on legal issues regarding information technology (I own a copy of his book <em>Computer Crime Law</em>) raises an <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/01/04/can-the-police-now-use-thermal-imaging-devices-without-a-warrant-a-reexamination-of-kyllo-in-light-of-the-widespread-use-of-infrared-temperature-sensors/">interesting issue about a 2001 Supreme Court decision</a>  (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo\_v.\_United\_States">Kyllo v. United States</a>) that prohibited police from using a thermal imaging device on a private home without a warrant. (The police were trying to detect excess heat coming from the roof of a garage, as an indication of lamps being used to grow marijuana inside.) The Court made its decision back in 2001 because thermal imaging devices were 'not in general use' and therefore represented a technology that required a warrant. However, Kerr points out that anyone can now buy such thermal imaging devices for <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001LMTW2S/">$50 to $150 from Amazon</a>, and that they're advertised as a means of detecting thermal leakage from your home. In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bfwebster writes " Orin Kerr , a George Washington University law professor who focuses on legal issues regarding information technology ( I own a copy of his book Computer Crime Law ) raises an interesting issue about a 2001 Supreme Court decision ( Kyllo v. United States ) that prohibited police from using a thermal imaging device on a private home without a warrant .
( The police were trying to detect excess heat coming from the roof of a garage , as an indication of lamps being used to grow marijuana inside .
) The Court made its decision back in 2001 because thermal imaging devices were 'not in general use ' and therefore represented a technology that required a warrant .
However , Kerr points out that anyone can now buy such thermal imaging devices for $ 50 to $ 150 from Amazon , and that they 're advertised as a means of detecting thermal leakage from your home .
In light of that , Kerr asks , is the Supreme Court 's ruling still sound ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bfwebster writes "Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who focuses on legal issues regarding information technology (I own a copy of his book Computer Crime Law) raises an interesting issue about a 2001 Supreme Court decision  (Kyllo v. United States) that prohibited police from using a thermal imaging device on a private home without a warrant.
(The police were trying to detect excess heat coming from the roof of a garage, as an indication of lamps being used to grow marijuana inside.
) The Court made its decision back in 2001 because thermal imaging devices were 'not in general use' and therefore represented a technology that required a warrant.
However, Kerr points out that anyone can now buy such thermal imaging devices for $50 to $150 from Amazon, and that they're advertised as a means of detecting thermal leakage from your home.
In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661568</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>jcrousedotcom</author>
	<datestamp>1262689740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it has not been legalized and taxed.  Until then it is (whether you agree or not) illegal and the folks the taxpayers pay to enforce the laws are using what steps necessary to do so.  This is not an endorsement of busting drug grow operations, this is merely stating, until they're told to do otherwise (by changing the law) they are going to continue to enforce the law.<br> <br>

It always makes me scratch my head - "Why are the cops spending money enforcing X?"  Maybe because...  It's illegal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it has not been legalized and taxed .
Until then it is ( whether you agree or not ) illegal and the folks the taxpayers pay to enforce the laws are using what steps necessary to do so .
This is not an endorsement of busting drug grow operations , this is merely stating , until they 're told to do otherwise ( by changing the law ) they are going to continue to enforce the law .
It always makes me scratch my head - " Why are the cops spending money enforcing X ?
" Maybe because... It 's illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it has not been legalized and taxed.
Until then it is (whether you agree or not) illegal and the folks the taxpayers pay to enforce the laws are using what steps necessary to do so.
This is not an endorsement of busting drug grow operations, this is merely stating, until they're told to do otherwise (by changing the law) they are going to continue to enforce the law.
It always makes me scratch my head - "Why are the cops spending money enforcing X?
"  Maybe because...  It's illegal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664422</id>
	<title>Re:There must be a better way.</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1262704680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quotas for law enforcement are a Really Bad Idea. For just a mild example, the morons in my state government tried this with roadside DUI tests. The result was that after their complaints about the quotas were ignored, cops starting faking the tests (repeatedly blowing in the breathalyser themselves!) so they'd still have time to do the rest of their jobs.</p><p>Now imagine the consequences of your suggestion that the politicians mandate actually arresting, not just checking, X people per month... "you're innocent? too bad, I need to meet my quota!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quotas for law enforcement are a Really Bad Idea .
For just a mild example , the morons in my state government tried this with roadside DUI tests .
The result was that after their complaints about the quotas were ignored , cops starting faking the tests ( repeatedly blowing in the breathalyser themselves !
) so they 'd still have time to do the rest of their jobs.Now imagine the consequences of your suggestion that the politicians mandate actually arresting , not just checking , X people per month... " you 're innocent ?
too bad , I need to meet my quota !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quotas for law enforcement are a Really Bad Idea.
For just a mild example, the morons in my state government tried this with roadside DUI tests.
The result was that after their complaints about the quotas were ignored, cops starting faking the tests (repeatedly blowing in the breathalyser themselves!
) so they'd still have time to do the rest of their jobs.Now imagine the consequences of your suggestion that the politicians mandate actually arresting, not just checking, X people per month... "you're innocent?
too bad, I need to meet my quota!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659964</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Question</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1262683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK I will give you telepaths and breaches of privacy (ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD!), however clairvoyants are another matter.</p><p>They read the future. It hasn't happened yet. How can they be accused of anything that hasn't even happened yet?</p><p>It would have been interesting if they looked at that angle in Minority Report. Of course you start to get into some pretty circular logic. Like how can you get a warrant in advance to see the future. My mind just exploded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK I will give you telepaths and breaches of privacy ( ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD !
) , however clairvoyants are another matter.They read the future .
It has n't happened yet .
How can they be accused of anything that has n't even happened yet ? It would have been interesting if they looked at that angle in Minority Report .
Of course you start to get into some pretty circular logic .
Like how can you get a warrant in advance to see the future .
My mind just exploded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK I will give you telepaths and breaches of privacy (ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD!
), however clairvoyants are another matter.They read the future.
It hasn't happened yet.
How can they be accused of anything that hasn't even happened yet?It would have been interesting if they looked at that angle in Minority Report.
Of course you start to get into some pretty circular logic.
Like how can you get a warrant in advance to see the future.
My mind just exploded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</id>
	<title>"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1262717400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked item is not an imager, it's a glorified thermometer.  I <i>wish</i> you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked, they still started in the $3-4K range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked item is not an imager , it 's a glorified thermometer .
I wish you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked , they still started in the $ 3-4K range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked item is not an imager, it's a glorified thermometer.
I wish you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked, they still started in the $3-4K range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661270</id>
	<title>Re:Sound?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1262688720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does that include using Van Eck phreaking to <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/04/seeing-through-walls.html" title="newscientist.com">duplicate your computer display</a> [newscientist.com]?  Or wifi snooping?  What about monitoring the reflections of the sun off your windows and filtering for the minute vibrations in the glass caused by speech?  Some of us prefer to live in homes rather than windowless faraday cages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that include using Van Eck phreaking to duplicate your computer display [ newscientist.com ] ?
Or wifi snooping ?
What about monitoring the reflections of the sun off your windows and filtering for the minute vibrations in the glass caused by speech ?
Some of us prefer to live in homes rather than windowless faraday cages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that include using Van Eck phreaking to duplicate your computer display [newscientist.com]?
Or wifi snooping?
What about monitoring the reflections of the sun off your windows and filtering for the minute vibrations in the glass caused by speech?
Some of us prefer to live in homes rather than windowless faraday cages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658658</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262721180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic says they used an imager because they wanted the walls to be windows. Cops don't care about your <a href="http://slashdot.org/~sm62704/journal/193372" title="slashdot.org">4th amendment rights</a> [slashdot.org], or any of your other rights for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic says they used an imager because they wanted the walls to be windows .
Cops do n't care about your 4th amendment rights [ slashdot.org ] , or any of your other rights for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic says they used an imager because they wanted the walls to be windows.
Cops don't care about your 4th amendment rights [slashdot.org], or any of your other rights for that matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658246</id>
	<title>Wide Spread Use</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1262719500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the article even states, "The Supreme Court announced the following rule: &ldquo;when . . . the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a &ldquo;search&rdquo; and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.&rdquo; Because infrared temperature sensing was not in &ldquo;general public use,&rdquo; the thermal imaging was a &ldquo;search&rdquo; that required a warrant. "
<br> <br>
Regardless of whether or not the price has gone down, if the item is still not in "general public use", then we are looking at the same situation.  Price of a device should not matter at all about whether or not an item is in "general public use".
<br> <br>
Whether they like it or not, whether the price has gone down or not, until the item is in general public use, they need a warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the article even states , " The Supreme Court announced the following rule :    when .
. .
the Government uses a device that is not in general public use , to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion , the surveillance is a    search    and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.    Because infrared temperature sensing was not in    general public use ,    the thermal imaging was a    search    that required a warrant .
" Regardless of whether or not the price has gone down , if the item is still not in " general public use " , then we are looking at the same situation .
Price of a device should not matter at all about whether or not an item is in " general public use " .
Whether they like it or not , whether the price has gone down or not , until the item is in general public use , they need a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the article even states, "The Supreme Court announced the following rule: “when .
. .
the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” Because infrared temperature sensing was not in “general public use,” the thermal imaging was a “search” that required a warrant.
"
 
Regardless of whether or not the price has gone down, if the item is still not in "general public use", then we are looking at the same situation.
Price of a device should not matter at all about whether or not an item is in "general public use".
Whether they like it or not, whether the price has gone down or not, until the item is in general public use, they need a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657762</id>
	<title>If the police cant the corporations can, then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the police will just buy that info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the police will just buy that info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the police will just buy that info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658394</id>
	<title>It  has to be</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1262720160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the barriers to the government are far lower than someone of modest means.</p><p>I remember an episode of Weeds where the government finds a stolen cross by its signature (hanging parallel to the floor)  in the garage of a home. While fictional, I don't think it is far from the truth. I do know that we've had satellites that can spot a single plant of MJ in a field of corn, though there is just too much data to go through (maybe with modern processing this has changed?)</p><p>But the "right to privacy" that we enjoy is something like widespread use. If every cellphone camera had a thermal imager on it, that would be "widespread". But as long as you have go out and buy these things for specific use, then they are not in widespread use. For instance I recently bought a HP3325 function generator. It was over $4000 new, but I got it for $200, many years later on a 2nd hand market. Still these devices are not in widespread use, because we have no need for them in everyday life. And we just don't have uses for thermal imagers. (I realize that I'm talking to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., so we'd be the most interested in them for fun and research, but I don't see the same level of interest across society at large) It would at best be compared to a power washer or welder. Sure, people can afford them, but few have them.</p><p>I even expect laws to be passed to protect our privacy from thermal imagers, since they are less-offensive that upskirt cellphone pics. Where the imager needs to stretch IR into the visible range, upskirt pics only need a particular angle of naturally visible matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the barriers to the government are far lower than someone of modest means.I remember an episode of Weeds where the government finds a stolen cross by its signature ( hanging parallel to the floor ) in the garage of a home .
While fictional , I do n't think it is far from the truth .
I do know that we 've had satellites that can spot a single plant of MJ in a field of corn , though there is just too much data to go through ( maybe with modern processing this has changed ?
) But the " right to privacy " that we enjoy is something like widespread use .
If every cellphone camera had a thermal imager on it , that would be " widespread " .
But as long as you have go out and buy these things for specific use , then they are not in widespread use .
For instance I recently bought a HP3325 function generator .
It was over $ 4000 new , but I got it for $ 200 , many years later on a 2nd hand market .
Still these devices are not in widespread use , because we have no need for them in everyday life .
And we just do n't have uses for thermal imagers .
( I realize that I 'm talking to /. , so we 'd be the most interested in them for fun and research , but I do n't see the same level of interest across society at large ) It would at best be compared to a power washer or welder .
Sure , people can afford them , but few have them.I even expect laws to be passed to protect our privacy from thermal imagers , since they are less-offensive that upskirt cellphone pics .
Where the imager needs to stretch IR into the visible range , upskirt pics only need a particular angle of naturally visible matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the barriers to the government are far lower than someone of modest means.I remember an episode of Weeds where the government finds a stolen cross by its signature (hanging parallel to the floor)  in the garage of a home.
While fictional, I don't think it is far from the truth.
I do know that we've had satellites that can spot a single plant of MJ in a field of corn, though there is just too much data to go through (maybe with modern processing this has changed?
)But the "right to privacy" that we enjoy is something like widespread use.
If every cellphone camera had a thermal imager on it, that would be "widespread".
But as long as you have go out and buy these things for specific use, then they are not in widespread use.
For instance I recently bought a HP3325 function generator.
It was over $4000 new, but I got it for $200, many years later on a 2nd hand market.
Still these devices are not in widespread use, because we have no need for them in everyday life.
And we just don't have uses for thermal imagers.
(I realize that I'm talking to /., so we'd be the most interested in them for fun and research, but I don't see the same level of interest across society at large) It would at best be compared to a power washer or welder.
Sure, people can afford them, but few have them.I even expect laws to be passed to protect our privacy from thermal imagers, since they are less-offensive that upskirt cellphone pics.
Where the imager needs to stretch IR into the visible range, upskirt pics only need a particular angle of naturally visible matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268</id>
	<title>If it's available it's fair game</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1262719560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.</p><p>I'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties. But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen doesn't have access to. So it seems like maybe it was a bogus, or overly optimistic, ruling.</p><p>I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods. They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community. But banning their use outright is silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , if it 's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op , then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.I 'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties .
But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen does n't have access to .
So it seems like maybe it was a bogus , or overly optimistic , ruling.I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods .
They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community .
But banning their use outright is silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.I'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties.
But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen doesn't have access to.
So it seems like maybe it was a bogus, or overly optimistic, ruling.I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods.
They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community.
But banning their use outright is silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658452</id>
	<title>What if it were a different kind of evidence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider this: what if, instead of excess heat, marijuana growing operations frequently gave off yellow smoke as a byproduct. This smoke could be observed by the naked eye. Would the police have the authority to observe the smoke without a warrant, and deduce from that what they may?</p><p>I don't really see this as being much different. The only difference is that the byproduct is invisible to the naked eye. Thermal imaging violates their privacy no more than a simple visual scan of the property would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider this : what if , instead of excess heat , marijuana growing operations frequently gave off yellow smoke as a byproduct .
This smoke could be observed by the naked eye .
Would the police have the authority to observe the smoke without a warrant , and deduce from that what they may ? I do n't really see this as being much different .
The only difference is that the byproduct is invisible to the naked eye .
Thermal imaging violates their privacy no more than a simple visual scan of the property would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider this: what if, instead of excess heat, marijuana growing operations frequently gave off yellow smoke as a byproduct.
This smoke could be observed by the naked eye.
Would the police have the authority to observe the smoke without a warrant, and deduce from that what they may?I don't really see this as being much different.
The only difference is that the byproduct is invisible to the naked eye.
Thermal imaging violates their privacy no more than a simple visual scan of the property would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30667388</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>easyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1262776680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It always makes me scratch my head - "Why are the cops spending money enforcing X?" Maybe because... It's illegal?</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and often it's illegal because corporations who run prisons have lobbied for the laws to make it illegal. They then get direct access to taxpayer money for 'housing' you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It always makes me scratch my head - " Why are the cops spending money enforcing X ?
" Maybe because... It 's illegal ?
..and often it 's illegal because corporations who run prisons have lobbied for the laws to make it illegal .
They then get direct access to taxpayer money for 'housing ' you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always makes me scratch my head - "Why are the cops spending money enforcing X?
" Maybe because... It's illegal?
..and often it's illegal because corporations who run prisons have lobbied for the laws to make it illegal.
They then get direct access to taxpayer money for 'housing' you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30662212</id>
	<title>Prof is a retard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can buy audio receivers/amplifies and listen into my neighbors conversations from the street. Does that mean that, since I'm not looking *inside* their home, it's okay?</p><p>Here in the South West, we call that stalking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can buy audio receivers/amplifies and listen into my neighbors conversations from the street .
Does that mean that , since I 'm not looking * inside * their home , it 's okay ? Here in the South West , we call that stalking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can buy audio receivers/amplifies and listen into my neighbors conversations from the street.
Does that mean that, since I'm not looking *inside* their home, it's okay?Here in the South West, we call that stalking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658826</id>
	<title>Re:If it's available it's fair game</title>
	<author>valdis</author>
	<datestamp>1262721780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody with a few benjamins or so can charter a helicopter for a ride over the location and see whatever's visible from up there.  Ordinary citizens certainly have access to it. See for example <a href="http://www.newyorkhelicopter.com/helicopter\_tours.html" title="newyorkhelicopter.com">http://www.newyorkhelicopter.com/helicopter\_tours.html</a> [newyorkhelicopter.com]</p><p>Another point is that even in a helicopter, the cops are still constrained by the "in plain sight" requirement - they can't act on anything they see down there unless it's something that anybody else who happened to do a fly-over would see.  If they do a fly-over with special imaging gear, that's still going to need a warrant.</p><p>And they cops usually need a warrant for that phone tap that ordinary citizens *don't* have access to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody with a few benjamins or so can charter a helicopter for a ride over the location and see whatever 's visible from up there .
Ordinary citizens certainly have access to it .
See for example http : //www.newyorkhelicopter.com/helicopter \ _tours.html [ newyorkhelicopter.com ] Another point is that even in a helicopter , the cops are still constrained by the " in plain sight " requirement - they ca n't act on anything they see down there unless it 's something that anybody else who happened to do a fly-over would see .
If they do a fly-over with special imaging gear , that 's still going to need a warrant.And they cops usually need a warrant for that phone tap that ordinary citizens * do n't * have access to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody with a few benjamins or so can charter a helicopter for a ride over the location and see whatever's visible from up there.
Ordinary citizens certainly have access to it.
See for example http://www.newyorkhelicopter.com/helicopter\_tours.html [newyorkhelicopter.com]Another point is that even in a helicopter, the cops are still constrained by the "in plain sight" requirement - they can't act on anything they see down there unless it's something that anybody else who happened to do a fly-over would see.
If they do a fly-over with special imaging gear, that's still going to need a warrant.And they cops usually need a warrant for that phone tap that ordinary citizens *don't* have access to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658624</id>
	<title>Re:This is completely different</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1262721060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is possible to create a high-resolution endoscope imaging system using a single oscillating fibre-optic thread, a high-frequency crystal/mirror, would it not be possible to do the same with a simple infra-red thermometer sensor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is possible to create a high-resolution endoscope imaging system using a single oscillating fibre-optic thread , a high-frequency crystal/mirror , would it not be possible to do the same with a simple infra-red thermometer sensor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is possible to create a high-resolution endoscope imaging system using a single oscillating fibre-optic thread, a high-frequency crystal/mirror, would it not be possible to do the same with a simple infra-red thermometer sensor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659214</id>
	<title>Someone needs to read the case files again</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1262723820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The decision wasn't based on technology not being in general use.</p><p>The 2001 decision was based on the ideals behind the consitution, that what you did in your home was your business and that using technology to see inside the home wasn't something the founding fathers thought of when writing the consitution, but clearly went against the spirit of the law.  The spirit being that what you do in your home that doesn't bother anyone is your business until it puts someone else in danger or becomes obvious to the outside observer.</p><p>At the time no one would have imagined that the outside observer could see through walls in a few hundred years.</p><p>The supreme court decided that just because some unpredicted technology was invented, doesn't mean that its allowed to be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The decision was n't based on technology not being in general use.The 2001 decision was based on the ideals behind the consitution , that what you did in your home was your business and that using technology to see inside the home was n't something the founding fathers thought of when writing the consitution , but clearly went against the spirit of the law .
The spirit being that what you do in your home that does n't bother anyone is your business until it puts someone else in danger or becomes obvious to the outside observer.At the time no one would have imagined that the outside observer could see through walls in a few hundred years.The supreme court decided that just because some unpredicted technology was invented , does n't mean that its allowed to be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decision wasn't based on technology not being in general use.The 2001 decision was based on the ideals behind the consitution, that what you did in your home was your business and that using technology to see inside the home wasn't something the founding fathers thought of when writing the consitution, but clearly went against the spirit of the law.
The spirit being that what you do in your home that doesn't bother anyone is your business until it puts someone else in danger or becomes obvious to the outside observer.At the time no one would have imagined that the outside observer could see through walls in a few hundred years.The supreme court decided that just because some unpredicted technology was invented, doesn't mean that its allowed to be used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664570</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>tombeard</author>
	<datestamp>1262705700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have them. They are used to see bad guys in the dark. I bought a FLIR entry level model for $30K about 5 years ago and the salesman demonstrated that you could rotate the unit upside down and the image retained it's real up/down orientation. That feature was added at the request of police so they could hold it upside down over their heads and still see the correct orientation. He said they had sold hundreds to the police. I understand you can buy them used on ebay for $3k now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have them .
They are used to see bad guys in the dark .
I bought a FLIR entry level model for $ 30K about 5 years ago and the salesman demonstrated that you could rotate the unit upside down and the image retained it 's real up/down orientation .
That feature was added at the request of police so they could hold it upside down over their heads and still see the correct orientation .
He said they had sold hundreds to the police .
I understand you can buy them used on ebay for $ 3k now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have them.
They are used to see bad guys in the dark.
I bought a FLIR entry level model for $30K about 5 years ago and the salesman demonstrated that you could rotate the unit upside down and the image retained it's real up/down orientation.
That feature was added at the request of police so they could hold it upside down over their heads and still see the correct orientation.
He said they had sold hundreds to the police.
I understand you can buy them used on ebay for $3k now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262718840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kind of raises the question of why the cops needed a $3K device when they really just wanted to know when a roof was &gt;120F.  Sure, the thermal imager is more fun to play with, but a $30 kitchen tool, you know the kind with the targeting laser, would work just about as well for a hundredth of the cost.   I think our generals use the same logic as these guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of raises the question of why the cops needed a $ 3K device when they really just wanted to know when a roof was &gt; 120F .
Sure , the thermal imager is more fun to play with , but a $ 30 kitchen tool , you know the kind with the targeting laser , would work just about as well for a hundredth of the cost .
I think our generals use the same logic as these guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of raises the question of why the cops needed a $3K device when they really just wanted to know when a roof was &gt;120F.
Sure, the thermal imager is more fun to play with, but a $30 kitchen tool, you know the kind with the targeting laser, would work just about as well for a hundredth of the cost.
I think our generals use the same logic as these guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657848</id>
	<title>Binoculars are still restricted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are still similar restrictions on tools such as using binoculars to look into peoples windows. Even if thermal imaging becomes much more common place it is hard to see how it would not be any less restricted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still similar restrictions on tools such as using binoculars to look into peoples windows .
Even if thermal imaging becomes much more common place it is hard to see how it would not be any less restricted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still similar restrictions on tools such as using binoculars to look into peoples windows.
Even if thermal imaging becomes much more common place it is hard to see how it would not be any less restricted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659654</id>
	<title>Eco Thoughts</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1262682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the crop growing people need one of these devices to help figure out how to best insulate their house and lower the cost of heat lamps needed for their "hydroponic tomatoes".</p><p>We should be helping these industrious entrepreneurs any way we can to help the environment, and lower their operating costs.</p><p>The cost of one of these devices would be paid for with energy savings alone, as there would be nearly no heat escaping.</p><p>Just my $.02</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the crop growing people need one of these devices to help figure out how to best insulate their house and lower the cost of heat lamps needed for their " hydroponic tomatoes " .We should be helping these industrious entrepreneurs any way we can to help the environment , and lower their operating costs.The cost of one of these devices would be paid for with energy savings alone , as there would be nearly no heat escaping.Just my $ .02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the crop growing people need one of these devices to help figure out how to best insulate their house and lower the cost of heat lamps needed for their "hydroponic tomatoes".We should be helping these industrious entrepreneurs any way we can to help the environment, and lower their operating costs.The cost of one of these devices would be paid for with energy savings alone, as there would be nearly no heat escaping.Just my $.02</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658276</id>
	<title>Re:Price and Prevalence Shouldn't Effect Legality</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1262719620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has never, AFAIK, been a court ruling to the effect that a cop needs a warrant to walk by your house and <b>look at at</b> for evidence of illegal activity.  Okay, he's not using an imaging device (except his own eyeballs) to do that -- but what if he wears glasses or contacts?  Guess what, you're under surveillance with imaging technology.</p><p>Fundamentally, I agree with you; the idea of cops going around and pointing IR sensors at people's houses in a fishing expedition for "probable cause" pisses me off.  But there is clearly a line beyond which a certain method of information gathering is no longer "unreasonable search," and I honestly don't think anyone knows exactly where that line is drawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has never , AFAIK , been a court ruling to the effect that a cop needs a warrant to walk by your house and look at at for evidence of illegal activity .
Okay , he 's not using an imaging device ( except his own eyeballs ) to do that -- but what if he wears glasses or contacts ?
Guess what , you 're under surveillance with imaging technology.Fundamentally , I agree with you ; the idea of cops going around and pointing IR sensors at people 's houses in a fishing expedition for " probable cause " pisses me off .
But there is clearly a line beyond which a certain method of information gathering is no longer " unreasonable search , " and I honestly do n't think anyone knows exactly where that line is drawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has never, AFAIK, been a court ruling to the effect that a cop needs a warrant to walk by your house and look at at for evidence of illegal activity.
Okay, he's not using an imaging device (except his own eyeballs) to do that -- but what if he wears glasses or contacts?
Guess what, you're under surveillance with imaging technology.Fundamentally, I agree with you; the idea of cops going around and pointing IR sensors at people's houses in a fishing expedition for "probable cause" pisses me off.
But there is clearly a line beyond which a certain method of information gathering is no longer "unreasonable search," and I honestly don't think anyone knows exactly where that line is drawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659690</id>
	<title>Cheap tech does not equal legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm astounded by some of the comments here.  Just because the technology to invade one's privacy is cheap and commonly available is no reason to expect we would give up our privacy.  Suppose there existed the cheap technology to read the contents of a brief case at any time.  A person's papers are clearly protected, and so is their home and other private spaces.  There was an interesting case of counter espionage here: <a href="http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2008/12/the\_cinderella\_affidavit\_vs\_ba.html" title="windypundit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2008/12/the\_cinderella\_affidavit\_vs\_ba.html</a> [windypundit.com]

Cops were enticed into violating the law and now face perjury charges.  I'm sure they'll be aquitted, because that is how our system works. At least the will stop their unlawful behavior for some time I'm betting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm astounded by some of the comments here .
Just because the technology to invade one 's privacy is cheap and commonly available is no reason to expect we would give up our privacy .
Suppose there existed the cheap technology to read the contents of a brief case at any time .
A person 's papers are clearly protected , and so is their home and other private spaces .
There was an interesting case of counter espionage here : http : //www.windypundit.com/archives/2008/12/the \ _cinderella \ _affidavit \ _vs \ _ba.html [ windypundit.com ] Cops were enticed into violating the law and now face perjury charges .
I 'm sure they 'll be aquitted , because that is how our system works .
At least the will stop their unlawful behavior for some time I 'm betting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm astounded by some of the comments here.
Just because the technology to invade one's privacy is cheap and commonly available is no reason to expect we would give up our privacy.
Suppose there existed the cheap technology to read the contents of a brief case at any time.
A person's papers are clearly protected, and so is their home and other private spaces.
There was an interesting case of counter espionage here: http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2008/12/the\_cinderella\_affidavit\_vs\_ba.html [windypundit.com]

Cops were enticed into violating the law and now face perjury charges.
I'm sure they'll be aquitted, because that is how our system works.
At least the will stop their unlawful behavior for some time I'm betting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30669154</id>
	<title>Webcam "IR" is not thermal IR.</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1262791680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Webcams, consumer cams and the like can detect <i>near</i>-IR, in the 700-800nm range.  Thermal IR is in the 2500-10000nm range, and consumer cams are totally blind to it.</p><p>The only way a cheap webcam can see thermal IR is if the object they're looking at is <i>just</i> below red-hot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Webcams , consumer cams and the like can detect near-IR , in the 700-800nm range .
Thermal IR is in the 2500-10000nm range , and consumer cams are totally blind to it.The only way a cheap webcam can see thermal IR is if the object they 're looking at is just below red-hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webcams, consumer cams and the like can detect near-IR, in the 700-800nm range.
Thermal IR is in the 2500-10000nm range, and consumer cams are totally blind to it.The only way a cheap webcam can see thermal IR is if the object they're looking at is just below red-hot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657828</id>
	<title>still valid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any interception of the electromagnet spectrum without a warrant should be illegal.  Be it cellphone transmission, infra-red heat "leaking" from the garage or 2.4ghz radio "leaking" from my wireless ap or cordless phone.</p><p>I don't see how the availability of technology or tools lessens the legal safe-guards of my 4th amendment rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any interception of the electromagnet spectrum without a warrant should be illegal .
Be it cellphone transmission , infra-red heat " leaking " from the garage or 2.4ghz radio " leaking " from my wireless ap or cordless phone.I do n't see how the availability of technology or tools lessens the legal safe-guards of my 4th amendment rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any interception of the electromagnet spectrum without a warrant should be illegal.
Be it cellphone transmission, infra-red heat "leaking" from the garage or 2.4ghz radio "leaking" from my wireless ap or cordless phone.I don't see how the availability of technology or tools lessens the legal safe-guards of my 4th amendment rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659046</id>
	<title>The home is sacred!</title>
	<author>Lashat</author>
	<datestamp>1262723040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard the saying "privacy of your/my own home"?  Of course we all have.  Anything that allows law enforcement to monitor activity inside the home should require a warrant.  Soon technology will be readily available that can detect and create a video image from simple body heat or even skin temp flucuations.  Law Enforcement does not have the right to monitor how hot we are, or extrapolate our possible mood, remotely.  Especially if we are at home.</p><p>If we start seeing this level of scanning by law enforcement then I am going into the home spectrum shielding sales and installation business</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard the saying " privacy of your/my own home " ?
Of course we all have .
Anything that allows law enforcement to monitor activity inside the home should require a warrant .
Soon technology will be readily available that can detect and create a video image from simple body heat or even skin temp flucuations .
Law Enforcement does not have the right to monitor how hot we are , or extrapolate our possible mood , remotely .
Especially if we are at home.If we start seeing this level of scanning by law enforcement then I am going into the home spectrum shielding sales and installation business</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard the saying "privacy of your/my own home"?
Of course we all have.
Anything that allows law enforcement to monitor activity inside the home should require a warrant.
Soon technology will be readily available that can detect and create a video image from simple body heat or even skin temp flucuations.
Law Enforcement does not have the right to monitor how hot we are, or extrapolate our possible mood, remotely.
Especially if we are at home.If we start seeing this level of scanning by law enforcement then I am going into the home spectrum shielding sales and installation business</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661160</id>
	<title>Re:This is completely different</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1262688300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is it possible? maybe, is it better and cheaper to just buy an imager from FLIR? Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is it possible ?
maybe , is it better and cheaper to just buy an imager from FLIR ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it possible?
maybe, is it better and cheaper to just buy an imager from FLIR?
Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661506</id>
	<title>Re:Sound?</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1262689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wish I had Mod Points. +1, Insightful/Interesting. <br> <br>

Pretty soon we'll be building homes to be RF-proof and will have to use special transmitters to allow cellphones, etc. to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish I had Mod Points .
+ 1 , Insightful/Interesting .
Pretty soon we 'll be building homes to be RF-proof and will have to use special transmitters to allow cellphones , etc .
to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish I had Mod Points.
+1, Insightful/Interesting.
Pretty soon we'll be building homes to be RF-proof and will have to use special transmitters to allow cellphones, etc.
to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657818</id>
	<title>Stop radiating my lawn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how the price drop in thermal imaging devices gives any law enforcement body the right thermally image process a residence without a warrant.</p><p>Frankly, the "not in general use" quote, if it is indeed from SCOTUS, scares the hell out of me. It's disturbing that a rather highly regarded bench could be rather myopic with regard to the implementation of technology with regard to the 4th Amendment.</p><p>Then again, they allowed 'eminent domain' through, so anything's possible I guess. Yea, I went there..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how the price drop in thermal imaging devices gives any law enforcement body the right thermally image process a residence without a warrant.Frankly , the " not in general use " quote , if it is indeed from SCOTUS , scares the hell out of me .
It 's disturbing that a rather highly regarded bench could be rather myopic with regard to the implementation of technology with regard to the 4th Amendment.Then again , they allowed 'eminent domain ' through , so anything 's possible I guess .
Yea , I went there. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how the price drop in thermal imaging devices gives any law enforcement body the right thermally image process a residence without a warrant.Frankly, the "not in general use" quote, if it is indeed from SCOTUS, scares the hell out of me.
It's disturbing that a rather highly regarded bench could be rather myopic with regard to the implementation of technology with regard to the 4th Amendment.Then again, they allowed 'eminent domain' through, so anything's possible I guess.
Yea, I went there..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046</id>
	<title>Stupid Question</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262718660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if they did it with telepaths or clarivoyants it would still be an invasion of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they did it with telepaths or clarivoyants it would still be an invasion of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they did it with telepaths or clarivoyants it would still be an invasion of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660960</id>
	<title>Expectation of Privacy</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $20 or because everyone has one? If everyone has one, then no one should expect to have privacy from it.</i></p><p>That's not what "expectation of privacy" in the legal sense means.</p><p>It does not mean "can you expect your privacy to be secure, even from folks who don't give two shits about your privacy."  That's <i>security</i>, not privacy.</p><p>"Expectation of privacy" means could a person reasonably expect for their privacy to be respected in that situation.  It has nothing to do with how easy it is to disrespect the privacy.  If you're talking at a restaurant in a public place with people all around you, no reasonable person would expect their conversation to remain private.  However if you are at home, then you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though all it takes is a simple drinking glass, literally ancient technology, pressed against your door to allow someone to overhear you.</p><p>Your have an expectation of privacy in your mail, even though most of the time the simple "technology" of <i>holding the fucker up to a light</i> is sufficient to read it.  Nevertheless, to use that mail against you, they need a warrant to acquire it.</p><p><i>If not, they only a specialist would have them, and special equipment would require special permissions, AKA a warrant.</i></p><p>A police officer needs no special equipment to search me on the street.  However they still require special permissions to do so.</p><p>The whole "technology" issue is a red herring.  Cops don't get to violate my privacy even when it's easy to do <i>without</i> any technology at all.  So why does technology change anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $ 20 or because everyone has one ?
If everyone has one , then no one should expect to have privacy from it.That 's not what " expectation of privacy " in the legal sense means.It does not mean " can you expect your privacy to be secure , even from folks who do n't give two shits about your privacy .
" That 's security , not privacy .
" Expectation of privacy " means could a person reasonably expect for their privacy to be respected in that situation .
It has nothing to do with how easy it is to disrespect the privacy .
If you 're talking at a restaurant in a public place with people all around you , no reasonable person would expect their conversation to remain private .
However if you are at home , then you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though all it takes is a simple drinking glass , literally ancient technology , pressed against your door to allow someone to overhear you.Your have an expectation of privacy in your mail , even though most of the time the simple " technology " of holding the fucker up to a light is sufficient to read it .
Nevertheless , to use that mail against you , they need a warrant to acquire it.If not , they only a specialist would have them , and special equipment would require special permissions , AKA a warrant.A police officer needs no special equipment to search me on the street .
However they still require special permissions to do so.The whole " technology " issue is a red herring .
Cops do n't get to violate my privacy even when it 's easy to do without any technology at all .
So why does technology change anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $20 or because everyone has one?
If everyone has one, then no one should expect to have privacy from it.That's not what "expectation of privacy" in the legal sense means.It does not mean "can you expect your privacy to be secure, even from folks who don't give two shits about your privacy.
"  That's security, not privacy.
"Expectation of privacy" means could a person reasonably expect for their privacy to be respected in that situation.
It has nothing to do with how easy it is to disrespect the privacy.
If you're talking at a restaurant in a public place with people all around you, no reasonable person would expect their conversation to remain private.
However if you are at home, then you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though all it takes is a simple drinking glass, literally ancient technology, pressed against your door to allow someone to overhear you.Your have an expectation of privacy in your mail, even though most of the time the simple "technology" of holding the fucker up to a light is sufficient to read it.
Nevertheless, to use that mail against you, they need a warrant to acquire it.If not, they only a specialist would have them, and special equipment would require special permissions, AKA a warrant.A police officer needs no special equipment to search me on the street.
However they still require special permissions to do so.The whole "technology" issue is a red herring.
Cops don't get to violate my privacy even when it's easy to do without any technology at all.
So why does technology change anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657644</id>
	<title>Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thermal imaging is completely different from MMW technologies. MMW can actually see your junk, and if its someone under 18 going through the scanner.. you've just made yourself some kiddie porn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thermal imaging is completely different from MMW technologies .
MMW can actually see your junk , and if its someone under 18 going through the scanner.. you 've just made yourself some kiddie porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thermal imaging is completely different from MMW technologies.
MMW can actually see your junk, and if its someone under 18 going through the scanner.. you've just made yourself some kiddie porn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658356</id>
	<title>Re:Sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The police (and the rest of us) are absolutely and quite reasonably allowed to get glimpses of places they are not allowed to be.  Consider an open window - catching a glimpse through it from a publicly accessible area is very much not the same thing as being on the other side of that window.</p><p>If something is visible with the technology that a person reasonably expects everyone to be walking around with, then it's open to view, and I don't see why the police can't look just like anyone else (*recording* is a separate question).  In the example of an open window, the necessary technology is a pair of eyes, and obviously most people are walking around with those.  In the legal case cited, accepting the claims in the post on face value, it looks like the relevant technology has become substantially easier to obtain.  This changes expectations accordingly, although I don't think the balance has tipped in this case - few people, still, are walking around with a thermal imaging setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The police ( and the rest of us ) are absolutely and quite reasonably allowed to get glimpses of places they are not allowed to be .
Consider an open window - catching a glimpse through it from a publicly accessible area is very much not the same thing as being on the other side of that window.If something is visible with the technology that a person reasonably expects everyone to be walking around with , then it 's open to view , and I do n't see why the police ca n't look just like anyone else ( * recording * is a separate question ) .
In the example of an open window , the necessary technology is a pair of eyes , and obviously most people are walking around with those .
In the legal case cited , accepting the claims in the post on face value , it looks like the relevant technology has become substantially easier to obtain .
This changes expectations accordingly , although I do n't think the balance has tipped in this case - few people , still , are walking around with a thermal imaging setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The police (and the rest of us) are absolutely and quite reasonably allowed to get glimpses of places they are not allowed to be.
Consider an open window - catching a glimpse through it from a publicly accessible area is very much not the same thing as being on the other side of that window.If something is visible with the technology that a person reasonably expects everyone to be walking around with, then it's open to view, and I don't see why the police can't look just like anyone else (*recording* is a separate question).
In the example of an open window, the necessary technology is a pair of eyes, and obviously most people are walking around with those.
In the legal case cited, accepting the claims in the post on face value, it looks like the relevant technology has become substantially easier to obtain.
This changes expectations accordingly, although I don't think the balance has tipped in this case - few people, still, are walking around with a thermal imaging setup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664292</id>
	<title>Re:If it's available it's fair game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.</p><p>I'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties. But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen doesn't have access to. So it seems like maybe it was a bogus, or overly optimistic, ruling.</p><p>I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods. They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community. But banning their use outright is silly.</p></div><p>Even a very distinct outline of a row of high intensity discharge lights does not indicate that illegal plants are being grown. The only thing it indicates is that someone has a row of high intensity discharge lights. I could be growing any number of exotic plants or just ANYTHING I WANT TO GROW IN MY HOUSE BECAUSE I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT. I could like very bright spaces.</p><p>I'm sick of this abnormality = illegality bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , if it 's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op , then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.I 'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties .
But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen does n't have access to .
So it seems like maybe it was a bogus , or overly optimistic , ruling.I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods .
They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community .
But banning their use outright is silly.Even a very distinct outline of a row of high intensity discharge lights does not indicate that illegal plants are being grown .
The only thing it indicates is that someone has a row of high intensity discharge lights .
I could be growing any number of exotic plants or just ANYTHING I WANT TO GROW IN MY HOUSE BECAUSE I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT .
I could like very bright spaces.I 'm sick of this abnormality = illegality bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.I'm all in favor of privacy and civil liberties.
But I also notice that the police routinely use things like helicopters and phone taps that the average citizen doesn't have access to.
So it seems like maybe it was a bogus, or overly optimistic, ruling.I think that the police should be required to be open and above-board about their methods.
They should publicize the fact that they are using thermal imaging devices to scan for suspicious heat in the community.
But banning their use outright is silly.Even a very distinct outline of a row of high intensity discharge lights does not indicate that illegal plants are being grown.
The only thing it indicates is that someone has a row of high intensity discharge lights.
I could be growing any number of exotic plants or just ANYTHING I WANT TO GROW IN MY HOUSE BECAUSE I DAMN WELL FEEL LIKE IT.
I could like very bright spaces.I'm sick of this abnormality = illegality bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948</id>
	<title>Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?"</p></div><p>Anything reasonably available to you should be available to the police. Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item. Therefore, a warrant should be required because what they're looking for is not in plain sight. Think of telescoping lens and using infra-red to see through drapes to spy on people having sex. In this case, though the technology is readily available, the average person wouldn't do this. There is therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy that people aren't doing this for lawful purposes. Having sex in front of the bay windows of your house, during the day, without pulling the drapes back -- a passerby <i>could</i> see that, and therefore the police can bust you for indecent exposure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In light of that , Kerr asks , is the Supreme Court 's ruling still sound ?
" Anything reasonably available to you should be available to the police .
Thermal imaging scanners , however cheap they become , will never be a commonly available item .
Therefore , a warrant should be required because what they 're looking for is not in plain sight .
Think of telescoping lens and using infra-red to see through drapes to spy on people having sex .
In this case , though the technology is readily available , the average person would n't do this .
There is therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy that people are n't doing this for lawful purposes .
Having sex in front of the bay windows of your house , during the day , without pulling the drapes back -- a passerby could see that , and therefore the police can bust you for indecent exposure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
"Anything reasonably available to you should be available to the police.
Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item.
Therefore, a warrant should be required because what they're looking for is not in plain sight.
Think of telescoping lens and using infra-red to see through drapes to spy on people having sex.
In this case, though the technology is readily available, the average person wouldn't do this.
There is therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy that people aren't doing this for lawful purposes.
Having sex in front of the bay windows of your house, during the day, without pulling the drapes back -- a passerby could see that, and therefore the police can bust you for indecent exposure.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658388</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1262720160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you can't just drive by a house with one of these. They have rather short ranges as in you have to be within a few feet. You don't even know where you're supposed to be looking.</p><p>With the thermal imager you can mount it in a van (or helicopter) drive (or fly) around neighborhoods and look for a weird temperature gradient.</p><p>Grandma's house at 80F may light up like a Christmas tree, but the whole house probably looks the same. A grower's house may have a 'normal' house but one room may light up, that's what they're looking for.</p><p>The better question is why we're spending even $30 on this. Legalize and Tax It. Heck even decriminalization would save most places a ton of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you ca n't just drive by a house with one of these .
They have rather short ranges as in you have to be within a few feet .
You do n't even know where you 're supposed to be looking.With the thermal imager you can mount it in a van ( or helicopter ) drive ( or fly ) around neighborhoods and look for a weird temperature gradient.Grandma 's house at 80F may light up like a Christmas tree , but the whole house probably looks the same .
A grower 's house may have a 'normal ' house but one room may light up , that 's what they 're looking for.The better question is why we 're spending even $ 30 on this .
Legalize and Tax It .
Heck even decriminalization would save most places a ton of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you can't just drive by a house with one of these.
They have rather short ranges as in you have to be within a few feet.
You don't even know where you're supposed to be looking.With the thermal imager you can mount it in a van (or helicopter) drive (or fly) around neighborhoods and look for a weird temperature gradient.Grandma's house at 80F may light up like a Christmas tree, but the whole house probably looks the same.
A grower's house may have a 'normal' house but one room may light up, that's what they're looking for.The better question is why we're spending even $30 on this.
Legalize and Tax It.
Heck even decriminalization would save most places a ton of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658692</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speed.<br>
<br>
Yes, they could do that as a way of 'searching' one house, but (at least pre-Kyllo) they were using a Thermal Imager to test entire streets on a sweep. Instead of stopping at each house, testing, calibrating every once in a while to make sure the thing was accurate, you could see the temperature of every house's roof at once.<br>
<br>
Hence why it was shot down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speed .
Yes , they could do that as a way of 'searching ' one house , but ( at least pre-Kyllo ) they were using a Thermal Imager to test entire streets on a sweep .
Instead of stopping at each house , testing , calibrating every once in a while to make sure the thing was accurate , you could see the temperature of every house 's roof at once .
Hence why it was shot down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speed.
Yes, they could do that as a way of 'searching' one house, but (at least pre-Kyllo) they were using a Thermal Imager to test entire streets on a sweep.
Instead of stopping at each house, testing, calibrating every once in a while to make sure the thing was accurate, you could see the temperature of every house's roof at once.
Hence why it was shot down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658988</id>
	<title>Tech doesn't matter</title>
	<author>DJGrahamJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if glasses that could see though any matter became common place, would that mean we should never have a reasonable expectation of privacy? No way. Any surveillance that requires more than human eyes and a visible light source should have a warrant IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if glasses that could see though any matter became common place , would that mean we should never have a reasonable expectation of privacy ?
No way .
Any surveillance that requires more than human eyes and a visible light source should have a warrant IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if glasses that could see though any matter became common place, would that mean we should never have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
No way.
Any surveillance that requires more than human eyes and a visible light source should have a warrant IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660534</id>
	<title>DIY Thermal Imager</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1262685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm... couldn't you take that $100 thermometer and mount it on a stepper motor gimbal system.  You could then scan a grid of points on the house and use a computer to produce a thermal map out of the results.  Voila, DIY thermal imager for about $200.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... could n't you take that $ 100 thermometer and mount it on a stepper motor gimbal system .
You could then scan a grid of points on the house and use a computer to produce a thermal map out of the results .
Voila , DIY thermal imager for about $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... couldn't you take that $100 thermometer and mount it on a stepper motor gimbal system.
You could then scan a grid of points on the house and use a computer to produce a thermal map out of the results.
Voila, DIY thermal imager for about $200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30662362</id>
	<title>What about cameras?</title>
	<author>Posting=!Working</author>
	<datestamp>1262693580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cameras are in common use.  This doesn't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains.  If they attempt to look inside the house, in any way, with any technology that ever comes up, without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up. Not disciplined, but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman's house.</p><p>Now, that's what makes sense and should happen. In reality, with the fucked up judges in this country, they might arbitrarily rule that the cops can put a camera in your ass, and rule it illegal to crap it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cameras are in common use .
This does n't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains .
If they attempt to look inside the house , in any way , with any technology that ever comes up , without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up .
Not disciplined , but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman 's house.Now , that 's what makes sense and should happen .
In reality , with the fucked up judges in this country , they might arbitrarily rule that the cops can put a camera in your ass , and rule it illegal to crap it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cameras are in common use.
This doesn't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains.
If they attempt to look inside the house, in any way, with any technology that ever comes up, without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up.
Not disciplined, but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman's house.Now, that's what makes sense and should happen.
In reality, with the fucked up judges in this country, they might arbitrarily rule that the cops can put a camera in your ass, and rule it illegal to crap it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658084</id>
	<title>Re:Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262718840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item. </i></p><p>Why not?  Isn't a thermal imaging scanner just a digital camera without an IR filter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thermal imaging scanners , however cheap they become , will never be a commonly available item .
Why not ?
Is n't a thermal imaging scanner just a digital camera without an IR filter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item.
Why not?
Isn't a thermal imaging scanner just a digital camera without an IR filter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664214</id>
	<title>Doesn't  matter if it's common or not</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1262703240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police can pull you over using automobile technology that is in common use.  Doesn't mean that they can pull everyone over for funsies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police can pull you over using automobile technology that is in common use .
Does n't mean that they can pull everyone over for funsies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police can pull you over using automobile technology that is in common use.
Doesn't mean that they can pull everyone over for funsies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661942</id>
	<title>Re:Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>rweaving</author>
	<datestamp>1262691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is thermal imaging cameras wont see through glass, because the surface of the glass is all the same temperature.  You will need to be in direct contact with the glass to create a thermal gradient.  Double pane windows wont work at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is thermal imaging cameras wont see through glass , because the surface of the glass is all the same temperature .
You will need to be in direct contact with the glass to create a thermal gradient .
Double pane windows wont work at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is thermal imaging cameras wont see through glass, because the surface of the glass is all the same temperature.
You will need to be in direct contact with the glass to create a thermal gradient.
Double pane windows wont work at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658496</id>
	<title>Re:Price and Prevalence Shouldn't Effect Legality</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1262720640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature.</p></div></blockquote><p>And some sentences are repetitive by saying the thing twice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature.And some sentences are repetitive by saying the thing twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature.And some sentences are repetitive by saying the thing twice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659324</id>
	<title>Re:What if it were a different kind of evidence?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262724180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They take that point of view here.  The cops like to fly over in the helicopter with it's FLIR pod and check out houses.  During the summer.  In the winter they look for roofs with no snow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They take that point of view here .
The cops like to fly over in the helicopter with it 's FLIR pod and check out houses .
During the summer .
In the winter they look for roofs with no snow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They take that point of view here.
The cops like to fly over in the helicopter with it's FLIR pod and check out houses.
During the summer.
In the winter they look for roofs with no snow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658654</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1262721180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One day Terahertz imagers will be cheap, what then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One day Terahertz imagers will be cheap , what then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One day Terahertz imagers will be cheap, what then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658288</id>
	<title>Warrantless Police "Observation" ?</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1262719680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the police are using something stronger than bi-focals to look at your house, they ought to have a warrant.  That means they ought to have reasonable suspicion that a \_specific\_ crime is being committed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the police are using something stronger than bi-focals to look at your house , they ought to have a warrant .
That means they ought to have reasonable suspicion that a \ _specific \ _ crime is being committed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the police are using something stronger than bi-focals to look at your house, they ought to have a warrant.
That means they ought to have reasonable suspicion that a \_specific\_ crime is being committed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658472</id>
	<title>Try $14,000</title>
	<author>JoshDD</author>
	<datestamp>1262720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>we have this fancy thermal imager  that can see through walls like they arn't there. It detects such subtle changes in temperature you can see the entire inside of the house with excellent clarity from a few hundred feet away. Mind you owning this device is illegal because of the potential for abuse we have exception because it is used for fire dept / search &amp; rescue. But in the wrong hands its a scary device like cops cruising the neighbourhood mind you cops tend to break the law more than your average citizen especially when it comes to traffic violations ( one of our local cops constantly brags about taking 10 min to drive what should be 25 min at the speed limit just to go to the next town for a coffee)</htmltext>
<tokenext>we have this fancy thermal imager that can see through walls like they ar n't there .
It detects such subtle changes in temperature you can see the entire inside of the house with excellent clarity from a few hundred feet away .
Mind you owning this device is illegal because of the potential for abuse we have exception because it is used for fire dept / search &amp; rescue .
But in the wrong hands its a scary device like cops cruising the neighbourhood mind you cops tend to break the law more than your average citizen especially when it comes to traffic violations ( one of our local cops constantly brags about taking 10 min to drive what should be 25 min at the speed limit just to go to the next town for a coffee )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have this fancy thermal imager  that can see through walls like they arn't there.
It detects such subtle changes in temperature you can see the entire inside of the house with excellent clarity from a few hundred feet away.
Mind you owning this device is illegal because of the potential for abuse we have exception because it is used for fire dept / search &amp; rescue.
But in the wrong hands its a scary device like cops cruising the neighbourhood mind you cops tend to break the law more than your average citizen especially when it comes to traffic violations ( one of our local cops constantly brags about taking 10 min to drive what should be 25 min at the speed limit just to go to the next town for a coffee)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657998</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262718420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly - it's a non-contact thermometer.  Not likely to distinguish grow lights from poor insulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly - it 's a non-contact thermometer .
Not likely to distinguish grow lights from poor insulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly - it's a non-contact thermometer.
Not likely to distinguish grow lights from poor insulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659220</id>
	<title>Re:Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262723820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item."</p><p>Yeah, everybody in the US doesn't have at least two of the things yet (probably).</p><p>A digital camera is a "thermal imaging scanner" that, with a bit of basic photographic knowledge, should be fine for detecting whether the garage is hotter than the rest of the house.</p><p>I guess most of the US cops don't have the advantage of just looking to see if there's any snow on the roof, hey?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thermal imaging scanners , however cheap they become , will never be a commonly available item .
" Yeah , everybody in the US does n't have at least two of the things yet ( probably ) .A digital camera is a " thermal imaging scanner " that , with a bit of basic photographic knowledge , should be fine for detecting whether the garage is hotter than the rest of the house.I guess most of the US cops do n't have the advantage of just looking to see if there 's any snow on the roof , hey ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thermal imaging scanners, however cheap they become, will never be a commonly available item.
"Yeah, everybody in the US doesn't have at least two of the things yet (probably).A digital camera is a "thermal imaging scanner" that, with a bit of basic photographic knowledge, should be fine for detecting whether the garage is hotter than the rest of the house.I guess most of the US cops don't have the advantage of just looking to see if there's any snow on the roof, hey?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30663924</id>
	<title>the court got it wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262701260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the court made a mistake.   the need for a warrant should not come from the ubiquity of such equipment, but from the fact that it constitutes a search.  they are using these devices to look INSIDE your home.  everything the police do should be documented and open to review.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the court made a mistake .
the need for a warrant should not come from the ubiquity of such equipment , but from the fact that it constitutes a search .
they are using these devices to look INSIDE your home .
everything the police do should be documented and open to review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the court made a mistake.
the need for a warrant should not come from the ubiquity of such equipment, but from the fact that it constitutes a search.
they are using these devices to look INSIDE your home.
everything the police do should be documented and open to review.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659156</id>
	<title>Re:The Supreme Court tried to ignore physics</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1262723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not illegal for them to get hit with it, you can't 'break' laws of physics.</p><p>Its illegal for them to use that information to charge you with a crime or perform other activities that they wouldn't otherwise have legal grounds to do so if they didn't have the technology.</p><p>I.E.  They can't use a thermal camera to detect you growing pot and  use that to get a warrant and then break into your house and find the pot.</p><p>They can, however, detect you growing pot all day long, they just can't do anything with that knowledge.</p><p>Whats better is if they even consider using the technology at all, they run the risk of getting court cases thrown out because a defense attorney will argue that they cheated, used the tech to find the criminal, then followed him until he/she did something illegal they could act on and that they are covering up the fact that they used the infrared cameras.  The result is basically like cops breaking into homes without warrants or probably cause.  It doesn't matter if they know the guy is growing weed, they need to have come by the information in a legitimate manner, the guy has to give them an 'IN' to his home someway before they can go in and do something about it.</p><p>Its also illegal for them to pull you over and search your car on the side of the road without reason, even though many of us have been subjected to it without legal grounds to do so.</p><p>I've been searched.  I've had drugs found in my car.  I have no criminal charges.  Fortunately, since the cop pulled me over for a simple speeding ticket, there was no reason to search my car, except one, cops were (this is no longer the case) told (in NC) to request to search your car at every stop, and if you consented, they were required to search.  Whats worse, is when you said yes, you most of the time were pissing the cop off because now the poor bastard HAS to do the search.  Unfortunately for the state of NC, this resulted in a LOT of over turned convictions when the supreme court decided that you really did need to have a freaking reason before asking to search the car, which resulted in all those previous searches without cause to be deemed illegal, and all evidence from them thrown out if there was no probably cause.  They were also told, very sternly, that the reason you pulled them over 'i.e. speeding or running a stop sign' is NEVER probably cause, regardless of what it is.</p><p>End result?  Lots of criminals who got by with shit because of retarded laws that the supreme court stepped in and put down like a bad dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not illegal for them to get hit with it , you ca n't 'break ' laws of physics.Its illegal for them to use that information to charge you with a crime or perform other activities that they would n't otherwise have legal grounds to do so if they did n't have the technology.I.E .
They ca n't use a thermal camera to detect you growing pot and use that to get a warrant and then break into your house and find the pot.They can , however , detect you growing pot all day long , they just ca n't do anything with that knowledge.Whats better is if they even consider using the technology at all , they run the risk of getting court cases thrown out because a defense attorney will argue that they cheated , used the tech to find the criminal , then followed him until he/she did something illegal they could act on and that they are covering up the fact that they used the infrared cameras .
The result is basically like cops breaking into homes without warrants or probably cause .
It does n't matter if they know the guy is growing weed , they need to have come by the information in a legitimate manner , the guy has to give them an 'IN ' to his home someway before they can go in and do something about it.Its also illegal for them to pull you over and search your car on the side of the road without reason , even though many of us have been subjected to it without legal grounds to do so.I 've been searched .
I 've had drugs found in my car .
I have no criminal charges .
Fortunately , since the cop pulled me over for a simple speeding ticket , there was no reason to search my car , except one , cops were ( this is no longer the case ) told ( in NC ) to request to search your car at every stop , and if you consented , they were required to search .
Whats worse , is when you said yes , you most of the time were pissing the cop off because now the poor bastard HAS to do the search .
Unfortunately for the state of NC , this resulted in a LOT of over turned convictions when the supreme court decided that you really did need to have a freaking reason before asking to search the car , which resulted in all those previous searches without cause to be deemed illegal , and all evidence from them thrown out if there was no probably cause .
They were also told , very sternly , that the reason you pulled them over 'i.e .
speeding or running a stop sign ' is NEVER probably cause , regardless of what it is.End result ?
Lots of criminals who got by with shit because of retarded laws that the supreme court stepped in and put down like a bad dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not illegal for them to get hit with it, you can't 'break' laws of physics.Its illegal for them to use that information to charge you with a crime or perform other activities that they wouldn't otherwise have legal grounds to do so if they didn't have the technology.I.E.
They can't use a thermal camera to detect you growing pot and  use that to get a warrant and then break into your house and find the pot.They can, however, detect you growing pot all day long, they just can't do anything with that knowledge.Whats better is if they even consider using the technology at all, they run the risk of getting court cases thrown out because a defense attorney will argue that they cheated, used the tech to find the criminal, then followed him until he/she did something illegal they could act on and that they are covering up the fact that they used the infrared cameras.
The result is basically like cops breaking into homes without warrants or probably cause.
It doesn't matter if they know the guy is growing weed, they need to have come by the information in a legitimate manner, the guy has to give them an 'IN' to his home someway before they can go in and do something about it.Its also illegal for them to pull you over and search your car on the side of the road without reason, even though many of us have been subjected to it without legal grounds to do so.I've been searched.
I've had drugs found in my car.
I have no criminal charges.
Fortunately, since the cop pulled me over for a simple speeding ticket, there was no reason to search my car, except one, cops were (this is no longer the case) told (in NC) to request to search your car at every stop, and if you consented, they were required to search.
Whats worse, is when you said yes, you most of the time were pissing the cop off because now the poor bastard HAS to do the search.
Unfortunately for the state of NC, this resulted in a LOT of over turned convictions when the supreme court decided that you really did need to have a freaking reason before asking to search the car, which resulted in all those previous searches without cause to be deemed illegal, and all evidence from them thrown out if there was no probably cause.
They were also told, very sternly, that the reason you pulled them over 'i.e.
speeding or running a stop sign' is NEVER probably cause, regardless of what it is.End result?
Lots of criminals who got by with shit because of retarded laws that the supreme court stepped in and put down like a bad dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661718</id>
	<title>The ruling</title>
	<author>jgoemat</author>
	<datestamp>1262690640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
From <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/27/case.html" title="justia.com">the ruling</a> [justia.com].</p><blockquote><div><p>Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 31-41.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It does not say specifically that a devide that was in general public use would be allowed, but it did narrow this particular decision.
</p><blockquote><div><p>(c) Based on this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search. The Court rejects the Government's argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home's external surface. Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz, where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home. Also rejected is the Government's contention that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it did not detect "intimate details." <b>Such an approach would be wrong in principle because, in the sanctity of the home, all details are intimate details</b>. See, e. g., United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705; Dow Chemical, supra, at 238, distinguished. It would also be impractical in application, failing to provide a workable accommodation between law enforcement needs and Fourth Amendment interests. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 181. Pp. 35-40.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The court also drew a strict line at the barrier to the home.  The three dissenters even said that in this case the product just measured the temperature of the exterior of the home, and that other factors such as melting snow in one area could be used to determine the same facts.  The 6 member majority took the long view in calling it a search in the hopes of curtailing the use of future technology that would be able to "see inside" the home.
</p><p>
I would like to point out part of Stevens' dissent:</p><blockquote><div><p>It would be far wiser to give legislators an unimpeded opportunity to grapple with these emerging issues rather than to shackle them with prematurely devised constitutional constraints.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It should be obvious that legislators do not do this, and also that law enforcement will use every tool at their disposal whether it invades privacy or not.  We wouldn't have court cases like this, like the one about listening in with a hyper-sensitive microphone on a conversation in a phone booth or like tracking cars with GPS without a warrant if that weren't the case.
</p><p>
What could be discerned from just checking the temperature of the outside of the house?  For one, couldn't you tell when someone was taking a hot shower or bath by how hot the outside of the bathroom wall was?  It seems like the frequency and duration of bathing in ones own home would be something that normally couldn't be discerned without entry into the home.  The protections aren't there for the protection of criminals, but to protect the entire public's privacy.  It's not just about whether the evidence can be used in a court case, but whether the police should be performing the surveillance at all.
</p><p>
For another thing, I hope that it took a whole lot more evidence than the thermal tapes to get the warrant to search the house.  My dad had a beautiful garden and use to raise plants indoors also.  I would hate to think that the police would come knocking down our door for that reason, or because we had a tanning bed or heat lamp.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the ruling [ justia.com ] .Held : Where , as here , the Government uses a device that is not in general public use , to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion , the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment " search , " and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant .
Pp. 31-41 .
It does not say specifically that a devide that was in general public use would be allowed , but it did narrow this particular decision .
( c ) Based on this criterion , the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search .
The Court rejects the Government 's argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home 's external surface .
Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz , where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached .
Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home .
Also rejected is the Government 's contention that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it did not detect " intimate details .
" Such an approach would be wrong in principle because , in the sanctity of the home , all details are intimate details .
See , e. g. , United States v. Karo , 468 U. S. 705 ; Dow Chemical , supra , at 238 , distinguished .
It would also be impractical in application , failing to provide a workable accommodation between law enforcement needs and Fourth Amendment interests .
See Oliver v. United States , 466 U. S. 170 , 181 .
Pp. 35-40 .
The court also drew a strict line at the barrier to the home .
The three dissenters even said that in this case the product just measured the temperature of the exterior of the home , and that other factors such as melting snow in one area could be used to determine the same facts .
The 6 member majority took the long view in calling it a search in the hopes of curtailing the use of future technology that would be able to " see inside " the home .
I would like to point out part of Stevens ' dissent : It would be far wiser to give legislators an unimpeded opportunity to grapple with these emerging issues rather than to shackle them with prematurely devised constitutional constraints .
It should be obvious that legislators do not do this , and also that law enforcement will use every tool at their disposal whether it invades privacy or not .
We would n't have court cases like this , like the one about listening in with a hyper-sensitive microphone on a conversation in a phone booth or like tracking cars with GPS without a warrant if that were n't the case .
What could be discerned from just checking the temperature of the outside of the house ?
For one , could n't you tell when someone was taking a hot shower or bath by how hot the outside of the bathroom wall was ?
It seems like the frequency and duration of bathing in ones own home would be something that normally could n't be discerned without entry into the home .
The protections are n't there for the protection of criminals , but to protect the entire public 's privacy .
It 's not just about whether the evidence can be used in a court case , but whether the police should be performing the surveillance at all .
For another thing , I hope that it took a whole lot more evidence than the thermal tapes to get the warrant to search the house .
My dad had a beautiful garden and use to raise plants indoors also .
I would hate to think that the police would come knocking down our door for that reason , or because we had a tanning bed or heat lamp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From the ruling [justia.com].Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
Pp. 31-41.
It does not say specifically that a devide that was in general public use would be allowed, but it did narrow this particular decision.
(c) Based on this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search.
The Court rejects the Government's argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home's external surface.
Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz, where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached.
Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home.
Also rejected is the Government's contention that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it did not detect "intimate details.
" Such an approach would be wrong in principle because, in the sanctity of the home, all details are intimate details.
See, e. g., United States v. Karo, 468 U. S. 705; Dow Chemical, supra, at 238, distinguished.
It would also be impractical in application, failing to provide a workable accommodation between law enforcement needs and Fourth Amendment interests.
See Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 181.
Pp. 35-40.
The court also drew a strict line at the barrier to the home.
The three dissenters even said that in this case the product just measured the temperature of the exterior of the home, and that other factors such as melting snow in one area could be used to determine the same facts.
The 6 member majority took the long view in calling it a search in the hopes of curtailing the use of future technology that would be able to "see inside" the home.
I would like to point out part of Stevens' dissent:It would be far wiser to give legislators an unimpeded opportunity to grapple with these emerging issues rather than to shackle them with prematurely devised constitutional constraints.
It should be obvious that legislators do not do this, and also that law enforcement will use every tool at their disposal whether it invades privacy or not.
We wouldn't have court cases like this, like the one about listening in with a hyper-sensitive microphone on a conversation in a phone booth or like tracking cars with GPS without a warrant if that weren't the case.
What could be discerned from just checking the temperature of the outside of the house?
For one, couldn't you tell when someone was taking a hot shower or bath by how hot the outside of the bathroom wall was?
It seems like the frequency and duration of bathing in ones own home would be something that normally couldn't be discerned without entry into the home.
The protections aren't there for the protection of criminals, but to protect the entire public's privacy.
It's not just about whether the evidence can be used in a court case, but whether the police should be performing the surveillance at all.
For another thing, I hope that it took a whole lot more evidence than the thermal tapes to get the warrant to search the house.
My dad had a beautiful garden and use to raise plants indoors also.
I would hate to think that the police would come knocking down our door for that reason, or because we had a tanning bed or heat lamp.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008</id>
	<title>Price and Prevalence Shouldn't Effect Legality</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1262718480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all honesty, I and many folks I know could rig up a cheap explosive using some crap around the house and some chemicals in my garage for less than $50 bucks. The components are far more prevalent than these thermal imaging devices. That doesn't mean I should start using these explosives for fishing or concrete removal. Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature. It doesn't matter whether or not it is cheap, widespread, or used in everyday life, it still needs to be handled responsibly to be safe.
<br> <br>
Could a police force buy a thermal imager and use it with little configuration? Sure. Does that mean that it should be used without any proper checks for responsibility by another government branch? No. Gathering data on a citizenry, like blasting chunks of my driveway apart with a homemade pipe bomb, is inherently dangerous. Sure, they are dangerous for other reasons and have different consequences, but they are both dangerous. So, yes, the Supreme Court's ruling is still sound. There have to be checks for responsibility for the use of dangerous tech. If a government agency wants to use such tech, then another government agency should provide those checks...like a warrant. It really is that simple. Trying to convince irrational and power hungry folk of that, though, is another matter entirely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all honesty , I and many folks I know could rig up a cheap explosive using some crap around the house and some chemicals in my garage for less than $ 50 bucks .
The components are far more prevalent than these thermal imaging devices .
That does n't mean I should start using these explosives for fishing or concrete removal .
Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature .
It does n't matter whether or not it is cheap , widespread , or used in everyday life , it still needs to be handled responsibly to be safe .
Could a police force buy a thermal imager and use it with little configuration ?
Sure. Does that mean that it should be used without any proper checks for responsibility by another government branch ?
No. Gathering data on a citizenry , like blasting chunks of my driveway apart with a homemade pipe bomb , is inherently dangerous .
Sure , they are dangerous for other reasons and have different consequences , but they are both dangerous .
So , yes , the Supreme Court 's ruling is still sound .
There have to be checks for responsibility for the use of dangerous tech .
If a government agency wants to use such tech , then another government agency should provide those checks...like a warrant .
It really is that simple .
Trying to convince irrational and power hungry folk of that , though , is another matter entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all honesty, I and many folks I know could rig up a cheap explosive using some crap around the house and some chemicals in my garage for less than $50 bucks.
The components are far more prevalent than these thermal imaging devices.
That doesn't mean I should start using these explosives for fishing or concrete removal.
Some technology is inherently dangerous by its very nature.
It doesn't matter whether or not it is cheap, widespread, or used in everyday life, it still needs to be handled responsibly to be safe.
Could a police force buy a thermal imager and use it with little configuration?
Sure. Does that mean that it should be used without any proper checks for responsibility by another government branch?
No. Gathering data on a citizenry, like blasting chunks of my driveway apart with a homemade pipe bomb, is inherently dangerous.
Sure, they are dangerous for other reasons and have different consequences, but they are both dangerous.
So, yes, the Supreme Court's ruling is still sound.
There have to be checks for responsibility for the use of dangerous tech.
If a government agency wants to use such tech, then another government agency should provide those checks...like a warrant.
It really is that simple.
Trying to convince irrational and power hungry folk of that, though, is another matter entirely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659034</id>
	<title>Re:Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262722980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Wrong definition of infrared.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There is short wavelength infrared, which is just below what the eye can detect.  That is what your digital camera can pick up without it's IR filter.  It is also the cheap "night vision" solution, commonly available on security cameras, and video cameras.</p><p>
&nbsp; What we're discussing here in long wavelength infrared.  It is the light emitted by heat.  Anything above 0 degrees kelvin puts off heat.  That heat is visible as light, but only when it becomes hot enough for the wave to come into our visible range.  So, that's where you see something get "red hot".   The useful part for thermal imaging is way below what we can see.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There are also other defined ranges of "infrared", but for our purposes, you only need to know about the two above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Wrong definition of infrared .
    There is short wavelength infrared , which is just below what the eye can detect .
That is what your digital camera can pick up without it 's IR filter .
It is also the cheap " night vision " solution , commonly available on security cameras , and video cameras .
  What we 're discussing here in long wavelength infrared .
It is the light emitted by heat .
Anything above 0 degrees kelvin puts off heat .
That heat is visible as light , but only when it becomes hot enough for the wave to come into our visible range .
So , that 's where you see something get " red hot " .
The useful part for thermal imaging is way below what we can see .
: )     There are also other defined ranges of " infrared " , but for our purposes , you only need to know about the two above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Wrong definition of infrared.
    There is short wavelength infrared, which is just below what the eye can detect.
That is what your digital camera can pick up without it's IR filter.
It is also the cheap "night vision" solution, commonly available on security cameras, and video cameras.
  What we're discussing here in long wavelength infrared.
It is the light emitted by heat.
Anything above 0 degrees kelvin puts off heat.
That heat is visible as light, but only when it becomes hot enough for the wave to come into our visible range.
So, that's where you see something get "red hot".
The useful part for thermal imaging is way below what we can see.
:)
    There are also other defined ranges of "infrared", but for our purposes, you only need to know about the two above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659698</id>
	<title>Re:Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>swg101</author>
	<datestamp>1262682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there is a big difference between Near-infrared (0.75 - 1.4 um) -- which is what CCD is sensitive to without a filter -- and Far-infrared (8 - 15 um) -- which is the thermal imaging range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there is a big difference between Near-infrared ( 0.75 - 1.4 um ) -- which is what CCD is sensitive to without a filter -- and Far-infrared ( 8 - 15 um ) -- which is the thermal imaging range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there is a big difference between Near-infrared (0.75 - 1.4 um) -- which is what CCD is sensitive to without a filter -- and Far-infrared (8 - 15 um) -- which is the thermal imaging range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658156</id>
	<title>An opening for public service</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1262719140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If thermal imaging devices REALLY are that cheap, then there is a grand opening for people who want to do good.</p><p>The constitution only prevents cops (and their agents) from collecting the thermal imaging data.  It's perfectly lawful for citizens to scan their world.  If a neighbor happens to detect a heat pattern far outside the norm along with all sorts of unusual foot traffic, then they could share the information with the cops and do their neighborhood a good turn.</p><p>I've thought about toxic chemical sensing in the context of Kyllo.  Does this mean that the government can't drive around the neighborhood using enhanced sensing technology to detect poisonous chemicals (think meth manufacturing)?  I would sure hope not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If thermal imaging devices REALLY are that cheap , then there is a grand opening for people who want to do good.The constitution only prevents cops ( and their agents ) from collecting the thermal imaging data .
It 's perfectly lawful for citizens to scan their world .
If a neighbor happens to detect a heat pattern far outside the norm along with all sorts of unusual foot traffic , then they could share the information with the cops and do their neighborhood a good turn.I 've thought about toxic chemical sensing in the context of Kyllo .
Does this mean that the government ca n't drive around the neighborhood using enhanced sensing technology to detect poisonous chemicals ( think meth manufacturing ) ?
I would sure hope not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If thermal imaging devices REALLY are that cheap, then there is a grand opening for people who want to do good.The constitution only prevents cops (and their agents) from collecting the thermal imaging data.
It's perfectly lawful for citizens to scan their world.
If a neighbor happens to detect a heat pattern far outside the norm along with all sorts of unusual foot traffic, then they could share the information with the cops and do their neighborhood a good turn.I've thought about toxic chemical sensing in the context of Kyllo.
Does this mean that the government can't drive around the neighborhood using enhanced sensing technology to detect poisonous chemicals (think meth manufacturing)?
I would sure hope not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658900</id>
	<title>Re:Not the same.</title>
	<author>SQLGuru</author>
	<datestamp>1262722200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recognize that the original link was to a contactless thermometer type device.  I've seen them on Woot and also had the A/C tech use them around my house to check vents.  They seem to be fairly specific in target (usually with a red dot for targetting).  So, if I took one of these devices and mapped your whole house, couldn't I get a (relatively low-res) version of what the $30k device does?  Maybe not 1024x768x32M but 320x240x16 level resolution.  And for the original stated purpose (finding heat lamps for growing pot), that would probably be enough to get a real search warrant.</p><p>And there are savvy enough people on sites like Make that they should be able to make some sort of scanner out of an old printer and an Audrino board that automates the process, capture the results, and plot the image to the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recognize that the original link was to a contactless thermometer type device .
I 've seen them on Woot and also had the A/C tech use them around my house to check vents .
They seem to be fairly specific in target ( usually with a red dot for targetting ) .
So , if I took one of these devices and mapped your whole house , could n't I get a ( relatively low-res ) version of what the $ 30k device does ?
Maybe not 1024x768x32M but 320x240x16 level resolution .
And for the original stated purpose ( finding heat lamps for growing pot ) , that would probably be enough to get a real search warrant.And there are savvy enough people on sites like Make that they should be able to make some sort of scanner out of an old printer and an Audrino board that automates the process , capture the results , and plot the image to the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recognize that the original link was to a contactless thermometer type device.
I've seen them on Woot and also had the A/C tech use them around my house to check vents.
They seem to be fairly specific in target (usually with a red dot for targetting).
So, if I took one of these devices and mapped your whole house, couldn't I get a (relatively low-res) version of what the $30k device does?
Maybe not 1024x768x32M but 320x240x16 level resolution.
And for the original stated purpose (finding heat lamps for growing pot), that would probably be enough to get a real search warrant.And there are savvy enough people on sites like Make that they should be able to make some sort of scanner out of an old printer and an Audrino board that automates the process, capture the results, and plot the image to the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658928</id>
	<title>Money Misspent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make pot legal.  Then the police can stop wasting tax money enforcing unjust laws against victimless crimes, and we can tax the stuff to fund better security for our schools to ensure that the stuff stops falling into the hands of our children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make pot legal .
Then the police can stop wasting tax money enforcing unjust laws against victimless crimes , and we can tax the stuff to fund better security for our schools to ensure that the stuff stops falling into the hands of our children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make pot legal.
Then the police can stop wasting tax money enforcing unjust laws against victimless crimes, and we can tax the stuff to fund better security for our schools to ensure that the stuff stops falling into the hands of our children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660606</id>
	<title>Re:Money Misspent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your suggestion to use the money currently spent on <b>un</b>needed drug enforcement on needed drug enforcement is interesting since prisons and law enforcement agencies receive hundreds of millions from the government to fund such projects and would suffer horribly if they were to lose such funding.  Unfortunately things aren't that simple or we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we still are.  I'm guessing that at least a small part of the problem with your scenario (looking past the fact that pretty much every politician in the U.S. would have to admit that they've been <b>*WRONG*</b> for the past 80 years) is that cops and prison guards don't *want* to go from bashing in doors and faces to handing out lollipops to 3rd graders.<br>
<br>
The fact that they once fought for the right to use these thermal imagers is proof of exactly that.  They want high level gear so they can go run 25-man raids.  Certainly some of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community can relate to that.<br>
<br>
Things are very slowly getting better with more and more states passing laws to allow the use of medical marijuana and are also lessening the penalties for simple possession.  The Seattle prosecutor's office recently stopped filing charges for possession altogether since it was such a waste of their time and now <a href="http://blog.mpp.org/tax-and-regulate/incoming-seattle-mayor-wants-to-regulat" title="mpp.org" rel="nofollow">the incoming mayor wants to legalize and regulate pot</a> [mpp.org].  This is far from the only instance of local agencies stepping in to say "Enough of this nonsense."  Anyone who keeps up with weed-related news of course also knows about the memo sent to the DEA earlier this year strongly urging them to stop going after medical marijuana users.  I sincerely hope that this movement keeps spreading as it appears to be.  Maybe in 10 years we'll finally have full federal and state legalization.  Unfortunately a lot of people were hoping for the same thing back in 1970 and yet here we are...<br>
<br>
As a side note, anyone who wants to learn the basic history and current status of the marijuana community should really watch <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Union\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Union</a> [wikipedia.org].  It's an excellent documentary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your suggestion to use the money currently spent on unneeded drug enforcement on needed drug enforcement is interesting since prisons and law enforcement agencies receive hundreds of millions from the government to fund such projects and would suffer horribly if they were to lose such funding .
Unfortunately things are n't that simple or we probably would n't be in the mess that we still are .
I 'm guessing that at least a small part of the problem with your scenario ( looking past the fact that pretty much every politician in the U.S. would have to admit that they 've been * WRONG * for the past 80 years ) is that cops and prison guards do n't * want * to go from bashing in doors and faces to handing out lollipops to 3rd graders .
The fact that they once fought for the right to use these thermal imagers is proof of exactly that .
They want high level gear so they can go run 25-man raids .
Certainly some of the / .
community can relate to that .
Things are very slowly getting better with more and more states passing laws to allow the use of medical marijuana and are also lessening the penalties for simple possession .
The Seattle prosecutor 's office recently stopped filing charges for possession altogether since it was such a waste of their time and now the incoming mayor wants to legalize and regulate pot [ mpp.org ] .
This is far from the only instance of local agencies stepping in to say " Enough of this nonsense .
" Anyone who keeps up with weed-related news of course also knows about the memo sent to the DEA earlier this year strongly urging them to stop going after medical marijuana users .
I sincerely hope that this movement keeps spreading as it appears to be .
Maybe in 10 years we 'll finally have full federal and state legalization .
Unfortunately a lot of people were hoping for the same thing back in 1970 and yet here we are.. . As a side note , anyone who wants to learn the basic history and current status of the marijuana community should really watch The Union [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's an excellent documentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your suggestion to use the money currently spent on unneeded drug enforcement on needed drug enforcement is interesting since prisons and law enforcement agencies receive hundreds of millions from the government to fund such projects and would suffer horribly if they were to lose such funding.
Unfortunately things aren't that simple or we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we still are.
I'm guessing that at least a small part of the problem with your scenario (looking past the fact that pretty much every politician in the U.S. would have to admit that they've been *WRONG* for the past 80 years) is that cops and prison guards don't *want* to go from bashing in doors and faces to handing out lollipops to 3rd graders.
The fact that they once fought for the right to use these thermal imagers is proof of exactly that.
They want high level gear so they can go run 25-man raids.
Certainly some of the /.
community can relate to that.
Things are very slowly getting better with more and more states passing laws to allow the use of medical marijuana and are also lessening the penalties for simple possession.
The Seattle prosecutor's office recently stopped filing charges for possession altogether since it was such a waste of their time and now the incoming mayor wants to legalize and regulate pot [mpp.org].
This is far from the only instance of local agencies stepping in to say "Enough of this nonsense.
"  Anyone who keeps up with weed-related news of course also knows about the memo sent to the DEA earlier this year strongly urging them to stop going after medical marijuana users.
I sincerely hope that this movement keeps spreading as it appears to be.
Maybe in 10 years we'll finally have full federal and state legalization.
Unfortunately a lot of people were hoping for the same thing back in 1970 and yet here we are...

As a side note, anyone who wants to learn the basic history and current status of the marijuana community should really watch The Union [wikipedia.org].
It's an excellent documentary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659300</id>
	<title>Re: mary jane</title>
	<author>zelik</author>
	<datestamp>1262724060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?"<br> <br>It's still sound as long as (my) marijuana is still illegal!<br> <br>  I will find it ridiculous if officers just drive around with thermal imaging devices trying to find marijuana growers and bust them.  You are in essence invading privacy trying to get an idea of what's inside someone's house.  What if x-ray vision devices come to market?  Will cops be able to take a peek without a warrant?  I'll laugh the day cops try to bust a house that's growing a bunch of non-illegal ferns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In light of that , Kerr asks , is the Supreme Court 's ruling still sound ?
" It 's still sound as long as ( my ) marijuana is still illegal !
I will find it ridiculous if officers just drive around with thermal imaging devices trying to find marijuana growers and bust them .
You are in essence invading privacy trying to get an idea of what 's inside someone 's house .
What if x-ray vision devices come to market ?
Will cops be able to take a peek without a warrant ?
I 'll laugh the day cops try to bust a house that 's growing a bunch of non-illegal ferns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?
" It's still sound as long as (my) marijuana is still illegal!
I will find it ridiculous if officers just drive around with thermal imaging devices trying to find marijuana growers and bust them.
You are in essence invading privacy trying to get an idea of what's inside someone's house.
What if x-ray vision devices come to market?
Will cops be able to take a peek without a warrant?
I'll laugh the day cops try to bust a house that's growing a bunch of non-illegal ferns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657780</id>
	<title>not in general use</title>
	<author>jimwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1262717760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not in general use<br>v.s.<br>commonly available</p><p>Just because you can buy it "cheap", does not mean a "clear majority" of people would know it is a possible spy attempt.<br>i.e., you need to close your blinds so people can not see you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (insert crime here)</p><p>OTOH:<br>wiretapping is commonly known as a possibility, yet you still need a court order (ignoring patriot act-for sake of argument).</p><p>Also ignoring, that most people believe cell phones are secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not in general usev.s.commonly availableJust because you can buy it " cheap " , does not mean a " clear majority " of people would know it is a possible spy attempt.i.e. , you need to close your blinds so people can not see you ... ( insert crime here ) OTOH : wiretapping is commonly known as a possibility , yet you still need a court order ( ignoring patriot act-for sake of argument ) .Also ignoring , that most people believe cell phones are secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not in general usev.s.commonly availableJust because you can buy it "cheap", does not mean a "clear majority" of people would know it is a possible spy attempt.i.e., you need to close your blinds so people can not see you ... (insert crime here)OTOH:wiretapping is commonly known as a possibility, yet you still need a court order (ignoring patriot act-for sake of argument).Also ignoring, that most people believe cell phones are secure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657884</id>
	<title>I don't think that was the reason for the ruling</title>
	<author>EllisDees</author>
	<datestamp>1262718060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that it was more about the expectation of privacy that people have inside their own homes and not just the ability to peer inside it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that it was more about the expectation of privacy that people have inside their own homes and not just the ability to peer inside it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that it was more about the expectation of privacy that people have inside their own homes and not just the ability to peer inside it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660480</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1262685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except people that have attached garages. Even if there isn't a direct heat source, you are still getting some indirect heat from the house it is attached to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except people that have attached garages .
Even if there is n't a direct heat source , you are still getting some indirect heat from the house it is attached to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except people that have attached garages.
Even if there isn't a direct heat source, you are still getting some indirect heat from the house it is attached to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658262</id>
	<title>Low Tech?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1262719560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An extension ladder up the side of the house to look into the attic windows is pretty low-tech.</p><p>It's not just the 'low-tech' issue.  It's about police power, Fourth Amendment, and due process.</p><p>Pulling a visitor out of their car and interrrogating them about what is going on inside the house is pretty low-tech also.  It's just intrusive.  Non-intrusive tech is subject to reasonable limits, just like high-tech etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An extension ladder up the side of the house to look into the attic windows is pretty low-tech.It 's not just the 'low-tech ' issue .
It 's about police power , Fourth Amendment , and due process.Pulling a visitor out of their car and interrrogating them about what is going on inside the house is pretty low-tech also .
It 's just intrusive .
Non-intrusive tech is subject to reasonable limits , just like high-tech etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An extension ladder up the side of the house to look into the attic windows is pretty low-tech.It's not just the 'low-tech' issue.
It's about police power, Fourth Amendment, and due process.Pulling a visitor out of their car and interrrogating them about what is going on inside the house is pretty low-tech also.
It's just intrusive.
Non-intrusive tech is subject to reasonable limits, just like high-tech etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658188</id>
	<title>Price not relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should price or availability matter? All that is required to do a search is a baseball bat and some aggression, yet this type of search is outlawed without a warrant, in spite of its technical ease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should price or availability matter ?
All that is required to do a search is a baseball bat and some aggression , yet this type of search is outlawed without a warrant , in spite of its technical ease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should price or availability matter?
All that is required to do a search is a baseball bat and some aggression, yet this type of search is outlawed without a warrant, in spite of its technical ease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660398</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>digitalunity</author>
	<datestamp>1262685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite a lot of cheap webcams can be modified to see infrared. Requires disassembly, removal of the IR filter and reassembly without damaging anything.</p><p>Results vary widely, but it does work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a lot of cheap webcams can be modified to see infrared .
Requires disassembly , removal of the IR filter and reassembly without damaging anything.Results vary widely , but it does work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a lot of cheap webcams can be modified to see infrared.
Requires disassembly, removal of the IR filter and reassembly without damaging anything.Results vary widely, but it does work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658788</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>andydread</author>
	<datestamp>1262721600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A look at the cost of some imagers.  Note that there is a difference between thermal imagers and heat seekers. etc.
<a href="http://www.opticsplanet.net/heat-seekers-termal-imagers.html" title="opticsplanet.net">http://www.opticsplanet.net/heat-seekers-termal-imagers.html</a> [opticsplanet.net]   The start at about $3900.00 and go up from there.
A decent one that the cops will purchase with your tax dollars is about $14,000-$40,000 each.  And cops love to
spend your money on these fancy toys and go out of their way to justify why they need such extravagant equipment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A look at the cost of some imagers .
Note that there is a difference between thermal imagers and heat seekers .
etc . http : //www.opticsplanet.net/heat-seekers-termal-imagers.html [ opticsplanet.net ] The start at about $ 3900.00 and go up from there .
A decent one that the cops will purchase with your tax dollars is about $ 14,000- $ 40,000 each .
And cops love to spend your money on these fancy toys and go out of their way to justify why they need such extravagant equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A look at the cost of some imagers.
Note that there is a difference between thermal imagers and heat seekers.
etc.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/heat-seekers-termal-imagers.html [opticsplanet.net]   The start at about $3900.00 and go up from there.
A decent one that the cops will purchase with your tax dollars is about $14,000-$40,000 each.
And cops love to
spend your money on these fancy toys and go out of their way to justify why they need such extravagant equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659566</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap or Invasive?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262682060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly everyone has eyes, and binoculars are cheap and easily available but that doesn't mean I have no expectation of privacy at my bedroom window. Everyone has feet, but I have every right to expect my butt to be foot free even in public.</p><p>There are a great many things that are cheap, easily available and perfectly legal to OWN that are NOT legal to use in some ways or for some potential purposes. Rocks are legal, but I have a right to expect none coming through my window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly everyone has eyes , and binoculars are cheap and easily available but that does n't mean I have no expectation of privacy at my bedroom window .
Everyone has feet , but I have every right to expect my butt to be foot free even in public.There are a great many things that are cheap , easily available and perfectly legal to OWN that are NOT legal to use in some ways or for some potential purposes .
Rocks are legal , but I have a right to expect none coming through my window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly everyone has eyes, and binoculars are cheap and easily available but that doesn't mean I have no expectation of privacy at my bedroom window.
Everyone has feet, but I have every right to expect my butt to be foot free even in public.There are a great many things that are cheap, easily available and perfectly legal to OWN that are NOT legal to use in some ways or for some potential purposes.
Rocks are legal, but I have a right to expect none coming through my window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659164</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go buy a roll of IR film.  It's not that expensive, just not digital.</p><p>If you want digital, buy a camera and cut off the IR filter.</p><p>It's not quite as nice as an IR video camera but it does the job just fine.  IR film in particular was frequently used to produce an image of heat leaks from houses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go buy a roll of IR film .
It 's not that expensive , just not digital.If you want digital , buy a camera and cut off the IR filter.It 's not quite as nice as an IR video camera but it does the job just fine .
IR film in particular was frequently used to produce an image of heat leaks from houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go buy a roll of IR film.
It's not that expensive, just not digital.If you want digital, buy a camera and cut off the IR filter.It's not quite as nice as an IR video camera but it does the job just fine.
IR film in particular was frequently used to produce an image of heat leaks from houses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659506</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if everyone was a telepath or clairvoyant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if everyone was a telepath or clairvoyant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if everyone was a telepath or clairvoyant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30665542</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1262712180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incidentally, is there a way to defeat such a device? Thermal-proofing, as it were?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incidentally , is there a way to defeat such a device ?
Thermal-proofing , as it were ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incidentally, is there a way to defeat such a device?
Thermal-proofing, as it were?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659968</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1262683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Poor insulation is only a factor if you have a heat source. Most people don't heat their garages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor insulation is only a factor if you have a heat source .
Most people do n't heat their garages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor insulation is only a factor if you have a heat source.
Most people don't heat their garages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664258</id>
	<title>Re:Try $14,000</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1262703540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How good is it at seeing <i>inside</i> walls? Because - while $14K is still way too expensive unless you're a big firm - being able to see the wiring/plumbing/vermin inside walls would be fantastic for a lot of tradespeople.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How good is it at seeing inside walls ?
Because - while $ 14K is still way too expensive unless you 're a big firm - being able to see the wiring/plumbing/vermin inside walls would be fantastic for a lot of tradespeople .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How good is it at seeing inside walls?
Because - while $14K is still way too expensive unless you're a big firm - being able to see the wiring/plumbing/vermin inside walls would be fantastic for a lot of tradespeople.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659762</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>norton\_I</author>
	<datestamp>1262683020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, learn what you are talking about.</p><p>IR cameras and film detect NIR in the 800nm - 1.3 micron range.  Your stove heating element that is glowing a dim red will light up brightly in such a device, but it is completely useless for this type of application.  IR thermometers and thermal imaging systems for the 0-100F range use much longer wavelengths, around 10 microns.</p><p>Note that you can't even make IR film that is any good at thermal wavelengths because it would get exposed sitting in a box.  The film would have to be prepared, stored, used, and developed in a cryogenic environment.  This may have been done (perhaps for IR astronomy), but you obviously can't just buy a roll of 35mm "thermal" film and pop it in a nikon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , learn what you are talking about.IR cameras and film detect NIR in the 800nm - 1.3 micron range .
Your stove heating element that is glowing a dim red will light up brightly in such a device , but it is completely useless for this type of application .
IR thermometers and thermal imaging systems for the 0-100F range use much longer wavelengths , around 10 microns.Note that you ca n't even make IR film that is any good at thermal wavelengths because it would get exposed sitting in a box .
The film would have to be prepared , stored , used , and developed in a cryogenic environment .
This may have been done ( perhaps for IR astronomy ) , but you obviously ca n't just buy a roll of 35mm " thermal " film and pop it in a nikon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, learn what you are talking about.IR cameras and film detect NIR in the 800nm - 1.3 micron range.
Your stove heating element that is glowing a dim red will light up brightly in such a device, but it is completely useless for this type of application.
IR thermometers and thermal imaging systems for the 0-100F range use much longer wavelengths, around 10 microns.Note that you can't even make IR film that is any good at thermal wavelengths because it would get exposed sitting in a box.
The film would have to be prepared, stored, used, and developed in a cryogenic environment.
This may have been done (perhaps for IR astronomy), but you obviously can't just buy a roll of 35mm "thermal" film and pop it in a nikon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664384</id>
	<title>Is a helicopter common technology?</title>
	<author>fortfive</author>
	<datestamp>1262704440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because using one to look into a yard is totally fine, sans warrant, sans probable cause, sans anything. Even if nothing in the yard is otherwise perceptible to anyone.  Cut to cheech and chong "swimming."<br> <br>

The problem with 4th amendment jurisprudence is that all of the people bringing challenges, and thus defining the law, were totally guilty.  Therefore, in every case before the court, it it is easy to conclude that what ever search happened was necessarily reasonable, because it produced solid evidence of crime.  Kyllo was an aberration, probably because Scalia had had oral surgery that day.<br> <br>

We need more people to challenge, on constitutional grounds, the searches and seizures that produced no actual evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because using one to look into a yard is totally fine , sans warrant , sans probable cause , sans anything .
Even if nothing in the yard is otherwise perceptible to anyone .
Cut to cheech and chong " swimming .
" The problem with 4th amendment jurisprudence is that all of the people bringing challenges , and thus defining the law , were totally guilty .
Therefore , in every case before the court , it it is easy to conclude that what ever search happened was necessarily reasonable , because it produced solid evidence of crime .
Kyllo was an aberration , probably because Scalia had had oral surgery that day .
We need more people to challenge , on constitutional grounds , the searches and seizures that produced no actual evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because using one to look into a yard is totally fine, sans warrant, sans probable cause, sans anything.
Even if nothing in the yard is otherwise perceptible to anyone.
Cut to cheech and chong "swimming.
" 

The problem with 4th amendment jurisprudence is that all of the people bringing challenges, and thus defining the law, were totally guilty.
Therefore, in every case before the court, it it is easy to conclude that what ever search happened was necessarily reasonable, because it produced solid evidence of crime.
Kyllo was an aberration, probably because Scalia had had oral surgery that day.
We need more people to challenge, on constitutional grounds, the searches and seizures that produced no actual evidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659294</id>
	<title>What is / is not reasonable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Courts have ruled that if you throw something away in your garbage, that you have given up your expectation of privacy for anything in the trash can.  Okay, I can see that, since after all, it's headed to the dump.  It is not reasonable to expect that stuff to remain private.</p><p>However, it seems reasonable to not expect someone to peer through the walls of your house using a thermal imager.  If that's okay, then is it also okay to sit outside your house with a laser microphone and listen to the conversations going on? If so, how do you square that with the fact they need a warrant to tap your phone line?</p><p>If cops want to bust these people, why not say there was a strong smell of weed growing.  I don't think you have an expectation of privacy for that.  If there weren't enough plants to generate a smell outside the house, then MYFB and go bust a real bad guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courts have ruled that if you throw something away in your garbage , that you have given up your expectation of privacy for anything in the trash can .
Okay , I can see that , since after all , it 's headed to the dump .
It is not reasonable to expect that stuff to remain private.However , it seems reasonable to not expect someone to peer through the walls of your house using a thermal imager .
If that 's okay , then is it also okay to sit outside your house with a laser microphone and listen to the conversations going on ?
If so , how do you square that with the fact they need a warrant to tap your phone line ? If cops want to bust these people , why not say there was a strong smell of weed growing .
I do n't think you have an expectation of privacy for that .
If there were n't enough plants to generate a smell outside the house , then MYFB and go bust a real bad guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courts have ruled that if you throw something away in your garbage, that you have given up your expectation of privacy for anything in the trash can.
Okay, I can see that, since after all, it's headed to the dump.
It is not reasonable to expect that stuff to remain private.However, it seems reasonable to not expect someone to peer through the walls of your house using a thermal imager.
If that's okay, then is it also okay to sit outside your house with a laser microphone and listen to the conversations going on?
If so, how do you square that with the fact they need a warrant to tap your phone line?If cops want to bust these people, why not say there was a strong smell of weed growing.
I don't think you have an expectation of privacy for that.
If there weren't enough plants to generate a smell outside the house, then MYFB and go bust a real bad guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658226</id>
	<title>Constitutionally Speaking</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1262719440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?</i></p><p>IMO, the matter of the court's ruling on that basis is irrelevant.</p><p>If I have a briefcase full of documents and leave it on the table in the coffeeshop while I use the bathroom, a police officer is not allowed to open it and look inside without a warrant. Certainly "opening a briefcase" is technology in common use. The Supreme Court's ruling may not be valid, but the 4th amendment still stands. While unavailability of technology may be an additional limitation on government authority, the availability of technology does not grant the government new authority which it does not have under The Constitution.</p><p>Of course, this hangs on my personal and deeply held belief that "unreasonable" must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended in the minds of the liberty-oriented thinkers who wrote it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In light of that , Kerr asks , is the Supreme Court 's ruling still sound ? IMO , the matter of the court 's ruling on that basis is irrelevant.If I have a briefcase full of documents and leave it on the table in the coffeeshop while I use the bathroom , a police officer is not allowed to open it and look inside without a warrant .
Certainly " opening a briefcase " is technology in common use .
The Supreme Court 's ruling may not be valid , but the 4th amendment still stands .
While unavailability of technology may be an additional limitation on government authority , the availability of technology does not grant the government new authority which it does not have under The Constitution.Of course , this hangs on my personal and deeply held belief that " unreasonable " must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended in the minds of the liberty-oriented thinkers who wrote it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In light of that, Kerr asks, is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?IMO, the matter of the court's ruling on that basis is irrelevant.If I have a briefcase full of documents and leave it on the table in the coffeeshop while I use the bathroom, a police officer is not allowed to open it and look inside without a warrant.
Certainly "opening a briefcase" is technology in common use.
The Supreme Court's ruling may not be valid, but the 4th amendment still stands.
While unavailability of technology may be an additional limitation on government authority, the availability of technology does not grant the government new authority which it does not have under The Constitution.Of course, this hangs on my personal and deeply held belief that "unreasonable" must be interpreted in the spirit in which it was intended in the minds of the liberty-oriented thinkers who wrote it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658870</id>
	<title>Re:Scanning ethics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, if an item becomes very cheap doesn't that make it commonly available?  If thermal imaging scanners were only $20 I sure as hell would have one.  The Supreme Court set a precedent (a bad one, IMHO) by trying to make predictions about the future instead of thinking about the long term ramifications.  Just because we can't think of specialty items like this becoming "commonly available" in the future doesn't mean they won't; it's also possible that technology we can only fantasize about today will become reality tomorrow.  What happens if x-ray vision goggles become ubiquitous?  The precedent they set in this ruling will effectively repeal the 4th amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , if an item becomes very cheap does n't that make it commonly available ?
If thermal imaging scanners were only $ 20 I sure as hell would have one .
The Supreme Court set a precedent ( a bad one , IMHO ) by trying to make predictions about the future instead of thinking about the long term ramifications .
Just because we ca n't think of specialty items like this becoming " commonly available " in the future does n't mean they wo n't ; it 's also possible that technology we can only fantasize about today will become reality tomorrow .
What happens if x-ray vision goggles become ubiquitous ?
The precedent they set in this ruling will effectively repeal the 4th amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, if an item becomes very cheap doesn't that make it commonly available?
If thermal imaging scanners were only $20 I sure as hell would have one.
The Supreme Court set a precedent (a bad one, IMHO) by trying to make predictions about the future instead of thinking about the long term ramifications.
Just because we can't think of specialty items like this becoming "commonly available" in the future doesn't mean they won't; it's also possible that technology we can only fantasize about today will become reality tomorrow.
What happens if x-ray vision goggles become ubiquitous?
The precedent they set in this ruling will effectively repeal the 4th amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658614</id>
	<title>Bad Example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no professional legal experience but do have experience in thermal imaging technology (used the Agema 210).  The thermal imagers are a world apart from cheap touchless IR temperature probes.  Imagers can detect absolute temperature at far greater detail and accuracy than an IR probe.</p><p>Good IR probes (like the Raytek cited above) have a spot ratio of 12:1 meaning at 12' away the temperature is an average reading over a 1' diameter circle.  The sensors are not temperatures corrected, most assume 74-76F ambient temps.  If you read from a reflective surface like aluminum siding or white paint you can kiss any accuracy goodbye.</p><p>Using a cheap IR probe to detect growing operations would be irresponsible and completely ineffectual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no professional legal experience but do have experience in thermal imaging technology ( used the Agema 210 ) .
The thermal imagers are a world apart from cheap touchless IR temperature probes .
Imagers can detect absolute temperature at far greater detail and accuracy than an IR probe.Good IR probes ( like the Raytek cited above ) have a spot ratio of 12 : 1 meaning at 12 ' away the temperature is an average reading over a 1 ' diameter circle .
The sensors are not temperatures corrected , most assume 74-76F ambient temps .
If you read from a reflective surface like aluminum siding or white paint you can kiss any accuracy goodbye.Using a cheap IR probe to detect growing operations would be irresponsible and completely ineffectual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no professional legal experience but do have experience in thermal imaging technology (used the Agema 210).
The thermal imagers are a world apart from cheap touchless IR temperature probes.
Imagers can detect absolute temperature at far greater detail and accuracy than an IR probe.Good IR probes (like the Raytek cited above) have a spot ratio of 12:1 meaning at 12' away the temperature is an average reading over a 1' diameter circle.
The sensors are not temperatures corrected, most assume 74-76F ambient temps.
If you read from a reflective surface like aluminum siding or white paint you can kiss any accuracy goodbye.Using a cheap IR probe to detect growing operations would be irresponsible and completely ineffectual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657676</id>
	<title>This is completely different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The imager police where using was just that - an imager. This is just a cheap infrared thermometer. It's like comparing a motion sensor to a video camera, or your finger to your eyes.</p><p>I literally laughed out loud when this post insinuated that a $150 thermometer was equivalent to a $5000+ vanadium oxide microbolometer.</p><p>Dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The imager police where using was just that - an imager .
This is just a cheap infrared thermometer .
It 's like comparing a motion sensor to a video camera , or your finger to your eyes.I literally laughed out loud when this post insinuated that a $ 150 thermometer was equivalent to a $ 5000 + vanadium oxide microbolometer.Dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The imager police where using was just that - an imager.
This is just a cheap infrared thermometer.
It's like comparing a motion sensor to a video camera, or your finger to your eyes.I literally laughed out loud when this post insinuated that a $150 thermometer was equivalent to a $5000+ vanadium oxide microbolometer.Dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660266</id>
	<title>A Bright Line is needed</title>
	<author>TomRC</author>
	<datestamp>1262684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There needs to be a "bright line" on this - that line should be "Any use of sensing devices beyond that of an unaugmented human, constitutes an illegal search."</p><p>That would include remote thermal measuring devices, setting up cameras to watch a house, use of sound amplification, etc.</p><p>For that matter, I would prefer that a warrant be required even to post an officer to watch continuously - i.e. the bright line should be "no more than the equivalent of casual, unaugmented observation".  So a police officer could drive by a location, but setting up surveillance would require a warrant.  But I don't expect we're likely to see that sort of roll-back of surveillance powers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be a " bright line " on this - that line should be " Any use of sensing devices beyond that of an unaugmented human , constitutes an illegal search .
" That would include remote thermal measuring devices , setting up cameras to watch a house , use of sound amplification , etc.For that matter , I would prefer that a warrant be required even to post an officer to watch continuously - i.e .
the bright line should be " no more than the equivalent of casual , unaugmented observation " .
So a police officer could drive by a location , but setting up surveillance would require a warrant .
But I do n't expect we 're likely to see that sort of roll-back of surveillance powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be a "bright line" on this - that line should be "Any use of sensing devices beyond that of an unaugmented human, constitutes an illegal search.
"That would include remote thermal measuring devices, setting up cameras to watch a house, use of sound amplification, etc.For that matter, I would prefer that a warrant be required even to post an officer to watch continuously - i.e.
the bright line should be "no more than the equivalent of casual, unaugmented observation".
So a police officer could drive by a location, but setting up surveillance would require a warrant.
But I don't expect we're likely to see that sort of roll-back of surveillance powers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661622</id>
	<title>Re:An opening for public service</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1262690100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marijuana growers are the freedom fighters in the war on drug users.  Narcing on them can in no way be described as doing a good turn.  If you really want to do a good turn, get them a storefront.</p><p>The war on drug users is evil, and those who support it are evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marijuana growers are the freedom fighters in the war on drug users .
Narcing on them can in no way be described as doing a good turn .
If you really want to do a good turn , get them a storefront.The war on drug users is evil , and those who support it are evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marijuana growers are the freedom fighters in the war on drug users.
Narcing on them can in no way be described as doing a good turn.
If you really want to do a good turn, get them a storefront.The war on drug users is evil, and those who support it are evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659718</id>
	<title>Re:Constitutionally Speaking</title>
	<author>bdlarkin</author>
	<datestamp>1262682780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't bet on the cop not looking at your documents anyway.  In the interest of "security".
<p>
<a href="http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/the-deputy-who-helped-himself-to-the-defense-attorneys-casefile" title="volokh.com" rel="nofollow">http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/the-deputy-who-helped-himself-to-the-defense-attorneys-casefile</a> [volokh.com]
</p><blockquote><div><p>The video shows a criminal court hearing in which a deputy assigned to court security walks over to the defense attorney&rsquo;s papers on the counsel table and starts to look at the papers. Eventually he reaches down and pulls out a document from the stack of papers, passes it off to another deputy, and then the other deputy walks away with it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
At least in some jurisdictions....
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't bet on the cop not looking at your documents anyway .
In the interest of " security " .
http : //volokh.com/2009/11/04/the-deputy-who-helped-himself-to-the-defense-attorneys-casefile [ volokh.com ] The video shows a criminal court hearing in which a deputy assigned to court security walks over to the defense attorney    s papers on the counsel table and starts to look at the papers .
Eventually he reaches down and pulls out a document from the stack of papers , passes it off to another deputy , and then the other deputy walks away with it .
At least in some jurisdictions... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't bet on the cop not looking at your documents anyway.
In the interest of "security".
http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/the-deputy-who-helped-himself-to-the-defense-attorneys-casefile [volokh.com]
The video shows a criminal court hearing in which a deputy assigned to court security walks over to the defense attorney’s papers on the counsel table and starts to look at the papers.
Eventually he reaches down and pulls out a document from the stack of papers, passes it off to another deputy, and then the other deputy walks away with it.
At least in some jurisdictions....

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658786</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not being suggested that thermal scanners be "banned outright", merely that a warrant be required for their use and for evidence gathered with them to be submissible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not being suggested that thermal scanners be " banned outright " , merely that a warrant be required for their use and for evidence gathered with them to be submissible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not being suggested that thermal scanners be "banned outright", merely that a warrant be required for their use and for evidence gathered with them to be submissible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657994</id>
	<title>There must be a better way.</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1262718420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps the government should mandate that the TSA has to catch a certain number of terrorists a month or face losing their jobs?  You know, like how speeding tickets etc work?  That would make them work harder than these machines will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the government should mandate that the TSA has to catch a certain number of terrorists a month or face losing their jobs ?
You know , like how speeding tickets etc work ?
That would make them work harder than these machines will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the government should mandate that the TSA has to catch a certain number of terrorists a month or face losing their jobs?
You know, like how speeding tickets etc work?
That would make them work harder than these machines will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659254</id>
	<title>heat == marijuana?</title>
	<author>rhewt</author>
	<datestamp>1262723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they could use a thermal imaging device, how would that solidify their accusations exactly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they could use a thermal imaging device , how would that solidify their accusations exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they could use a thermal imaging device, how would that solidify their accusations exactly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659230</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it still applies.</p><p>You said that the court decided that thermal images required a warrant.   Why would that change with cheaper thermal imagers?      Your question only makes sense if the court allowed it *without* a warrant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it still applies.You said that the court decided that thermal images required a warrant .
Why would that change with cheaper thermal imagers ?
Your question only makes sense if the court allowed it * without * a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it still applies.You said that the court decided that thermal images required a warrant.
Why would that change with cheaper thermal imagers?
Your question only makes sense if the court allowed it *without* a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658324</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1262719860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The linked item is not an imager, it's a glorified thermometer. I wish you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked, they still started in the $3-4K range.</p></div><p>Maybe, after ten layers of journalists and editors, he really said they cost about $50-$100 per day.  Because they do.  Or at least that's the going rate at flir.com (no kidding).</p><p>One of my many long term plans has been to rent one locally, and scientifically evaluate which of the ancient walls and windows of my house are REALLY the most in need of insulation.  Every other method is either vaguely guessing or relies on the honesty of a salesman (and I'm not that stupid).</p><p>$100 to just goof around with a weird camera for a day is a bit extreme, but in the context of spending four figures on insulation and windows and doors, its really a drop in the bucket.  And I can still goof around with it after doing the day's "real work".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked item is not an imager , it 's a glorified thermometer .
I wish you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked , they still started in the $ 3-4K range.Maybe , after ten layers of journalists and editors , he really said they cost about $ 50- $ 100 per day .
Because they do .
Or at least that 's the going rate at flir.com ( no kidding ) .One of my many long term plans has been to rent one locally , and scientifically evaluate which of the ancient walls and windows of my house are REALLY the most in need of insulation .
Every other method is either vaguely guessing or relies on the honesty of a salesman ( and I 'm not that stupid ) . $ 100 to just goof around with a weird camera for a day is a bit extreme , but in the context of spending four figures on insulation and windows and doors , its really a drop in the bucket .
And I can still goof around with it after doing the day 's " real work " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked item is not an imager, it's a glorified thermometer.
I wish you could get a thermal imager for cheap -- last I checked, they still started in the $3-4K range.Maybe, after ten layers of journalists and editors, he really said they cost about $50-$100 per day.
Because they do.
Or at least that's the going rate at flir.com (no kidding).One of my many long term plans has been to rent one locally, and scientifically evaluate which of the ancient walls and windows of my house are REALLY the most in need of insulation.
Every other method is either vaguely guessing or relies on the honesty of a salesman (and I'm not that stupid).$100 to just goof around with a weird camera for a day is a bit extreme, but in the context of spending four figures on insulation and windows and doors, its really a drop in the bucket.
And I can still goof around with it after doing the day's "real work".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658360</id>
	<title>Re:Sound?</title>
	<author>BradleyUffner</author>
	<datestamp>1262720040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your house is emitting any kind of radiations (EM, visible light, radio, sound, whatever), then anyone who can receive that radiation while standing in a public place should be able to use it as long as it's just passivly receiving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your house is emitting any kind of radiations ( EM , visible light , radio , sound , whatever ) , then anyone who can receive that radiation while standing in a public place should be able to use it as long as it 's just passivly receiving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your house is emitting any kind of radiations (EM, visible light, radio, sound, whatever), then anyone who can receive that radiation while standing in a public place should be able to use it as long as it's just passivly receiving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658176</id>
	<title>The Supreme Court tried to ignore physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court was wrong, they are ignoring basic physics.</p><p>When a home emits energy in the infrared spectrum, how can it be illegal for the police (or anyone else) to have it impact upon them.<br>It isn't the police's fault that the homes energy hit them, it is the home owner's.  You can't make it illegal for someone to observe that energy is hitting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court was wrong , they are ignoring basic physics.When a home emits energy in the infrared spectrum , how can it be illegal for the police ( or anyone else ) to have it impact upon them.It is n't the police 's fault that the homes energy hit them , it is the home owner 's .
You ca n't make it illegal for someone to observe that energy is hitting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court was wrong, they are ignoring basic physics.When a home emits energy in the infrared spectrum, how can it be illegal for the police (or anyone else) to have it impact upon them.It isn't the police's fault that the homes energy hit them, it is the home owner's.
You can't make it illegal for someone to observe that energy is hitting them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657774</id>
	<title>20th century = death of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again any way to deflate the value of privacy.</p><p>Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again any way to deflate the value of privacy.Experience hath shewn , that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have , in time , and by slow operations , perverted it into tyranny .
Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again any way to deflate the value of privacy.Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660586</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>PIBM</author>
	<datestamp>1262685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends where you live, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends where you live , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends where you live, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657602</id>
	<title>The Wire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Omar Little will use one to find the houses to steal from</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Omar Little will use one to find the houses to steal from</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Omar Little will use one to find the houses to steal from</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658300</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262719740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I was anxious when I saw this story come up.  Ooohh, thermal imaging for $100!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Ya, the linked device is just a thermometer.  They've had these for a while.  Sears has been selling these for a while, marketed towards automotive and industrial uses.  There are several options on the market, like the FLIR PathFindIR ($2,500), Fluke 5YE66 ($2,500) and Fluke Ti10 ($5,000).  My dad did work with this in the 60's and 70's, and his equipment was outrageously expensive, and only available through the gov't.  They required dry ice and/or liquid nitrogen. He received a prototype in the 70's (at a cost of about $5,000) of what is now the $100 IR thermometer.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I have a project I want to do someday involving this kind of stuff, but it will either require that I have too much money to burn, or the prices come way down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I was anxious when I saw this story come up .
Ooohh , thermal imaging for $ 100 !
    Ya , the linked device is just a thermometer .
They 've had these for a while .
Sears has been selling these for a while , marketed towards automotive and industrial uses .
There are several options on the market , like the FLIR PathFindIR ( $ 2,500 ) , Fluke 5YE66 ( $ 2,500 ) and Fluke Ti10 ( $ 5,000 ) .
My dad did work with this in the 60 's and 70 's , and his equipment was outrageously expensive , and only available through the gov't .
They required dry ice and/or liquid nitrogen .
He received a prototype in the 70 's ( at a cost of about $ 5,000 ) of what is now the $ 100 IR thermometer .
    I have a project I want to do someday involving this kind of stuff , but it will either require that I have too much money to burn , or the prices come way down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I was anxious when I saw this story come up.
Ooohh, thermal imaging for $100!
    Ya, the linked device is just a thermometer.
They've had these for a while.
Sears has been selling these for a while, marketed towards automotive and industrial uses.
There are several options on the market, like the FLIR PathFindIR ($2,500), Fluke 5YE66 ($2,500) and Fluke Ti10 ($5,000).
My dad did work with this in the 60's and 70's, and his equipment was outrageously expensive, and only available through the gov't.
They required dry ice and/or liquid nitrogen.
He received a prototype in the 70's (at a cost of about $5,000) of what is now the $100 IR thermometer.
    I have a project I want to do someday involving this kind of stuff, but it will either require that I have too much money to burn, or the prices come way down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658810</id>
	<title>DEA uses thermal imaging with no warrants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262721720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Results of thermal imaging on a home can be used as a reason to look more closely for evidence that will allow police/dea to get a search/arrest warrant.</p><p>The supreme court decision simply prevents a heat signature from being the only reason for a search warrant to be issued. A high electric bill and excessive heat is enough for a warrant from most judges =(.</p><p>get yer goshdarn medical grow card for fuqz sake!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Results of thermal imaging on a home can be used as a reason to look more closely for evidence that will allow police/dea to get a search/arrest warrant.The supreme court decision simply prevents a heat signature from being the only reason for a search warrant to be issued .
A high electric bill and excessive heat is enough for a warrant from most judges = ( .get yer goshdarn medical grow card for fuqz sake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Results of thermal imaging on a home can be used as a reason to look more closely for evidence that will allow police/dea to get a search/arrest warrant.The supreme court decision simply prevents a heat signature from being the only reason for a search warrant to be issued.
A high electric bill and excessive heat is enough for a warrant from most judges =(.get yer goshdarn medical grow card for fuqz sake!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657684</id>
	<title>Cheap or Invasive?</title>
	<author>Herkum01</author>
	<datestamp>1262717460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the question should be, how invasive and how common the technology should determine whether it can be used.  Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $20 or because everyone has one?  If everyone has one, then no one should expect to have privacy from it.  If not, they only a specialist would have them, and special equipment would require special permissions, AKA a warrant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the question should be , how invasive and how common the technology should determine whether it can be used .
Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $ 20 or because everyone has one ?
If everyone has one , then no one should expect to have privacy from it .
If not , they only a specialist would have them , and special equipment would require special permissions , AKA a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the question should be, how invasive and how common the technology should determine whether it can be used.
Should a telescoping microphone be legal simply because it be can bought for $20 or because everyone has one?
If everyone has one, then no one should expect to have privacy from it.
If not, they only a specialist would have them, and special equipment would require special permissions, AKA a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658382</id>
	<title>fuck the police</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck haterz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck haterz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck haterz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702</id>
	<title>Not the same.</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1262717520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thermal cameras used by the cops still cost quite a bit. We had one in the Heat &amp; Mass lab in college and you had to give up your drivers license and student ID to borrow it out, and you couldn't even leave the building.</p><p>The cheap devices on Amazon just look like non-contact temp sensors with some fancy electronics. If someone was trying to snoop around my house with one of the devices you linked to they'd probably be close enough to hit with a baseball bat.</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fluke-Ti10-Infrared-Thermal-Imager/dp/B0018LCAM6/ref=sr\_1\_11?ie=UTF8&amp;s=hi&amp;qid=1262713758&amp;sr=1-11" title="amazon.com">This is the cheapest I could find</a> [amazon.com] however something like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-L32400XP-Imaging-Device-2400XP-SM/dp/B002X91398/ref=sr\_1\_17?ie=UTF8&amp;s=hi&amp;qid=1262713758&amp;sr=1-17" title="amazon.com">this</a> [amazon.com] is probably required to do what you're afraid of.</p><p>Still a valid question, but the 'cheap technology' isn't quite there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thermal cameras used by the cops still cost quite a bit .
We had one in the Heat &amp; Mass lab in college and you had to give up your drivers license and student ID to borrow it out , and you could n't even leave the building.The cheap devices on Amazon just look like non-contact temp sensors with some fancy electronics .
If someone was trying to snoop around my house with one of the devices you linked to they 'd probably be close enough to hit with a baseball bat.This is the cheapest I could find [ amazon.com ] however something like this [ amazon.com ] is probably required to do what you 're afraid of.Still a valid question , but the 'cheap technology ' is n't quite there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thermal cameras used by the cops still cost quite a bit.
We had one in the Heat &amp; Mass lab in college and you had to give up your drivers license and student ID to borrow it out, and you couldn't even leave the building.The cheap devices on Amazon just look like non-contact temp sensors with some fancy electronics.
If someone was trying to snoop around my house with one of the devices you linked to they'd probably be close enough to hit with a baseball bat.This is the cheapest I could find [amazon.com] however something like this [amazon.com] is probably required to do what you're afraid of.Still a valid question, but the 'cheap technology' isn't quite there yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698</id>
	<title>Sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know whether the ruling is still sound, but it seems to me the original ruling was stupid anyway. If you're using anything, readily available and commonly used or not, to get a glimpse of what is going on inside a place you don't have a legal right to enter, how is it different than actually entering?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know whether the ruling is still sound , but it seems to me the original ruling was stupid anyway .
If you 're using anything , readily available and commonly used or not , to get a glimpse of what is going on inside a place you do n't have a legal right to enter , how is it different than actually entering ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know whether the ruling is still sound, but it seems to me the original ruling was stupid anyway.
If you're using anything, readily available and commonly used or not, to get a glimpse of what is going on inside a place you don't have a legal right to enter, how is it different than actually entering?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660288</id>
	<title>Amazon's prices  Legal Precedent</title>
	<author>idioto</author>
	<datestamp>1262684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is so retarded.  don't even imply that as an argument.  oh no, someone in the neighborhood might be growing pot let's conduct sweeps aim cheap sensors at them.  you can't use that reasoning in such a sweeping way.  it's a god damn pandora's box you fascists.</p><p>anyhow, general use, does not equal cheap either.  do you have a thermal image scanner?  if you do... wtf?</p><p>are you trying to be like the predator or something?  get a life nerd!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is so retarded .
do n't even imply that as an argument .
oh no , someone in the neighborhood might be growing pot let 's conduct sweeps aim cheap sensors at them .
you ca n't use that reasoning in such a sweeping way .
it 's a god damn pandora 's box you fascists.anyhow , general use , does not equal cheap either .
do you have a thermal image scanner ?
if you do... wtf ? are you trying to be like the predator or something ?
get a life nerd !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is so retarded.
don't even imply that as an argument.
oh no, someone in the neighborhood might be growing pot let's conduct sweeps aim cheap sensors at them.
you can't use that reasoning in such a sweeping way.
it's a god damn pandora's box you fascists.anyhow, general use, does not equal cheap either.
do you have a thermal image scanner?
if you do... wtf?are you trying to be like the predator or something?
get a life nerd!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658672</id>
	<title>Re:Not the same.</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1262721180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't that ruling more about the fact that the police used something other than "in plain sight" to detect the lamps?  I don't think they meant "you can only use inexpensive technology" when they made that ruling.  If thermal imaging equipment was a free gift in a box of Cracker Jacks, it wouldn't change this ruling.</p><p>The 4th amendment is designed to protect us *from* the government (police) regardless of how common or inexpensive the technology is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that ruling more about the fact that the police used something other than " in plain sight " to detect the lamps ?
I do n't think they meant " you can only use inexpensive technology " when they made that ruling .
If thermal imaging equipment was a free gift in a box of Cracker Jacks , it would n't change this ruling.The 4th amendment is designed to protect us * from * the government ( police ) regardless of how common or inexpensive the technology is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that ruling more about the fact that the police used something other than "in plain sight" to detect the lamps?
I don't think they meant "you can only use inexpensive technology" when they made that ruling.
If thermal imaging equipment was a free gift in a box of Cracker Jacks, it wouldn't change this ruling.The 4th amendment is designed to protect us *from* the government (police) regardless of how common or inexpensive the technology is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658996</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid Question</title>
	<author>nebaz</author>
	<datestamp>1262722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful.  Do you really want to contribute to the creation of the Psi Corps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful .
Do you really want to contribute to the creation of the Psi Corps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful.
Do you really want to contribute to the creation of the Psi Corps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658490</id>
	<title>Re:If it's available it's fair game</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1262720580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.</p></div><p>Congratulations, you've just discovered that cops primarily only catch the stupid criminals, plus or minus simple luck.</p><p>That is a semi-useful argument about the use of thermal imagers, if they only catch the sub-100 IQ crowd, is that discrimination good or bad in itself as an activity with possibly racial overtones, and aside from that is the effect of that discrimination good or bad?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , if it 's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op , then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.Congratulations , you 've just discovered that cops primarily only catch the stupid criminals , plus or minus simple luck.That is a semi-useful argument about the use of thermal imagers , if they only catch the sub-100 IQ crowd , is that discrimination good or bad in itself as an activity with possibly racial overtones , and aside from that is the effect of that discrimination good or bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, if it's that easy to detect the heat coming off of a grow-op, then the growers should be out there detecting and stopping the leaks before the police do.Congratulations, you've just discovered that cops primarily only catch the stupid criminals, plus or minus simple luck.That is a semi-useful argument about the use of thermal imagers, if they only catch the sub-100 IQ crowd, is that discrimination good or bad in itself as an activity with possibly racial overtones, and aside from that is the effect of that discrimination good or bad?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30663568</id>
	<title>Re:"Thermal imaging devices" are not $50-150.</title>
	<author>PUGH1986</author>
	<datestamp>1262699280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]  Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult <a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year 's gift you ready ? Here are the most popular , most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3 ) $ 35HANDBGAS ( COACH,L V , DG , ED HARDY ) $ 35TSHIRTS ( POLO ,ED HARDY , LACOSTE ) $ 16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200 , both exquisite gift , surprise here , do not miss , welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details , please consult http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]  Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30669450</id>
	<title>Yea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?</p><p>Hell yea!</p><p>The spice must flow!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is the Supreme Court 's ruling still sound ? Hell yea ! The spice must flow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is the Supreme Court's ruling still sound?Hell yea!The spice must flow!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659026</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1262722920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not the price but the COMMONNESS that is important.
<p>
If temp detection becomes so common that people expect their neighbors to be doing it, then and only then would it be OK for the police to do it.  That would require some kind of strange fad like CB became.
</p><p>
Similarly, it is not the price of high end audio espeionage equiptment that makes it illegal, but instead the fact that I would be shocked if I found out my neighbors were hooking them up to their wall and listening to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the price but the COMMONNESS that is important .
If temp detection becomes so common that people expect their neighbors to be doing it , then and only then would it be OK for the police to do it .
That would require some kind of strange fad like CB became .
Similarly , it is not the price of high end audio espeionage equiptment that makes it illegal , but instead the fact that I would be shocked if I found out my neighbors were hooking them up to their wall and listening to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the price but the COMMONNESS that is important.
If temp detection becomes so common that people expect their neighbors to be doing it, then and only then would it be OK for the police to do it.
That would require some kind of strange fad like CB became.
Similarly, it is not the price of high end audio espeionage equiptment that makes it illegal, but instead the fact that I would be shocked if I found out my neighbors were hooking them up to their wall and listening to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658662</id>
	<title>Re:Not the same.</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1262721180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/FLIR-Extech-I5-Thermal-Imager/dp/B001DK93ZO/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=hi&amp;qid=1262717357&amp;sr=1-2" title="amazon.com">Here is a thermal imager</a> [amazon.com] for $2,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a thermal imager [ amazon.com ] for $ 2,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a thermal imager [amazon.com] for $2,000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30665542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30667388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30669154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30663568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1728216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30662362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30662212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30669154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30663568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30665542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30660606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661568
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30667388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30664422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1728216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30657948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30661942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30658084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1728216.30659698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
