I would say that there is a huge difference between the use of technology
in a public place to assist an officer in the normal performance of their
duty (e.g., scanning the faces of a crowd or checking for illegal weapons)
and the illegal search performed by the new infrared and X-ray devices. If
I remember correctly, the US Supreme Court agrees with you, Adam. They
ruled that the use of detection devices that penetrate walls constituted an
illegal search. I certainly would expect the use of a laser microphone to
be the same thing.
I agree that there is a slippery slope in the defense of freedom, but who
honestly expects privacy on a crowded night on our local equivalent of
Bourbon Street? Isn't that how a police officer normally catches a wanted
criminal, by keeping their eyes open and looking at people as they walk
around the streets?
The DNA scenario you describe has already happened in Chicago. A man was
listed as a suspect in a crime (I honestly now don't remember if it was
sexual assault or murder) because he refused to provide a DNA sample and
"prove" himself innocent. He was later cleared as a suspect, but he lost
his job over the incident before that happened. Coincidence?
|-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Eric A. Laney |"Those who flee temptation generally leave a |
|Systems Engineer |forwarding address." |
|LAN Optimization | |
|Team | |
|Voice: 813.978.4404| - Lane Olinghouse|
|Pager: 888.985.8519| |
| | |
|-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
