NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Now I've heard it all! Under what convoluted stretch of the imagination does monitoring radiation levels constitute an invasion of privacy? This boggles the mind. Why on earth would anyone object to radiation monitoring anywhere, any time ... unless they were trying to hide radioactive material, in which case they're already in violation of the law?


Widespread Radioactivity Monitoring Is Confirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/national/24radioactive.html?th&emc=th)


By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: December 24, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The F.B.I. and the Energy Department have conducted thousands of searches for radioactive materials at private sites around the country in the last three years, government officials confirmed on Friday.

The existence of the search program was disclosed on Thursday by U.S. News & World Report, on its Web site. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, government agencies have disclosed that they have installed radiation-detection equipment at ports, subway stations and other public locations, but extensive surreptitious monitoring of private property has not been publicly known.

The federal government has given thousands of radiation alarms, worn like cellphones on the belt, to police and fire departments in major cities.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Brian Roehrkasse, confirmed that law enforcement personnel were conducting "passive operations in publicly accessible areas to detect the presence of radiological materials, in a manner that protects U.S. constitutional rights."

U.S. News, citing people it did not name, said many of the sites that federal agents had monitored were mosques or the homes or businesses of Muslims, and the report set off a dispute between a Muslim group here and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement: "This disturbing revelation, coupled with recent reports of domestic surveillance without warrant, could lead to the perception that we are no longer a nation ruled by law, but instead one in which fear trumps constitutional rights. All Americans should be concerned about the apparent trend toward a two-tiered system of justice, with full rights for most citizens, and another diminished set of rights for Muslims."

But John Miller, an assistant director of the F.B.I., said in a statement that his agency "does not target any group based on ethnicity, political or religious belief."

"When intelligence information suggests a threat to public safety, particularly involving weapons of mass destruction," the statement said, "investigators will go where the intelligence information takes them."

Mr. Miller said the bureau was "disappointed at the conclusions" reached by the Muslim group. He added that F.B.I. agents would work through the holiday weekend to catch whoever set off a bomb on Tuesday that damaged the door of a mosque near Cincinnati.

According to a federal official who would not allow his name to be used, the investigators have visited hundreds of sites in Washington, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Las Vegas and Seattle on multiple occasions, as well other locations for high-profile events like the Super Bowl. The surveillance was conducted outdoors, and no warrants were needed or sought, the official said, speaking on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss classified programs.

"If you can go drive a car into the parking lot near the shopping mall, we can go there," he said. "It's nothing intrusive. We're not searching into a particular building, just sniffing the air in the area."

Federal officials have expressed anxiety about two radiological threats. One is a "dirty bomb," a conventional explosive that would spread a radioactive material. Such an attack would be unlikely to kill anyone with radiation, but it could contaminate streets, buildings or other public places. The materials that would be used are highly radioactive and might be detected from some distance, experts say.

The other threat is that someone would try to detonate a nuclear bomb. Bomb fuel, either enriched uranium or plutonium, is much harder to detect, because its radiation signature is weak, physicists say. But it is also much harder to obtain.

At least some of the surveillance was by the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, part of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, which leads the American effort to secure nuclear materials around the world.

COMMENTARY: Now I've heard it all! Under what convoluted stretch of the imagination does monitoring radiation levels constitute an invasion of privacy?
It's none of the government's business how many smoke detectors I own.

Well, it's an invasion of privacy if they don't monitor ALL religious institutions equally.

Well, it's an invasion of privacy if they don't monitor ALL religious institutions equally.
Oh, bullshit! They are free to monitor radiation anywhere.

It has already been established in court in the US that if the police want to monitor anything that comes out of your property, they may do so.

As an example, police routinely monitor power usage of residential homes and fly over with thermal imagers to identify homes that are growing marijuana - they will have "hot" rooms that are continuously at a specific temperature, and will use far more power than a normal home.

That information is then used to support other evidence as probable cause to get a warrant to search the inside of the home.

Chemical sniffers that detect methamphetamine production are used in the same way - the police merely drive a van with the detectors up and down random streets.

The radiation sniffers don't have to be in your building. They can be out on the street.

It's not an invasion of privacy unless they go into your building. They need no warrants.

If they want to monitor, they get a warrant--that simple. If you don't like it, take it up with Scalia--he wrote the decision on the case that's currently has standing.

If they want to monitor, they get a warrant--that simple. If you don't like it, take it up with Scalia--he wrote the decision on the case that's currently has standing.
That explains the continuing program in place with the Virginia State Police to use thermal imagers despite the court decision.

With no warrant. A blanket surveillance of entire neighborhoods, along with data mining the power consumption records.

Take it up with them.

In case anyone is interested, the controlling decision on this type of thing is Kyllo v United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-8508#section1) and it has to do with whether using thermal imaging through a wall in a drug case constituted an invasion of privacy and a warrantless search. Scalia delivered the opinion for the Court.

That explains the continuing program in place with the Virginia State Police to use thermal imagers despite the court decision.

With no warrant. A blanket surveillance of entire neighborhoods, along with data mining the power consumption records.

Take it up with them.
Case? Proof? Anything other than your say-so?

It's none of the government's business how many smoke detectors I own.
Sure it is. We can't allow you to collect five hundred million smoke detectors. The threat of you building a fission bomb is too great.

Case? Proof? Anything other than your say-so?
It's true dude. I read it in high-times. I think. It's kinda hard to remember stuff from back then.

Well, it's an invasion of privacy if they don't monitor ALL religious institutions equally.

Well that would be stupid. Why would tehy monitor a Quaker meeting house has much has some masq with a fanaticle Cleric in it?

Now, invasion of privacy this is not. Discrimination perhaps, but not ivasion of privacy. Anyone can sit outside in public areas and monitor almost whatever the hell they want, especially if that anyone is some one with a badge. Heat, electric output, etc leaking out of your house is fair game for anyone with a sensor for it to pick up.

Now, invasion of privacy this is not. Discrimination perhaps, but not ivasion of privacy. Anyone can sit outside in public areas and monitor almost whatever the hell they want, especially if that anyone is some one with a badge. Heat, electric output, etc leaking out of your house is fair game for anyone with a sensor for it to pick up.
My understanding is that this type of monitoring required going onto private property, and thus should have required a warrant.

My response is "Big fucking deal". So what? We have a group, who have been the predominate group wishing for the fall of the US, so whats the big fucking deal on checking on THEM for abnormal radiation signs. DEAL WITH IT. I know, many muslims that live in America are good, honest, innocent people, but we are at WAR. We don't want to risk a nuclear dirty bomb being made in the US, and not knowing about it.

Case? Proof? Anything other than your say-so?
Anything other than I live in Virginia, know the guys who do the monitoring (I shoot with them on the weekends), no.

They use it as a means of supplementing other information in order to arrive at probably cause for a warrant.

They don't have to go on to your property to do any of this. They don't end up using the information for anything other than getting a warrant later to go onto the property later.

Water bill data is also mined by WSSC (the water company around here) and the information is turned over to law enforcement - and law enforcement doesn't even ask them to do it.

They use that information in Herndon, for example, to know which houses to watch to see how many people are living in the home (to prevent the piling of 20 or 30 people into a single home). Once again, a general scan of an entire suburb in order to arrive at probably cause to examine a specific home.

Data-mining I don't have a big problem with, although I think that it leads down as many blind alleys as it gives good information--in terms of privacy, it's perfectly acceptable, however, because it's information that belongs to the water company/power company as much as it belongs to anyone using the service.

But going onto someone's property without a warrant is a step over the line for me, and the Supreme Court considered using those thermal imagers to be taking that step.

The disturbing part of this thread seems to me is the number of people who are basically arguing "constitution be damned! ends justify the means!" Not in my book they don't.

Why are some people too stupid to realize when our government is getting more invasive than it should be? First they're monitoring for radiation, next they'll be giving us two minutes dedicated to yelling at Usama bin Laden and Saddam. Isn't that the whole point of living in America? Freedom? Isn't that why thousands of immigrants came here by the boatload only one hundred years ago? It's no wonder most rational Americans want to get the hell out of this country.

Oh, bullshit! They are free to monitor radiation anywhere.
No, then it just pisses off the conservatives, because religion is being attacked by the infidels... it's a nasty, vicious cycle! :D

Why are some people too stupid to realize when our government is getting more invasive than it should be? First they're monitoring for radiation, next they'll be giving us two minutes dedicated to yelling at Usama bin Laden and Saddam. Isn't that the whole point of living in America? Freedom? Isn't that why thousands of immigrants came here by the boatload only one hundred years ago? It's no wonder most rational Americans want to get the hell out of this country.
So you're against monitoring for radiation levels then?

Sure it is. We can't allow you to collect five hundred million smoke detectors. The threat of you building a fission bomb is too great.
So 'cause I'm obsessed with fire safety the government assumes I'm a terrorist? *contacts lawyer*

So you're against monitoring for radiation levels then?
what do you think?

i dont have a problem with it except for that part where its probably unconstitutonial. if going onto peoples property for thermal imaging is unconstitutional, then so is doing it for radiation monoitoring. i guess the court might want to take a look at it one of these days

of course i sure hope those federal idiots wouldnt WAIT to get a warrant or build a case against whoever had a freaking nuke in their mosque. should they find one, they need to go in right that minute and get it. legality be damned. ill send them cookies in prison if they end up doing time.

So you're against monitoring for radiation levels then?
Jeez, way to make a fucking yes/no dichotomy out of a complex issue. :rolleyes:

Now, invasion of privacy this is not. Discrimination perhaps, but not ivasion of privacy. Anyone can sit outside in public areas and monitor almost whatever the hell they want, especially if that anyone is some one with a badge. Heat, electric output, etc leaking out of your house is fair game for anyone with a sensor for it to pick up.

agree, for the first part. i don't think i'm against monitoring radiation as a whole because... too much radiation is bad for everyone, right? .-. but what bothers me is that they're doing it specifically at islamic places. islam is not a religion of destruction and shouldn't be treated as one. besides, by that logic, you should monitor christian churches because of all those RELIGIOUS FANATICS MAKING PIPE BOMBS TO BLOW UP ABORTION CLINICS. sounds dumb doesn't it? yes. the percentage of extremists in religions is very small, so profiling an entire religion like that is both bigoted and unfair.

This is perfectly legal. If you have a radiation monitor and you stand on the "public" street walking down through your neighborhood than it is fine. There is nothing wrong with what they have done. Same thing goes for having any type of monitor that is not used on someones private property. Heat sensor, listening to your cordless/cell phone etc is all legal if done from public property. Even taking pictures and all that is clearly legal. A neighborhood in the city I live in is flown over with heat sensing equipment for one reason only. To find large heat plumes that would indicate drug production. Been in the paper and all. It is legal. If something looks fishy with the police they will get a warrant to check your property. This is not invasion of privacy. Since you do not have true privacy from public property or from the air.

Anything other than I live in Virginia, know the guys who do the monitoring (I shoot with them on the weekends), no.

They use it as a means of supplementing other information in order to arrive at probably cause for a warrant.

They don't have to go on to your property to do any of this. They don't end up using the information for anything other than getting a warrant later to go onto the property later.

Water bill data is also mined by WSSC (the water company around here) and the information is turned over to law enforcement - and law enforcement doesn't even ask them to do it.

They use that information in Herndon, for example, to know which houses to watch to see how many people are living in the home (to prevent the piling of 20 or 30 people into a single home). Once again, a general scan of an entire suburb in order to arrive at probably cause to examine a specific home.


They do this in the area I live in too. This is most likely more widespread than people think. I have law enforcement friends that tell me all sorts of things that they do to monitor for crime. It's very interesting and I think that most of the people here on NS would cry it's unconstitutional. But yet it is legal and they do it.

i like keeping my raido active items privet thank you verry much, they almost cost me an arm and a kidney.
black market is expensive dang it and i dont want every one knowing what i have......so you and your little giger counters stay off my land....twits




;)

They do this in the area I live in too. This is most likely more widespread than people think. I have law enforcement friends that tell me all sorts of things that they do to monitor for crime. It's very interesting and I think that most of the people here on NS would cry it's unconstitutional. But yet it is legal and they do it.
well now im only getting my opinion that its unconstitutional from a similar supreme court case where thermal imaging was declared unconstitutional

funny how the supreme court is the expert on the constitution and not NS general posters no matter how much judge judy they watch


so, from the link that the nazz provided these are what seem to me to be the important parts from the thermal imaging case...

The scan of Kyllo's home took only a few minutes and was performed from the passenger seat of Agent Elliott's vehicle across the street from the front of the house and also from the street in back of the house.

meaning that no tresspass was involved. just scanning of the house for hot spots

We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton, 445 U. S., at 590. That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright--which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no "significant" compromise of the homeowner's privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.

"The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens." Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 (1925).


Where, as here, 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.


how that pertains to mosques rather than homes i dont know but there was also surveillance of peoples HOMES which they needed to get a warrant for.

i dont have a big problem with either thermal imaging or radiation monitoring but the supreme court does and as such our government officials need to obey the constitution.

you might want to look at nazz's link eh? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-8508#section1

In case anyone is interested, the controlling decision on this type of thing is Kyllo v United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-8508#section1) and it has to do with whether using thermal imaging through a wall in a drug case constituted an invasion of privacy and a warrantless search. Scalia delivered the opinion for the Court.


I think you're going to find that Kyllo may not be as close to the issue as you might hope.

In my quick reading of it, the key issue in that case was that the heat imaging system could detect..."Even the routine and trivial activities conducted in our homes"...and those activities..."are sufficiently "intimate" as to give rise to Fourth Amendment violation if observed by law enforcement without a warrant"

Unless someone can tell me that the radiation screening that the feds are doing has that level of sophistication, I don't think there's going to be a problem.

Why are some people too stupid to realize when our government is getting more invasive than it should be? First they're monitoring for radiation, next they'll be giving us two minutes dedicated to yelling at Usama bin Laden and Saddam. Isn't that the whole point of living in America? Freedom? Isn't that why thousands of immigrants came here by the boatload only one hundred years ago? It's no wonder most rational Americans want to get the hell out of this country.
WTF? If radiation is coming out of your house and someone in the street can detect it they're not violating your privacy any more than if loud music is coming out of your house and someone on the street can hear it. You want privacy? Don't emit detectable levels of any sort of energy from your home.

WTF? If radiation is coming out of your house and someone in the street can detect it they're not violating your privacy any more than if loud music is coming out of your house and someone on the street can hear it. You want privacy? Don't emit detectable levels of any sort of energy from your home.
That's why I live in a lead house

I think you're going to find that Kyllo may not be as close to the issue as you might hope.

In my quick reading of it, the key issue in that case was that the heat imaging system could detect..."Even the routine and trivial activities conducted in our homes"...and those activities..."are sufficiently "intimate" as to give rise to Fourth Amendment violation if observed by law enforcement without a warrant"

Unless someone can tell me that the radiation screening that the feds are doing has that level of sophistication, I don't think there's going to be a problem.
that was the governments contention. the supreme court rejected it.

The Fourth Amendment's protection of the home has never been tied to measurement of the quality or quantity of information obtained.

The "radiation monitoring" is revenge racism at its worst since Pearl Harbor. How come they don't monitor White Anglo Saxon Protestant homes and churches for traces of Chemical Fertilizer and Fuel Oil? How come Irish Catholic homes and churches aren't being screened for Symtex? When those two things happen then we'll stop bitching about screening Muslims for nuclear materials.

Well, it's an invasion of privacy if they don't monitor ALL religious institutions equally.
Bulshit. PC has definitely gone too far when we can't call a duck a duck, and the painful chastizement upon Western Infidels, plain ole Muslim terrorism. :rolleyes:

We need heads up, not heads up asses. Another eason to focus our attention where it's needed, and not squash my privacy in the pursuit of political correctness.

Well, it's an invasion of privacy if they don't monitor ALL religious institutions equally.
No it's not because they never actually enter the private property. Just as one can hear noise from a very loud stereo outside the property.

WTF? If radiation is coming out of your house and someone in the street can detect it they're not violating your privacy any more than if loud music is coming out of your house and someone on the street can hear it. You want privacy? Don't emit detectable levels of any sort of energy from your home.
Agreed. Although I don't agree with the drug war, I don't see this as much diffeent than helicopters using infraed to find heat-producing meth labs and hydroponics grow lights. I didn't hear much complaining from anyone (aside from libertarians) then, and this is an outrage? Prioritize.

What it comes down to is targeting a group for criminal prosecution. How would this be any different than police officers seeing a black man driving a car and running the plates to determine if it had been reported stolen? AFAIK, law enforcement can run plates on anyone they want, so there is no search warrant required.

Meh. Another reason to be happy I don't live in America.

So as far as the American goverment is conc3erned now, all muslims are potential terrorists? Way to go on the "All men born free and equal" Or whatever bullshit is in your constitution...

What it comes down to is targeting a group for criminal prosecution. How would this be any different than police officers seeing a black man driving a car and running the plates to determine if it had been reported stolen? AFAIK, law enforcement can run plates on anyone they want, so there is no search warrant required.
how is that in any way the same as searching your house electronically without a warrant?

how is that in any way the same as searching your house electronically without a warrant?

It's taking information that is private for all intents and purposes and exposing it to scrutiny.

What it comes down to is anyone, exposed to enough scrutiny, can be found guilty of something. This whole issue just highlights the difference between legal and ethical.

you might want to look at nazz's link eh? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-8508#section1
If such is the case, then why can police go into a home if they hear screaming or gunshots emanating from it? The type of radiation detectors use don't give you any sort of image. Instead it's a bit like Marco Polo, only without the Marco and a whole lot of Polo. This is much more of a sound issue than an imaging issue.

If such is the case, then why can police go into a home if they hear screaming or gunshots emanating from it? The type of radiation detectors use don't give you any sort of image. Instead it's a bit like Marco Polo, only without the Marco and a whole lot of Polo. This is much more of a sound issue than an imaging issue.
well now youd have to talk to a constitutional lawyer or a supreme court justice about that. i am neither

from reading the opinion, i take it its a matter of how "loud" it is and how common the technology is.

so your ears hear the gunshot and presume that someone is in danger.

if you have to go up to the door and press your ear against it in order to hear a man hitting his wife, you may have a whole nother issue on your hands.

if you have to have special thermal imaging equipment in order to see that a house has unusual hotspots, you cant DO that unless you have a warrant showing probable cause. that was decided by the supreme court with scalia writing the majority opinion. seems to me that if scalia finds it wrong, its wrong.

it may be that the court might think that sophisticated gieger counters or the increased threat posed by nukes overrides the 4th ammendment but it would have to go to the supreme court for it to be decided that way.

until then it seems to me that unwarranted electronic search of your home has been disallowed as unconstitutional.

What it comes down to is targeting a group for criminal prosecution. How would this be any different than police officers seeing a black man driving a car and running the plates to determine if it had been reported stolen? AFAIK, law enforcement can run plates on anyone they want, so there is no search warrant required.

Black men haven't kicked America in the crotch with a surprise attack so far.

No it's not because they never actually enter the private property. Just as one can hear noise from a very loud stereo outside the property.

Which is all well and good, if you believe you have found a way to 'listen' to radiation levels.

If, on the other hand, you are utilising an enhancement technology, to allow you to monitor something your could NOT 'accidentally overhear', then you are deliberately invading the privacy of another individual.

If you use some kind of sound-enhancer to listen to private conversations inside someone else's house, you are invading their privacy.

If you place a video camera in the spare room you rent out... even though you OWN the house, you are invading your lodger's privacy.

If you go to someone's house, with a piece of technology that lets you monitor ANYTHING, you are invading their privacy.

Hell, if you just stand outside some girl's window, you are invading privacy.


But - as has been pointed out - if this were a BLANKET action... i.e. if the whole area was being scrutinised equally, there would be much less of a complaint.

What is being done here, is an assumption of guilt, based on racial profiling. That MUST be SOME KIND of 'unconstitutional'.

Black men haven't kicked America in the crotch with a surprise attack so far.

This is more like scapegoating rather than any real probable cause. One would think after 9/11, the logical place to start looking for links to terrorism would be Saudi Arabia, but nooo, they have too much money and power and would frown upon being subjected to such scrutiny.

This may be a bit extreme, but try this for an example: say every time something showed up missing at work or school, you were questioned as to your whereabouts. You are not being accused of anything, just being asked a few simple questions. Cooperating may mean revealing details of your life that you would rather not discuss and refusing to cooperate would make you look even more suspicious

Oh, bullshit! They are free to monitor radiation anywhere.
So we should be free to tell them to fuck off anytime.

So we should be free to tell them to fuck off anytime.
( shrug ) Knock yerself out, Dood!

I wish we had radiation checks by the government at my old house, would have saved my parents tons of money to have it tested, then fixed.

No one can contain radiation on his own property. It spreads, hence the name, and therefore, affects everyone. It's just like pollution. Monitoring anything in the air should not be a violation of privacy.

No one can contain radiation on his own property. It spreads, hence the name, and therefore, affects everyone. It's just like pollution. Monitoring anything in the air should not be a violation of privacy.

Which would be relevent if we were talking about monitoring the spread of pollution or radioactivity... or generalised observation, that pointed to hotspots.

But the government isn't doing THAT... what they have been doing, is picking certain locations to check (and ONLY those locations)... based on racial/religious profiling.

This is perfectly legal. If you have a radiation monitor and you stand on the "public" street walking down through your neighborhood than it is fine. There is nothing wrong with what they have done. Same thing goes for having any type of monitor that is not used on someones private property. Heat sensor, listening to your cordless/cell phone etc is all legal if done from public property.

So the government can tap your line without a warrant as long as they're not doing it from your basement? Ridiculous.

The privacy line might have stopped at your front door fifty years ago but today advanced technology is making your walls thinner and your conversations louder. I give it two decades before satallites can zoom in your window and read your Christmas cards.

What's so darn hard about the government getting a search warrant anyway unless they have something to hide (ie. being race biased or crapping on the constitution)

We should draw the right of privacy line now while we still can.

What's so darn hard about the government getting a search warrant anyway unless they have something to hide (ie. being race biased or crapping on the constitution)

Fact is, America is a vengeful and petty nation that thrives on Revenge Racism. Anytime a specific ethnic group embarasses or kicks it in the crotch with a surprise attack, every individual sharing the same ethnicity or religion is automatically assumed to be the enemy. Guilty Until Proven Innocent. And it's part of history too.

World War 1: After the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat, German immigrants and German-Americans were treated like shit.

World War 2: Pearl Harbor then Japanese Internment. Need I say more?

"War on Terror": 9-11 then Muslim harassment in America.

I bet you if there weren't exile dissedents in Florida scream out loud to overthrow Castro and given special preferential treatment by the U.S. government then every Cuban American would have had to deal with similar if not worse shit in the wake of the Missile Crisis.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnamese Americans had to suffer identical suspicion and abuse during our brave and valiant "police action."

It applies to any group. If say, Polish or Samoan terrorists killed a lot of Americans in an attack, you'd see the PATRIOT ACT applied like a blanket over anyone of known Polish or Samoan descent.

There's really no basis for n argument. As long as the investigators are in publicly accessible areas, then these passive sensors are designed to pick up radioactive emissions that have alredy left your private property. So it's not your radiation anymore. It's Public Domain Radiation. :p

Fact is, America is a vengeful and petty nation that thrives on Revenge Racism. Anytime a specific ethnic group embarasses or kicks it in the crotch with a surprise attack, every individual sharing the same ethnicity or religion is automatically assumed to be the enemy. Guilty Until Proven Innocent. And it's part of history too.

World War 1: After the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat, German immigrants and German-Americans were treated like shit.

World War 2: Pearl Harbor then Japanese Internment. Need I say more?

"War on Terror": 9-11 then Muslim harassment in America.

I bet you if there weren't exile dissedents in Florida scream out loud to overthrow Castro and given special preferential treatment by the U.S. government then every Cuban American would have had to deal with similar if not worse shit in the wake of the Missile Crisis.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Vietnamese Americans had to suffer identical suspicion and abuse during our brave and valiant "police action."

It applies to any group. If say, Polish or Samoan terrorists killed a lot of Americans in an attack, you'd see the PATRIOT ACT applied like a blanket over anyone of known Polish or Samoan descent.

Mmm... yes. It's an America thing. No other nations have ever exprienced race-related discrimination due to such events. Nope. Everything in Australia and France have been peachy keen. No disturbances lately. The Shia and Sunni muslims have hugged and are holding hands as they make a sunny, flowery and bunny-filled new Iraq. And European History is completely clean of such racial and ethnic tempests.

Racial Strife is a product of Evil America. :p

Mmm... yes. It's an America thing. No other nations have ever exprienced race-related discrimination due to such events. Nope. Everything in Australia and France have been peachy keen. No disturbances lately. The Shia and Sunni muslims have hugged and are holding hands as they make a sunny, flowery and bunny-filled new Iraq. And European History is completely clean of such racial and ethnic tempests.

Racial Strife is a product of Evil America. :p

Except no other nation is the biggest player on the block and possessed of a sanctimonious attitude where "My Way is the Right Way and it's My Way or the Highway."

Australia and France don't have their own versions of the USA PATRIOT Act that screens out Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders and/or Muslims for Future Crimes (Minority Report reference there) although with Howard sucking Bush's cock I wouldn't be surprised if that's changed in Oz.

Shia and Sunni Muslims don't have a blatant national law that automatically decrees members of the ethnicity as Future Criminals either. And if you want to go on a snide remark about religious strife, what about the Crusaders or even more fun, the Inquisition?

Except no other nation is the biggest player on the block and possessed of a sanctimonious attitude where "My Way is the Right Way and it's My Way or the Highway."

Australia and France don't have their own versions of the USA PATRIOT Act that screens out Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders and/or Muslims for Future Crimes (Minority Report reference there) although with Howard sucking Bush's cock I wouldn't be surprised if that's changed in Oz.

Shia and Sunni Muslims don't have a blatant national law that automatically decrees members of the ethnicity as Future Criminals either. And if you want to go on a snide remark about religious strife, what about the Crusaders or even more fun, the Inquisition?

Last time I checked, The Inquisition and The Crusade was a teensy bit before America's time. ;)

The point being that the greatest occurrences of racial, religious and ethnic discrimination by a people or a government ALL took plac somewhere other than The United States of America. We are amateurs.

Though, I must admit that the obliteration of Native American cultures and black slavery certainly put of on the map.

There's really no basis for n argument. As long as the investigators are in publicly accessible areas, then these passive sensors are designed to pick up radioactive emissions that have alredy left your private property. So it's not your radiation anymore. It's Public Domain Radiation. :p
and how is radiation different from heat? the supreme court ruled that you cant electronically search a house for hot spots generated by marajuana farms without a warrant. even when the police are stationed on the street to do so.

so what makes radiation different?

and how is radiation different from heat? the supreme court ruled that you cant electronically search a house for hot spots generated by marajuana farms without a warrant. even when the police are stationed on the street to do so.

so what makes radiation different?
Specifically, that sensor looks for parts of your house that radiate heat. It's directional and quite detailed. These passive sensors are merely detectors. The can't determine the source of that radiation.

and how is radiation different from heat? the supreme court ruled that you cant electronically search a house for hot spots generated by marajuana farms without a warrant. even when the police are stationed on the street to do so.

so what makes radiation different?
Um ... marijuana doesn't make you dead? :P

Specifically, that sensor looks for parts of your house that radiate heat. It's directional and quite detailed. These passive sensors are merely detectors. The can't determine the source of that radiation.
but the court noted

The Fourth Amendment's protection of the home has never been tied to measurement of the quality or quantity of information obtained.

and the court ruled

Where, as here, 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.

Um ... marijuana doesn't make you dead? :P
so if we are scared enough the constitution is meaningless?

but the court noted



and the court ruled
Anybody can buy a geiger counter, hell, people have made their own.

http://www.medcom.com/rad50.htm

http://www.gammascout.com/geiger-counter.html

http://www.imagesco.com/articles/geiger/01.html

http://scientificsonline.com/search.asp?t=ss&ss=geiger+counter&sid=google&cm_mmc=google-_-cpc-_-edmu-_-geigercounter&bhcd2=1135466561

In theory anyone could buy one and go walking around. Thermal imaging stuff is much rarer. Especially the type used by the cops. Whereas they probably juse something like http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3017006 (this) to detect the radiation. Over the counter stuff, at least for a given value of over the counter.

but the court noted



and the court ruled

I guess the key here is 'details of the home'. Is passively measuring the radiation of neighborhoods and near private home settings considered a search of the homes themselves? That being the case, how many homes have been searched simply by living in proximity to potential suspects?

Nevertheless, I think this is most likely a supreme court issue. It's certainly going to sharpen the definition of what constitutes a search.

...assuming that the President doesn't just secretly let it get done anyway. :p

That's the nice thing about the President disregarding established law; You never know what others he's disregarding. :)

so if we are scared enough the constitution is meaningless?
No, but if enough of us are dead, the Constitution is too.

i like keeping my raido active items privet thank you verry much, they almost cost me an arm and a kidney.
black market is expensive dang it and i dont want every one knowing what i have......so you and your little giger counters stay off my land....twits
;)

as i said earyer........

If you use some kind of sound-enhancer to listen to private conversations inside someone else's house, you are invading their privacy.
Actually, if you were using a sound enhancer that enhanced all sounds, not just sounds from a single direction, you would probably be in the clear. Mind you, your eardrums might be blown. But technically not an invasion of privacy.

No, but if enough of us are dead, the Constitution is too.
which is why the president can sometimes suspend certain constitutional rights in time of real war

terrorists are terrorsts because they cant defeat us, all they can do is kill a few of us now and then. they arent important enough to suspend the constitution for

Anybody can buy a geiger counter, hell, people have made their own.

http://www.medcom.com/rad50.htm

http://www.gammascout.com/geiger-counter.html

http://www.imagesco.com/articles/geiger/01.html

http://scientificsonline.com/search.asp?t=ss&ss=geiger+counter&sid=google&cm_mmc=google-_-cpc-_-edmu-_-geigercounter&bhcd2=1135466561

In theory anyone could buy one and go walking around. Thermal imaging stuff is much rarer. Especially the type used by the cops. Whereas they probably juse something like http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3017006 (this) to detect the radiation. Over the counter stuff, at least for a given value of over the counter.
most people dont own a geiger counter

in any case there are enough issues in this that it might have to be ruled on by the supreme court. especially the surveillance of mosques and other public places that dont enjoy the same protection as someone's home.

if they can get it to the court.

which is why the president can sometimes suspend certain constitutional rights in time of real war
Doesn't he need some kind of approval, or was that talk about congressional in-the-know complete BS?

and the court ruled
Any idiot can get a geiger counter.

Doesn't he need some kind of approval, or was that talk about congressional in-the-know complete BS?
well ya i think so

im thinking about that "suspend the writ of habeus corpus"thing from the civil war. not that i know what it means. just that it is normally unconstitutional

im not a lawyer eh? im an adult who can read. nazz provided the link to the ruling by the spreme court in the thermal imaging case and i can read to see what their rationale was. when it comes to stuff that isnt IN that ruling, i have no idea. its not my expertise.

It's none of the government's business how many smoke detectors I own.

Maybe someone already said it, and I know its a joke, but as far as I know, the radioactive material in smoke detectors only emits alpha particles which are easily stopped by a sheet of printer paper, let alone the 5 mm casing;)

most people dont own a geiger counter

True, but they could easily get one. Getting a high-end thermal imaging device would be a lot harder. The question is not whether everyone has one, the question is if it's readily available, which it pretty much is.

It's none of the government's business how many smoke detectors I own.

:D

That made my day.