Identifying a person through walls from video footage, using only WiFi

Re:Identifying a person through walls from video footage, us... by toomuchtodo on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @10:57PM (#21143127)

FLIR is considered a search under the 4th amendment, and requires a warrant; it'd stand to reason this would face similar scrutiny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Identifying a person through walls from video footage, us... by tyingq on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @11:28PM (#21143311)

"Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable"

As tech marches on, "not commonly available to the public" becomes a smaller space.

Separately, I'd hazard a guess that they still use FLIR in an indiscriminate way, and just conjure up a little parallel construction when needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Identifying a person through walls from video footage, us... by rkagerer on Thursday October 03, 2019 @12:22AM (#21143677)

If I'm not mistaken the court crafted their opinion to apply "at least" to technology "not in general public use", and was somewhat ambiguous as to more common devices.

I share your concern for what will become of privacy as exotic new surveillance techniques become widespread. The legal treatment of expectation of privacy seems tied to whatever is the societal norm of the age, and that mark has shifted dramatically in my lifetime.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Identifying a person through walls from video footage, us... by cma on Thursday October 03, 2019 @03:18AM (#21144514)

What if a neighbor uses it unprompted instead of the police?

[ Parent | on HN ]