Technological court

Extract

[...] An example is thermal imaging, which is essentially viewing the heat coming from the interior of the house, which the Supreme Court deemed violated the Fourth Amendment by which it the very core' of the Fourth Amendment 'stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion'” (Colbridge, 423). The thermal imaging could have potentially revealed such private information such as “when a person inside the home regularly took a bat each night.” (Colbridge, 424). [...]

[...] Technological court Technological evidence that is allowed into court to be used against someone should be evidence that is concrete and guaranteed to be accurate. The evidence should have been gotten following proper procedures, such as acquiring a search warrant prior to gaining the evidence. The form of technological evidence that this applies to are those which violate the privacy rights of individuals without their prior acknowledgment or knowing of the act, or evidence that can not be completely reliable. [...]

[...] It has already been found that “police in Detroit and DC have used CCTV to stalk personal foes, political opponents, and young women.” This is further evidence that when the CCTV cameras are operated by hired personnel, the footage taken is subjugated by the operator's personal agenda's and discriminations. The only CCTV footage that should be permissible in court is footage that operates on its own, with no personnel viewing or operating the cameras. The audio surveillance, with no search warrant, through such methods as wire-tapping telephone lines violates individual's rights to private conversations. [...]