Did Super Bowl cameras used by police violate the law?

From: Matthew Gaylor (freematt@coil.com)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2001 - 09:49:06 MST

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: Did Super Bowl cameras used by police violate the law?
Posted to Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
Author: Declan McCullagh is at http://www.mccullagh.org/

[The Washington Post article on this
dismissed the Fourth Amendment problems a little too glibly, I think.


>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:44:50 -0500
>To: declan@well.com
>From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
>Subject: Re: FC: Cameras at Super Bowl scanned faces looking for criminals
>I think there is a reasonably good argument that this
>was an unconstitutional search. Keep in mind that this
>involved a (1) search by means of an enhanced sensory
>device that (2) identified known people (3) that was
>operated by law enforcement (4) without a warrant,
>probable cause or exigent circumstances. The ACLU really
>should file.


>Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:53:17 -0500
>To: emmanuel Goldstein <emmanuel@2600.COM>
>From: e cummings <bernies@netaxs.com>
>Subject: facial recognition software used by authorities at super bowl
>Cc: Lazlow <lazlow@lazlow.com>
>i've heard the secret service uses this in some crowd situations to
>spot people on their list. no doubt it will be used more frequently
>in the future, with cameras all over being networked to alert
>law-enforcement whenever anybody they're looking for happens to be
>within camera range...


>From: terry.s@juno.com
>To: declan@well.com
>Cc: politech@politechbot.com, trigaux@sptimes.com, info@viisage.com,
> wk@c4i.org, rotenberg@epic.org
>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:52:11 -0500
>Subject: Re: FC: Cameras at Super Bowl scanned faces looking for criminals
>X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.11
>In doing some research for an electronic design project, it struck me
>that the technology now exists in electronic smart cards (see
>www.atmel.com and review 89SCxxxx and 90SCxxxx ASIC's, and RF interface
>cards, or their European competitors) to implant a chip inside an almost
>mandatory card, like a driver's license, or in a store shopping card,
>such that the presence or passage of an individual through a portal could
>be monitored without that individual realizing he was being tracked.
>This would be similar to what's done with "pay at the pump" cards or toll
>electronic speed passes, but could be hidden from view and tracked
>without the card bearer realizing that his wallet could be inspected
>without ever leaving his pocket.
>How many and which states are complying with Federal "carrot and stick"
>coercion to include Social inSecurity numbers on state driver's licenses,
>but coding them in non-visible manners so as to not scare license holders
>into thinking they're being tracked by arguably illegal use of such
>We're not approaching 1984. We're past it.


POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/

Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 313-5722 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT