HIGH TECHNOLOGY FINDS ITS OWN DOOR

Supreme Court Has Erred In Saying There Is Nothing Wrong With Infrared
Surveillance

The Supreme Court has decided that police officers may conduct infrared
surveillance of people's homes without a search warrant. Overturning an
earlier judgment by the Ontario Court of Appeal that called the technology
"almost Orwellian," Justice Ian Binnie ruled that thermal imaging is an
appropriate investigative tool that doesn't require judicial oversight.

The case originated in a 1999 covert operation by an RCMP drug squad near
Windsor. An aircraft fitted with infrared cameras flew over the house of a
suspected marijuana grow operator and took pictures of thermal energy
sources inside it.

Using these images, the police applied for a warrant to enter the home and
found some plants. The owner was charged and convicted, but appealed on the
basis that the charter guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure.

The Court's reasoning is troubling. The justices argued that a warrant was
not required to conduct this form of surveillance, because the images
offered "no intrusion into (the accused's) private life and (their)
disclosure scarcely affected his 'dignity, integrity and autonomy.'"

Really?

If the police can look through the walls of a house to see what's going on
inside, in what conceivable sense is this not an intrusion into our private
lives? It makes no difference whether the pictures are blurry or crystal
clear: What matters is that the police may now observe us within the
sanctuary of our homes.

In 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court banned use of this technology without a
search warrant, for precisely that reason.

Moreover this is a technique still in its infancy. Heat imaging systems
already available can locate occupants through the walls of some buildings,
such as mobile homes. It may soon be feasible to follow the occupants'
movements.

By this means a surveillance team with time to spare could build up a
fairly detailed picture of someone's domestic life -- when they watch TV or
talk on the phone, whom they share their bed with.

The court brushes this concern aside, saying, in effect, it will cross that
bridge when it comes to it. But it takes a decade or more for cases to wend
their way up to the highest level. During that period, we are vulnerable to
whatever "improvements" this fast-moving technology brings.

The Ontario appeal court judge who labelled this method of surveillance
"almost Orwellian" is Justice Rosalie Abella. Ironically, she's now a
member of the Supreme Court.

She did not participate in the decision, but now she is there, perhaps she
can convince her colleagues that even in a time of space-age technology, a
man's home is still his castle.