Here is something of interest for those with concerns about privacy:
This is a decision from Canada relating to the use of heat detecting equipment and whether or not such action runs afoul of the right to privacy and violates the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Basically the equipment is fixed to a plane and it flies across the area taking heat signatures and then it compares the signature to what is the normal heat signature. I could not remember if it was this case or another one where basically what the police did was to obtain electricity usage and from there compare it to a normal residence to determine whether there was growth of drugs in the house. Apparently drugs requires one to use a lot of energy up to 4x the normal and as a result produces quite a bit of heat.
The judgment included this line “FLIR technology at this stage of its development is both non-intrusive in its operations and mundane in the data it is capable of producing,” which suggests that this decision may not stand in future circumstances. Of course a funny result would occur if a new technology is found to be intrusive. Therefore police might have to use older technology to engage in surveillance.
Given that the court did say that the “The nature of the intrusiveness is subtle, but almost Orwellian in its theoretical capacity,” one question is: How far of intrusiveness is required before the balance tips from protection to privacy?
Personally, I believe that I often come down on the side of greater surveillance powers and capabilities.