Invasion!

"... we are describing a regime that allows the government to collect data about us in a highly efficient manner—inexpensively, that is, for both the government and the innocent. This efficiency is made possible by technology, which permits searches that before would have been far too burdensome and invasive. In both cases, then, the question comes to this: When the ability to
search without burden increases, does the government’s power to search increase as well? Or, more darkly, as James Boyle puts it: 'Is freedom inversely related to the efficiency of the available means of surveillance?' For if it is, as Boyle puts it, then 'we have much to fear.'"

-Lessig


This is an excellent question. In a law class I frequented at the Professional Performing Arts School, we studied a case whereby a cultivator of a crop of Marijuana was arrested for said illegal practice. However, the case was overturned because the police gained evidence by using a heat camera to sense heat lamps on the defendant's grounds without a warrant. The practice was deemed unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Lessig describes a situation whereby the police HAVE a warrant and use technology to infiltrate the hard drive of a suspect. Should this be allowed? I believe so, because, as Lessig points out, it is a cost-efficient and non-invasive means of gathering information about a suspect, and also guarentees a clandestine investigation into the affairs of the accused. However, it does bring up some questions. Lets go back to the marijuana case - lets say that in the future, a device is developed which allows police to detect only the existence of marijuana or other drugs through physical barriers. Lets say the suspect is in no way cultivating or distributing drugs but is in posession of mild amounts, would that then give the police the right to charge the suspect?

Lets put this into cyberspace: A man is suspected of murder. Investigators use a worm to tap into his computer and discover no evidence of conspiracy to murder, but instead discover child pornography. Would this then give the police the right to charge the accused?

It is no doubt that the fruits of technology have been endlessly helpful in the persuit of justice - any avid watcher of a tv series like CSI can tell you this. However, to tap into a suspect's computer can be a dangerous proposition, as any number of personal files may be stored on the hard drive of the accused. And then of course is the fact that we currently live in a country under the protection of the patriot act. Who knows what limitations the government has in searching our computers? If eastern-european hackers can send out spam that infiltrates thousands of civilan consoles within days of its release, the government certainly has the ability to search through the entire contents of any civilian computer at will. In a Bush-controlled society where the CIA claims "above the law" status in our state of perpetual national emergency, is this type of investigation practice something that we want to exist? After all, who determines which computers will be selected for search and on what grounds?