mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You don't appear to read everything I say. I have asked you to point to specifics and answer many question of which you have just ignored. Why should I read or watch one more thing that you post?
Beat Thermal Imaging
- Thread starter RickWhite
- Start date
blueberry2012
Member
like i said its ifs and buts with you, like if your place is insulated if you manage your heat properly, the thing is newb growers often dont have a lot of cash to spend on equipment FACT the police do look for heat sources and then bust you if they see anything like in that youtube vid IE the 3 lamps i mentioned a few time, you cannot argue with that i just posted and you know it
blueberry2012
Member
you wont comment anymore because you just got blown out now get off my case you lost the argument & dnt spam for pages and pages with jibber jabber leave the post below so ppl can see the best bit of info on this thread so far !
blueberry2012
Member
With the increased use of thermal imaging cameras, an Englishman's home may no longer be the impenetrable castle it was. Ray Purdy explains
· legal implications of new methods of surveillance
· the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Police in Haringey, North London, have just begun using a new high-tech weapon to catch cannabis growers
in residential properties. Two properties have already been raided after a thermal imaging camera detected
extreme heat emissions coming from cannabis grow lamps (see The Times, 24 March 2006). Properties
where such lamps are used, release up to 10 times more heat than normal, or in the words of one senior police officer, "skunk houses can glow like a kid in a Ready Brek advert".
These new hand-held thermal imaging cameras are currently being piloted by the Metropolitan Police. Similar thermal camera technology has been used on police helicopters for a number of years, mainly to detect
suspects fleeing scenes of crimes, although they have also been used to detect heat from cannabis growing
in properties in Deptford (see BBC website, 6 February 2006) and Glasgow (see The Scotsman, 29 November 2005). The Metropolitan Police website notes that "this type of technology is the way forward for the Met
and will ensure that we stay one step ahead of the criminals and drug dealers".
The benefits to the police are obvious, but there has been less discussion of the legal implications of these
new methods of surveillance. Can the police freely use new technologies to look inside homes without check?
Are there major differences with thermal imaging compared to other forms of police surveillance? The issue
of what legal protection cannabis growers are entitled to expect on one side and the extent public interest
exceptions qualifying privacy rights can be invoked by the police on the other, could be coming to a courtroom near you.
Interference with private life
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) provides that "everyone has the
right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". The scope of such privacy
rights are difficult to define, but the courts tend to examine the level of intrusiveness. Case law suggests that
any intrusion should be more than slight and foreseeable.Page 2
Arguably, information collected by thermal imaging is unobtrusive because it is collected from outside, and it
is slight as it concerns only heat emissions. Conversely, anything that penetrates through the walls of a
home and reveals private activities within does not respect a person's private life. Privacy is by nature a subjective concept; while some may find thermal scans unobtrusive, others may find them invasive. The burden
of proof is on the aggrieved to establish the fact of interference and how it has threatened the effective enjoyment of his rights.
If the use of a thermal camera is shown to be sufficiently intrusive to interfere with a person's private life, a
court will examine whether the measure was in accordance with the law. Specific statutory authorisation is
required under Art 8(2) so individuals know with sufficient certainty where they stand. The question whether
an interference with a right is "in accordance with the law" has been a prominent issue in other surveillance
cases.
RIPA 2000
There is no specific UK legislation that expressly authorises using thermal cameras, although the Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) provides a comprehensive set of powers for police surveillance. RIPA 2000 was enacted to ensure that investigatory powers were used in accordance with human
rights.
The question of law is whether the statutory authorisation should expressly cover the type of technology
rather than merely providing a general power of surveillance. In this context it is noteworthy that television
licence surveillance is specifically authorised under RIPA 2000, s 26(6). Television licence surveillance is
clearly similar to using thermal cameras, taking place outside a property to determine an activity within a
residence. Thermal imaging has no such specific authorisation suggesting the legality could be vulnerable on
this score (see Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14).
Legitimate and proportionate aim
Even if a court is satisfied that the interference is in accordance with the law, it must still examine whether
the surveillance is compatible with the legitimate aims in Art 8(2). Public authorities are supposed to seek an
authorisation under RIPA 2000 for "directed surveillance" or "intrusive surveillance" if there is a possibility
that such surveillance could interfere with privacy rights (see Home Office, Covert Surveillance Code of Practice). Failure to obtain an authorisation under RIPA 2000 may be incompatible with the Human Rights Act
1998.
It is not known whether the police have sought authorisation under RIPA 2000 for thermal camera surveillance and whether they have classified it as either directed or intrusive surveillance. Before authorisation is
granted, it must be shown that in the circumstances of the case, it is in the interest of national security, for
the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or in the economic well-being of the UK. These mirror
the legitimate aims contained in Art 8(2).
If seen to be a legitimate aim, the authorising officer must also believe that the surveillance is necessary and
proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. This decision is based on information contained in the application,
which includes:
· the reasons why the surveillance is considered proportionate;
· the nature of the surveillance;
· the identities, where known, of those subject to the surveillance;
· details of any potential collateral intrusion;
· and why the intrusion is justified.Page 3
Applications for intrusive surveillance go further, in that they must also contain information on the actual
residential premises where the surveillance will take place.
In deciding whether an authorisation is necessary and proportionate, there should be some balancing between the activity's intrusiveness on the target and others who might be affected by it, against the need for
the activity in operational terms. What seems crucial is how the thermal camera is used. If used to check a
specific house where cannabis is suspected of growing this could be necessary and proportionate, although,
if the police reasonably suspected such activities were taking place, then using a thermal camera might be
redundant as they could get a search warrant.
In Haringey, officers "have been patrolling the borough" using thermal cameras. This suggests the police
have been using them to monitor criminal activity over a wide area of random properties, rather than investigating specific properties (or streets where patrolling officers "smelt" cannabis but could not locate where
from).
Authorisations for both intrusive and directed surveillance are supposed to contain details of the identities
(where known) of those subject to surveillance. Applications for intrusive surveillance must also contain information on specific properties where surveillance will occur. It is therefore harder to justify surveillance operations where large-scale random surveillance is used.
Home Office statistics record 1,960 cannabis production offences in 2000, of which 243 people were jailed
(see Joseph Rowntree Foundation, A Growing Market: The Domestic Cultivation of Cannabis, 2003). The
2001 UK census revealed that there were approximately 23 million households in the UK. The key question
is therefore whether it is proportionate to undertake criminal surveillance measures that are possibly intrusive
on a wide number of householders to locate small numbers of cannabis growers?
US experience
Police use of thermal cameras has resulted in many contentious court cases in other jurisdictions. In 2001,
the US Supreme Court ruled in Kyllo v United States No. 99-8508 533 US 27 (2001) that the police use of a
thermal camera to detect cannabis grow lamps inside a private residence was an illegal, warrantless search
under the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, found it was unlawful because it went beyond what the police
could see in plain view from the house's exterior and provided information concerning the house's interior
that they would not have been able to obtain without going inside. It rejected the government's arguments
that the device did not provide significant detail regarding activities inside Mr Kyllo's home, and was not a
search as it only passively detected heat on exterior surfaces.
Justice Scalia observed that thermal imaging could potentially reveal intimate details, such as when the
householder was taking a bath. While the majority of judges considered the sensitive information gathered to
be slight, they found that because it was information about the home's interior, it was sufficiently intimate to
warrant legal protection. The legacy of Kyllo v United States is that the US judiciary has ended the police use
of thermal cameras without a search warrant supported by probable cause.
Canada's approach
The Supreme Court of Canada reached a different conclusion in R v Tessling [2004] 3 SCR 432. The court
unanimously held that using a thermal camera on a residence suspected of growing cannabis without a
search warrant did not constitute a breach of the accused's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court considered that the thermal camera only generated information about the house, whereas the
charter protected people not places. Consequently, patterns of heat distribution on the external surfaces of a
house were not the type of information to which the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy. ThePage 4
judges concluded that information gathered on the heat distribution offered no insight into the respondent's
private life and its disclosure scarcely affected his "dignity, integrity and autonomy".
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?
To those who consider that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, using thermal cameras to detect
cannabis growers and other criminal activity is hardly contentious. Others will consider such mass police
surveillance to be one more step towards an intrusive and totalitarian state.
It is arguable whether thermal cameras are sufficiently intrusive to interfere with a person's private life under
human rights legislation, but it is possible that such principles might be raised in the UK courts. The fact that
the US and Canadian supreme courts reached different conclusions illustrates the difficulty courts have in
resolving the tension between individual privacy and police use of new crime technologies. It is difficult to
predict which approach the UK judiciary may adopt--both approaches have their merits and reflect the complicated and subjective nature of privacy rights.
There are also wider complex legal issues concerning new technologies. Although there is potential protection from state surveillance, it is conceivable that the public could purchase and use thermal imaging themselves to monitor private houses. This could be for sales purposes, such as gathering information about
housing insulation, or even used by criminals to identify if a homeowner is at home or to detect rival drug
gangs. There appears to be no legislation controlling the sale of such equipment and privacy protection is
ineffectual where you are unaware your property is being monitored.
Balancing state intrusion
While individuals cannot expect to be left alone by the state completely, there are real and competing issues
relating to the balance of state intrusion. Public acceptance of new surveillance devices will be increasingly
important, particularly if the police are undertaking random thermal monitoring. Questions may also be raised
over who decides what technologies are allowed to be used for criminal detection and how these should be
used? The police's outlook on proportionality and necessity will differ from the man on the street. Who currently scrutinises the use of surveillance technologies? The courts are notoriously unwilling to elaborate general statements of privacy rights.
RIPA 2000 established the Independent Powers Tribunal which can investigate complaints about surveillance operations. However, as the majority of the public won't even know they are being monitored in this
way, this has limited effect as well. It seems that such privacy arguments will undoubtedly be bounced back
to the courts again soon.
· legal implications of new methods of surveillance
· the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Police in Haringey, North London, have just begun using a new high-tech weapon to catch cannabis growers
in residential properties. Two properties have already been raided after a thermal imaging camera detected
extreme heat emissions coming from cannabis grow lamps (see The Times, 24 March 2006). Properties
where such lamps are used, release up to 10 times more heat than normal, or in the words of one senior police officer, "skunk houses can glow like a kid in a Ready Brek advert".
These new hand-held thermal imaging cameras are currently being piloted by the Metropolitan Police. Similar thermal camera technology has been used on police helicopters for a number of years, mainly to detect
suspects fleeing scenes of crimes, although they have also been used to detect heat from cannabis growing
in properties in Deptford (see BBC website, 6 February 2006) and Glasgow (see The Scotsman, 29 November 2005). The Metropolitan Police website notes that "this type of technology is the way forward for the Met
and will ensure that we stay one step ahead of the criminals and drug dealers".
The benefits to the police are obvious, but there has been less discussion of the legal implications of these
new methods of surveillance. Can the police freely use new technologies to look inside homes without check?
Are there major differences with thermal imaging compared to other forms of police surveillance? The issue
of what legal protection cannabis growers are entitled to expect on one side and the extent public interest
exceptions qualifying privacy rights can be invoked by the police on the other, could be coming to a courtroom near you.
Interference with private life
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) provides that "everyone has the
right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". The scope of such privacy
rights are difficult to define, but the courts tend to examine the level of intrusiveness. Case law suggests that
any intrusion should be more than slight and foreseeable.Page 2
Arguably, information collected by thermal imaging is unobtrusive because it is collected from outside, and it
is slight as it concerns only heat emissions. Conversely, anything that penetrates through the walls of a
home and reveals private activities within does not respect a person's private life. Privacy is by nature a subjective concept; while some may find thermal scans unobtrusive, others may find them invasive. The burden
of proof is on the aggrieved to establish the fact of interference and how it has threatened the effective enjoyment of his rights.
If the use of a thermal camera is shown to be sufficiently intrusive to interfere with a person's private life, a
court will examine whether the measure was in accordance with the law. Specific statutory authorisation is
required under Art 8(2) so individuals know with sufficient certainty where they stand. The question whether
an interference with a right is "in accordance with the law" has been a prominent issue in other surveillance
cases.
RIPA 2000
There is no specific UK legislation that expressly authorises using thermal cameras, although the Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) provides a comprehensive set of powers for police surveillance. RIPA 2000 was enacted to ensure that investigatory powers were used in accordance with human
rights.
The question of law is whether the statutory authorisation should expressly cover the type of technology
rather than merely providing a general power of surveillance. In this context it is noteworthy that television
licence surveillance is specifically authorised under RIPA 2000, s 26(6). Television licence surveillance is
clearly similar to using thermal cameras, taking place outside a property to determine an activity within a
residence. Thermal imaging has no such specific authorisation suggesting the legality could be vulnerable on
this score (see Malone v UK (1984) 7 EHRR 14).
Legitimate and proportionate aim
Even if a court is satisfied that the interference is in accordance with the law, it must still examine whether
the surveillance is compatible with the legitimate aims in Art 8(2). Public authorities are supposed to seek an
authorisation under RIPA 2000 for "directed surveillance" or "intrusive surveillance" if there is a possibility
that such surveillance could interfere with privacy rights (see Home Office, Covert Surveillance Code of Practice). Failure to obtain an authorisation under RIPA 2000 may be incompatible with the Human Rights Act
1998.
It is not known whether the police have sought authorisation under RIPA 2000 for thermal camera surveillance and whether they have classified it as either directed or intrusive surveillance. Before authorisation is
granted, it must be shown that in the circumstances of the case, it is in the interest of national security, for
the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or in the economic well-being of the UK. These mirror
the legitimate aims contained in Art 8(2).
If seen to be a legitimate aim, the authorising officer must also believe that the surveillance is necessary and
proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. This decision is based on information contained in the application,
which includes:
· the reasons why the surveillance is considered proportionate;
· the nature of the surveillance;
· the identities, where known, of those subject to the surveillance;
· details of any potential collateral intrusion;
· and why the intrusion is justified.Page 3
Applications for intrusive surveillance go further, in that they must also contain information on the actual
residential premises where the surveillance will take place.
In deciding whether an authorisation is necessary and proportionate, there should be some balancing between the activity's intrusiveness on the target and others who might be affected by it, against the need for
the activity in operational terms. What seems crucial is how the thermal camera is used. If used to check a
specific house where cannabis is suspected of growing this could be necessary and proportionate, although,
if the police reasonably suspected such activities were taking place, then using a thermal camera might be
redundant as they could get a search warrant.
In Haringey, officers "have been patrolling the borough" using thermal cameras. This suggests the police
have been using them to monitor criminal activity over a wide area of random properties, rather than investigating specific properties (or streets where patrolling officers "smelt" cannabis but could not locate where
from).
Authorisations for both intrusive and directed surveillance are supposed to contain details of the identities
(where known) of those subject to surveillance. Applications for intrusive surveillance must also contain information on specific properties where surveillance will occur. It is therefore harder to justify surveillance operations where large-scale random surveillance is used.
Home Office statistics record 1,960 cannabis production offences in 2000, of which 243 people were jailed
(see Joseph Rowntree Foundation, A Growing Market: The Domestic Cultivation of Cannabis, 2003). The
2001 UK census revealed that there were approximately 23 million households in the UK. The key question
is therefore whether it is proportionate to undertake criminal surveillance measures that are possibly intrusive
on a wide number of householders to locate small numbers of cannabis growers?
US experience
Police use of thermal cameras has resulted in many contentious court cases in other jurisdictions. In 2001,
the US Supreme Court ruled in Kyllo v United States No. 99-8508 533 US 27 (2001) that the police use of a
thermal camera to detect cannabis grow lamps inside a private residence was an illegal, warrantless search
under the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, found it was unlawful because it went beyond what the police
could see in plain view from the house's exterior and provided information concerning the house's interior
that they would not have been able to obtain without going inside. It rejected the government's arguments
that the device did not provide significant detail regarding activities inside Mr Kyllo's home, and was not a
search as it only passively detected heat on exterior surfaces.
Justice Scalia observed that thermal imaging could potentially reveal intimate details, such as when the
householder was taking a bath. While the majority of judges considered the sensitive information gathered to
be slight, they found that because it was information about the home's interior, it was sufficiently intimate to
warrant legal protection. The legacy of Kyllo v United States is that the US judiciary has ended the police use
of thermal cameras without a search warrant supported by probable cause.
Canada's approach
The Supreme Court of Canada reached a different conclusion in R v Tessling [2004] 3 SCR 432. The court
unanimously held that using a thermal camera on a residence suspected of growing cannabis without a
search warrant did not constitute a breach of the accused's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court considered that the thermal camera only generated information about the house, whereas the
charter protected people not places. Consequently, patterns of heat distribution on the external surfaces of a
house were not the type of information to which the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy. ThePage 4
judges concluded that information gathered on the heat distribution offered no insight into the respondent's
private life and its disclosure scarcely affected his "dignity, integrity and autonomy".
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?
To those who consider that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, using thermal cameras to detect
cannabis growers and other criminal activity is hardly contentious. Others will consider such mass police
surveillance to be one more step towards an intrusive and totalitarian state.
It is arguable whether thermal cameras are sufficiently intrusive to interfere with a person's private life under
human rights legislation, but it is possible that such principles might be raised in the UK courts. The fact that
the US and Canadian supreme courts reached different conclusions illustrates the difficulty courts have in
resolving the tension between individual privacy and police use of new crime technologies. It is difficult to
predict which approach the UK judiciary may adopt--both approaches have their merits and reflect the complicated and subjective nature of privacy rights.
There are also wider complex legal issues concerning new technologies. Although there is potential protection from state surveillance, it is conceivable that the public could purchase and use thermal imaging themselves to monitor private houses. This could be for sales purposes, such as gathering information about
housing insulation, or even used by criminals to identify if a homeowner is at home or to detect rival drug
gangs. There appears to be no legislation controlling the sale of such equipment and privacy protection is
ineffectual where you are unaware your property is being monitored.
Balancing state intrusion
While individuals cannot expect to be left alone by the state completely, there are real and competing issues
relating to the balance of state intrusion. Public acceptance of new surveillance devices will be increasingly
important, particularly if the police are undertaking random thermal monitoring. Questions may also be raised
over who decides what technologies are allowed to be used for criminal detection and how these should be
used? The police's outlook on proportionality and necessity will differ from the man on the street. Who currently scrutinises the use of surveillance technologies? The courts are notoriously unwilling to elaborate general statements of privacy rights.
RIPA 2000 established the Independent Powers Tribunal which can investigate complaints about surveillance operations. However, as the majority of the public won't even know they are being monitored in this
way, this has limited effect as well. It seems that such privacy arguments will undoubtedly be bounced back
to the courts again soon.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I will ask you again to provide the evidence. Quit ignoring such requests. Where do you see that someone has 3 HPS lamps? Time stamp of where it is proven what is causing said hotspot.
What does the price of equipment have to do with posting how to defeat FLIR? If someone can't afford to protect themselves, that's their business but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Why are you ignoring what I actually said? How about if you answer the question, if you agree that heaat can be managed and shunted to an area where the cops can't see it with FLIR, then how do you explain your premise that cops can see inside your house? The heat source remains the same, there are still very hot lamps burning but now undetectable to FLIR, which means that they cannot see them which proves that they can't see in your house, they can only see heat that has been poorly managed and vented into unsecure parts of the house. If I have 4,000 watts of lighting in my basement but vent the heat to the attic, I will be busted just as if I had the lamps in my attic. The point is, the cops didn't see my lamps, they saw the roof and beams heated by those lamps even though they were well secure below ground.
Pointing out your errors helps people that do want to spend money to manage their grow to make it secure. Ignoring your errors will let people think that some things can be detected that cannot be. I'm not arguing with you just to argue, there's a reason that bad information needs to be countered and I just gave you an example.
Now answer some questions or post real evidence.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You can't end a dispute by unilaterally declaring yourself a winner cupcake.
Posting the entirety of the link that you already posted is not going to change my mind and it is by definition spamming. How about if you instead answer my criticism of you interpretation of said link?
blueberry2012
Member
this question was answered a few pages back with the exact time within the vid ,just shows you only read what you want to see
blueberry2012
Member
CLEARLY YOU SEEM TO HAVE NOT SEE THIS = clearly the houses in the bbc link ie @ 1min 18 seconds you can see 3 heat source that brought attention to them
YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THE FACTS RAY PURDY PROVIDED HE IS A VERY WISE MAN SEE FOR YOURSELF
- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/academics/profiles/index.shtml?purdy
you are trying to make ppl feel safe when there not, do you have any idea the temp a 1000w produces of course they can see it i suggests you re read ray purdys research
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with you, do you have problems reading? You are still dodging the question and have offered zero evidence that these heat signatures are grow lights. It would do you a lot of good to try to understand what is being asked of you.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Clearly you are not understanding what evidence means.
Maybe you can explain what facts he provide you don't think I am acknowledging. Maybe someday you will actually read what I wrote instead of making assumptions and provide actual evidence rather than your opinion. You seem to feel that things you are posting is helping you when everyone here that reads this seems to be agreeing with me.
gargantuanganja
Well-Known Member
They can obtain a warrant for thermal imaging but make mistakes by doing so.
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2009/270209Police.htm
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2009/270209Police.htm
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I have acknowledged incidents like this and others but that's why we have standards like probable cause and courts to determine if it has been met. See the Barry Cooper KopBusters video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Fu4YVH8nA explaining how using these cameras as well as anonymous sources IS ILLEGAL. My point all along is that the police are scum and if they can get away with it they will, but that doesn't make the search legal. They will also lie about being able to smell marijuana when they already suspect it but can't prove it giving them a pseudo-right to search you or your home. Again, the law is on our side and has been demonstrated as such by the courts and these are examples of police malfeasance, NOT a standard of law.
Besides, this was only a secondary issue, the primary being about the ability of the technology itself.
blueberry2012
Member
what question am i dodging exactly as far as i am aware everything you have asked i have answered & it dnt take a brain surgeon to work out a row of 3 hot spots like in the loft in that vid is a row of hps,s ~ what else could it poss be ? there is nothing thats going to be in a loft thats soooo hot ~ for someone who claims to have a law degree & a science degree you int very bright just very argumentative & have you backed up anything you have said with any proof NO YOU HAVE NOT SO UNTIL YOU DO STFU
blueberry2012
Member
i would like to also point out part of ray purdy research that i posted on page 9 ~
- Justice Scalia observed that thermal imaging could potentially reveal intimate details, such as when the
householder was taking a bath
so they can tell your having a bath but cnt see a hps cooking away in you home OMFG mindphuk get with the modern times and start providing proof of what you say if your going to dismiss the likes of ray purdy research !
blueberry2012
Member
oh is this your question ~
- Tell me exactly where you found out that they were HPS lights. That's your problem, you make deductive leaps of reasoning without substantial evidence
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I never said I have a law degree. Just more examples of you inability to read carefully. So in your mind, hot spots are grow lights until proven otherwise? And you accuse me of not being bright? Just because you can't think of what else would cause heat in someone's home, you assume it must be for an illegal cannabis grow? How about a server farm? how about heaters (people do live in attics sometimes)? How about a legal grow of tomatoes or peppers? In fact, your claim that they were "HPS" is of course ridiculous as any strong lighting will give off similar signatures.You have given us ZERO evidence that mere hot spots by themselves are enough to provide police with probable cause and just continue to dig yourself further into your hole.
Justice Scalia is not an expert on the technology and he was making a hypothetical situation where heat alone without actually seeing details could give you intimate details about the goings on in the house. This is why he was careful to use the word "potentially." He never claimed that this is even possible, but was explaining his reasons why it is an invasion of privacy.
Dude, you have to watch your own video again because you seem to be missing a lot. At 1:10 the BBC guy says, "The crew take me to see some houses in South Bristol that are already on the police radar for cannabis production."IOW, the FLIR is only being used as one additional piece of evidence to support their probable cause for a warrant. At no time did the cop in the heli mention anything more than seeing hot spots, "see you got a few heat sources there." and "look at those 2 windows compared to those window, and around the guttering on top."So yes, I would like you to give me the time stamp of exactly where someone claimed that a heat source was definitively a grow light.
Some other questions you have ignored are:
What exactly in the link to the Surrey Police website supports anything you have claimed that I haven't agreed with?
You accused me of ignoring that link but I saw nothing in it that is of any significance.
And another..
If you agree that heat can be managed and shunted to an area where the cops can't see it with FLIR, then how do you explain your premise that cops can see inside your house?
--And this question is the key to the whole discussion since this is about mismanaged heat that is causing parts of the outside of the house to glow. There is no technology that can see the heat that is beyond the walls unless it is allowed to radiate, convect or conduct to the outside where it can be seen by a camera. The underline is for your benefit since you don't seem to understand the limits of the tech. If you can prove that indoor heat can be seen in spite of being kept from outer surfaces of the house, then maybe you would have a point.
You also never answered the question if you were over 18.
richinweed
Active Member
....................I saw a show on discovery or one of those channels about 5 years ago.......they were looking thru walls like the op said....they also speculated that flir systems would contain this tech in the future, but bieng expensive and needing a warrent to use this it is rare and usually shared by different departments......here in Canada eh!
blueberry2012
Member
mindphuk if you read the things i had said you would be well aware im over 18 ~ or how did i get done for production 10 yr ago, as if i was growing at 7 yrs old lol wake up kid. im nr 40 with 20 yrs of experience of production on large scale.
already on the police radar for production yes because they were taking the bbc crew to places they had already found via the helicopter & justice scalia and ray know a lot more about this topic that either of us to do.
& you are trying to say the 3 heat sources in the vid are ppl lmfao how hot do you get put your hand on your hps and tell me whos hotter & if ppl were living in there loft by law you have to have a window on the roof & they would spot that & if you are growing peppers ect then ul prob get busted for it & get a free new front door payed for by the police.
and a lot of ppl coming to this site are beginner growers who are more than likely on a low budget & wnt have all the gadgets they would like IE proper heat control. the police DO presume these hot spots to be grows,
the original question was can they see heat sources.never mind your ifs buts and maybe.
already on the police radar for production yes because they were taking the bbc crew to places they had already found via the helicopter & justice scalia and ray know a lot more about this topic that either of us to do.
& you are trying to say the 3 heat sources in the vid are ppl lmfao how hot do you get put your hand on your hps and tell me whos hotter & if ppl were living in there loft by law you have to have a window on the roof & they would spot that & if you are growing peppers ect then ul prob get busted for it & get a free new front door payed for by the police.
and a lot of ppl coming to this site are beginner growers who are more than likely on a low budget & wnt have all the gadgets they would like IE proper heat control. the police DO presume these hot spots to be grows,
the original question was can they see heat sources.never mind your ifs buts and maybe.
- Properties
where such lamps are used, release up to 10 times more heat than normal, or in the words of one senior police officer, "skunk houses can glow like a kid in a Ready Brek advert".
blueberry2012
Member
how can you even try and argue with this if you have so called read rays research.
- Police in Haringey, North London, have just begun using a new high-tech weapon to catch cannabis growers
in residential properties. Two properties have already been raided after a thermal imaging camera detected
extreme heat emissions coming from cannabis grow lamps (see The Times, 24 March 2006)
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Bullshit. You have nothing to back up this claim. They said they were going to check out houses that they already suspected of growing. The heat signatures were to be additional evidence. Where in the video does it say they have already seen these houses with FLIR? They don't, you're making shit up now.
I said no such thing. It is clear you don't read English very well.
Yes, the police assume hotspots to be grows. However, they cannot use hotspots alone to get a warrant, they need more evidence. That's why it's important to control heat, AS I KEEP SAYING. However, the only way to learn how to control heat is to understand what can and cannot be seen.
Why do you keep avoiding the main question? If heat can be properly vented to areas that don't make your house glow, then explain how these cameras look beyond walls? IOW, how do these cameras suddenly become 'blind' to the same lamps that were seen just fine prior to the venting?