The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
In pursuit of security and service, we are submitting ourselves to a proliferation of monitoring technologies. But a loss of privacy is not inevitable.
"Give me Duquesne minus 7, for a nickel."
It was February 1965 on a lonely section of Los Angeles's Sunset Boulevard, and Charles Katz, one of life's little losers, was placing an illegal sports bet over a public telephone. Unbeknownst to Katz, however, the FBI had placed a microphone atop the telephone booth to record this small-time gambler's conversations.
Engineers often mock the law for lagging behind technology. In fact, the law is often far ahead of it. This time it was ahead by nearly 200 years, for after Katz's arrest his lawyers argued that although the framers of the Constitution could not possibly have encountered tape recorders and telephone booths, the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable" searches nonetheless covered them. Because the FBI had no search warrant, Katz's lawyers said, bugging the phone booth was illegal. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court agreed, affirming for the first time that electronic surveillance was-constitutionally speaking-a search. "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab," the majority declared, "a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."
To read the entire article you must log in:
Most of our content — all daily news, blogs, and videos — is free. Magazine stories are paid. To read this story, you must have a subscription or you must use a reading credit. Registration to Technology Review is free and entitles registrants to three free reading credits.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following: