No, it sounds like a telescope focusing onto a single pixel (i.e. just the back of the curtains), and then using the output from this pixel with a lock-in amplifier tied to the broadcast signal. The sensitivity would be enormous due to the lock-in.
With a CRT you would be able to do this with <microsecond resolution as the scan lines went across.
In today's LCD world, I guess something similar could be done for a whole pixel-average of a whole frame, and then look at the time-series of that to correct for lag in digital television / internet etc..
(1) A person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision does not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.
All the example places given are ones you'd likely be frequently undressed. I'm not sure I'd argue I have an expectation of privacy in the living room with the curtains open - people walking on the sidewalk by my house see in mine all the time.
Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice - consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.)
You're trying to leverage a "peeping Tom" law to frustrate law enforcement, and that is unlikely to succeed.
The key qualifier here is "with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside." Law enforcement activities are unlikely to satisfy this prong.
No, just that you cannot use a statute like the peeping tom one against Law Enforcement in the same way you'd use it against an average joe.
But also, yes, the police can do basically anything and receive "Qualified Immunity" as actors of the state. Under the current interpretation of qualified immunity unless the police know what they are specifically doing isn't allowed then they have immunity, and the court system gets SUPER specific with the facts to the point that pretty much any action gets immunity. The state itself might be in trouble but that's a whole other mess of immunity.
I'm not a lawyer though and I'm almost certainly messing up some of the nuance here.
Qualified immunity is a creature of federal Constitutional law; it exists to immunize law enforcement from civil suits alleging that they violated someone's Constitutional rights. The doctrine does not immunize officers against criminal charges, particularly crimes against the laws of the States.
"Privacy" isn't (yet) a Federal civil or constitutional right so I'm not sure that qualified immunity would apply. The intent qualifier in the Peeping Tom law is probably sufficient since the intent is not to violate someone's privacy but to follow up on some sort of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Also if people can see through your window doing ordinary (non-traditionally-"private") activities, there's the "plain view" doctrine -- although that's related to admission of evidence and not a prima facie criminal law violation. Nevertheless a Court is probably going to use similar reasoning when divining intent.
I don't know about a lay-person, but any government agent (police, a tv-detector-van driver, whatever) cannot act on the results of a search that was done without a warrant (or probable cause and some exigency).
People's houses are especially sacred in US law and even flying a plane over and looking for excessive heat signatures to find Marijuana growers was deemed an illegal search (someone linked to that case in another comment)
The only things we (Americans) allow our government to exercise that amount of control over are psychoactive drugs/plants and female reproductive rights. With things like AR15s or TVs we require unfettered access with no paper trail, but if you want Adderall you'll need 3-sheet triplicate DEA forms and it's a federal crime in all 50 states to possess a growing number of naturally occurring plants and fungi.
"Naturally occurring plants" are illegal in all of the EU as well. Also it's a logical fallacy[2]. Lots of naturally occurring things can have very bad effects on society. Caster beans are natural (and legal). Should we allow people to grow and process them and sell ricin by the vial - after all, it's a naturally occurring protein, right? Should we allow people to grow, process, and sell naturally occurring anthrax bacteria?
Close reading clears up a simple misunderstanding; "The only things we (Americans) allow our government to exercise that amount of control over are psychoactive drugs/plants and female reproductive rights..."
Ricin has nothing to do with female reproductive rights and isn't known to be psychoactive.
If you delayed the program onto your TV/laptop/whatever by some number of seconds, that surely would defeat the detector, though, of course, the detector could look for this. A better way to defeat it would be to play two programs on the same or two TVs near each other, then the two signals would interfere in a way that should confuse the detector.
Blackout curtains (which I recommend for other reasons), would work best though.
With a CRT you would be able to do this with <microsecond resolution as the scan lines went across.
In today's LCD world, I guess something similar could be done for a whole pixel-average of a whole frame, and then look at the time-series of that to correct for lag in digital television / internet etc..