In the reading, Whitebread and Slogobin define technological surveillance as “techniques that enhance the ability to eavesdrop on or spy on the activities of others” (book). Technological surveillance can be done in different ways, including listening to you, following you, and monitoring you. Listening to your conversations can be obtained through wiretapping and planting bugs. Wiretapping is the physical intrusion of your electrical wiring, while bug implantation involves placing an audio transmitting device on you or in your home. Surveillance of a person through tracking can be done by hacking into their transmissions or by physically following where they go. Video surveillance is very common; this can be done by physically following a person. There are also technologies available that allow someone to see through walls, such as x-ray vision (book). These monitoring methods are very useful, but sometimes very invasive, which is why there are guidelines and requirements that must be met in order to use them. Technological surveillance is a very important part of evidence collection. This allows law enforcement to discreetly build their cases. However, this is why technological surveillance can sometimes give rise to abuse. Technological surveillance, while necessary, creates a credible threat of invasion of our privacy. The trespass doctrine clarified why certain types of surveillance were illegal. The premise was based on whether the information was obtained by unauthorized entry onto the individual's property by crossing the exterior barrier. The two cases based on this concept are: Goldman v. United States (1942) and Silverman v. United States (1961). In Goldman v. United States (1942), the dictaphone...... middle of paper ...... because not all conversations were about the crime being investigated. Scott v. United States (1978) is a great example of why the minimization rule was created. In this case, agents intercepted all of his calls for a month. It was discovered that less than half of all intercepted documents actually related to the crime. However, no minimization was found because 60% of calls were unclear, single occurrence, or too short. Works Cited Berger c. New York, 388 US 41 (1967) Goldman v. United States, 389 US 347 (1967) On Lee v. United States, 343 US 747 (1952) Scott v. United States, 436 US 128 (1978) Silverman v. United States, 365 US 505 (1961) States v. Chavez, 416 US 562 (1974) United States v. Giordano, 416 US 505 (1974)Whitebread, CH & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure. New York: Press Foundation.