because the Geneva Convention only governs militaries in declared wars between countries. It does not cover police forces dealing with citizens/subjects inside countries.

I'll agree that it is acceptable for police to have and use in limited circumstances but very limited circumstances and even then they should have no problem obtaining a warrant.

Well, if it could actually produce the type of image you are imagining it produces (but according to the summary does not produce) then your voyeurism would be illegal in most jurisdictions.

Yes, yes you are. See my reply to ganjadude for an explanation of why.

Wow, just wow, ganjadude. Plenty of people have used exactly that "incoherent" logic to claim all manner of crap. It has been used to claim that warrantless searching of email is okay, that warrantless search and seizure of electronically stored documents is okay, to claim that banning modern handguns and rifles is okay. It sounds very ridiculous the way it was written but completely legit when phrased properly, doesn't it.

Since the Geneva Convention was ever only intended to govern the interaction of opposing uniformed military forces, I don't see how any police force could ever be thought to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

True but nearly all large city mayors do take their marching orders directly from this commander-in-chief.

but that was infrared. You see, when it was visible light we didn't need warrants then a document was written that said they did. Then this infrared thing came along and they said that the constitution didn't cover infrared because it didn't exist when the constitution was written. Then the courts said that infrared requires a warrant. The interpretation is not infrared requires a warrant because a search is a search but because a court said so. Now we have this radar thing and it doesn't require a warrant because it wasn't around when the constitution was written and the court only said that infrared gets added to what was around when the constitution was written.

No, this changes a regulation. Contrary to popular belief, POTUS cannot change the law.

Summary said TOR or VPN not TOR VPN. Companies use encrypted VPN for all manner of reasons, some of which include compliance with data security laws or is it now acceptable for a corporation to pass your CC across the internet in plaintext?

Way to completely miss the point. Glad AC could help you find it.

Because they are selling it to make money and you Linux guys are all about the free?

Well, we just followed the lead of the British and French politicians and remained out of it until we were directly attacked. I wasn't alive back then but I've never once read about the Brits and French jumping in to protect the Poles and Dutch.

Wow, just wow.

And russia did all that absolutely no help from the US, right? Please read history again and don't skip all the good parts this time.