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 many different ways, including listening to you, following you, and watching you. It is possible to listen to your conversations by eavesdropping and bugging them. Wiretapping is the physical intrusion into your electrical wiring, while planting bugs involves placing an audio transmitting device on your people or in your home. Surveillance of someone through tracking can be done by hacking into their transmissions or physically tracking where they go. Video surveillance is widespread; it can be done by physically following a person around. There is also technology available that allows someone to see through walls such as x-ray vision (book). These surveillance 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. It allows law enforcement to discreetly build their cases. However, for this very reason, technological surveillance can sometimes be abused. Technological surveillance, while necessary, creates a credible threat to the invasion of our privacy. The trespass doctrine specified why certain types of surveillance were illegal. The premise was that the information was obtained by trespassing on the individual's property by penetrating the external barrier. The two cases based on this concept are: Goldman v. United States (1942) and Silverman v. United States (1961). In the case of Goldman v. United States (1942), the dictaphone... was at the center of the 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 his calls for a month. It turned out that less than half of all the intercepted material was actually about the crime. However, no minimization was found because 60% of the calls were unclear, occurred only once, or were too short. Works CitedBerger v. New York, 388 US 41 (1967) Goldman v. United States, 316 US 129 (1942) Katz 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)United States v. Chavez, 416 US 562 (1974)United States v. Jordan, 416 US 505 (1974)Whitebread, C. H. & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure. New York: Foundation Press.