Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Privacy News

GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts 565

Posted by timothy from the don't-worry-you'll-get-one-too dept.
Fun at LinuxWorld writes "Following on the heels of California's plan to put GPS receivers in cars, Massachusetts wants to fit criminals who violation restraining orders with GPS devices. Wearing the device would be a condition of probation (meaning you can refuse, but then you get to serve your time in jail), and fines and punishments would be imposed if the person entered "restricted zones" (under the terms of the restraining order). With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better? Will it fix the problem?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts More

GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts

Comments Filter:

  • Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:10PM (#11691371) Homepage Journal
    While I did not approve [slashdot.org] of the use of GPS in the previous discussion, in this case (when one choses to break the law), it is appropriate. Already there is precedence within the law for restriction or elimination of certain personal freedoms and rights, especially if felonies have been committed. Felons are not allowed to own guns I believe as well as give up the right to vote. Especially given the violent nature behind many restraining order allocations, this is a good implementation of GPS tracking technology. Already there are incredible difficulties with the victims of violent crimes proving that the subject of the restraining order has violated those agreements. This technology will help buttress victims claims of restraining order violation and perhaps prevent further violent actions.

    • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:16PM (#11691464) Homepage Journal
      I don't care for the GPS to track how much you should pay in taxes (uhm you do that at the gas pump, you drive more, you buy more gas, your car pollutes more by burning more? you pay more). In this instance I don't believe that tracking cons is really a violation of anyones rights.

      • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:28PM (#11691659) Journal
        "I don't believe that tracking cons is really a violation of anyones rights."
        More important, is upon commission of a crime you are knowingly risking loss of several of your rights (privacy being a big one).
        This is a perfect use, so long as glitches don't cause too much greif.
        -nB

    • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

      by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@geekaz ... minus physicist> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:19PM (#11691508) Homepage
      I agree with parent. Various house-arrest devices have been in use for many years. They are essentially lower-tech gadgets that detect when the wearer strays too far from a second gizmo attached to their house or whatever. GPS would give judges a lot more latitude in specifying the terms of probation. Example -- allow the person to travel to work and the local shopping area but nowhere else.

      • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:24PM (#11691597)
        Indeed. The Constitution says that no one shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". If you've been duly convicted by a court of law, that IS due process.

        When you start subjecting the entire population to the same kind of treatment you've got a MAJOR due process violation.

        • :-) >When you start subjecting the entire population to the same kind of treatment you've got a MAJOR due process violation. ..And we all know that major due process violations cause major due core dumps (geez, on Slashdot and no one thought of that one? Or no one likes my flavor of UNIX?)

      • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Funny)

        by Your Pal Dave ( 33229 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:33PM (#11691730)
        GPS would give judges a lot more latitude in specifying the terms of probation.
        Longitude too!
    • While I don't think the GPS is going to stop a felon from commiting violent acts, it'll definitely be a boon to prosecutors. What better way to 'restrain' a known offender than saddling him with an invisible leash, and recording his every move?

      That said, just wait till They make them small enough not to be noticed. *tinfoilsuit*

    • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kdark1701 ( 791894 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:25PM (#11691611) Homepage
      I'm not sure how it is in Massechuses (sp?), but here in Michigan, one can get a restraining order with no proof. The accused can get the order revoked, but its a pain in the ass. More often than not, it degenerates into a "his word against hers" type of case.

    • Re:Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

      by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:27PM (#11691633) Homepage Journal
      Word up. People who break restraining orders are usualy one or two steps from commiting a violent crime.

      As for felons not being allowed to posses guns or vote, that varies by state, and is of questionable constitutionality.

    • Re:Appropriate use (Score:3, Insightful)

      by segmond ( 34052 )
      Are you sure? Soon, someone will show research that a lot of prisoners commit crime after they are done being tracked by the GPS technology and a law will be passed that you wear one for the rest of your life if you commit a crime. They will argue that it's more humane than prison and enforces you to stay out of crime. Then the only thing left is to put it on everyone. After all, if we can track everyone and crime should drop by 500% across all boards, why shouldn't we?
    • It's not going to prevent anything. People who want to harass those who have restraining orders against them will continue to do so. Being able to prove it because they're wearing a GPS device is only an additional expense that will be absorbed by taxpayers.

      Also, please remember that felons != violent criminals. A felony can be for something non-violent, such as possession of marijuana. Voting and arms-bearing rights are left to the discretion of the states - in most cases the right to vote returns at

    • Not just Appropriate use (Score:5, Insightful)

      by temojen ( 678985 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:33PM (#11691726) Journal
      In addition to not seeing any problem with this, I see it as a great good for society. Keeping lesser criminals out of jails could save a lot of public money, and reduce the chances that they'll become "hardened" criminals.
    • I totally agree that GPS could be a godsend for helping enforce restraining orders. Instead of you calling the police after the lurking ex-boyfriend heaves a brick through your window and runs off laughing (or worse, no one calling the police, as he runs in with a baseball bat), the police are already on their way from the moment he parks in the alley and hides in your bushes. Currently restraining orders are *very* difficult to enforce, especially because violations are frequent and often difficult to pr

    • Reluctantly agreed. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:05PM (#11692107)
      In high school there was a classmate of mine that was on probation, or parole or something and he had to wear some type of tracking device around their ankle. At the time I was absolutely appalled by it as all he was charged with was non-violent drug offenses. Why was our government tracking this kid who was not a danger to anybody?

      I think that this could be a very useful and progressive technology, provided that the punishment fit the crime. I have been growing increasingly skeptical of the prison system. I really don't think that it provides much deterrence, rehabilitation or punishment that couldn't be provided in some other manner. People who are only hurting themselves should not be criminals at all. Liquidation and seizure of all assets, combined with forced labor (say weekly) would be a much more effective deterrent / punishment for white collar crimes than a prison sentence. The only thing that prison should be reserved for are violent offenders who simply must be removed from society. However, violent offenses vary in severity, and people should be given second chances. I think that this could be very useful in providing a more effective half way step between prison and complete freedom.

      On the other hand, every year in this country, penalties for crimes go up. It used to be that there were laws that had been around for generations, and being tough on crime meant punishing people when they broke those laws. When done, the public agreed that justice was served, and that was that. Now every time any big crime hits the news these paranoid soccer moms pop up screaming for harsher punishment. And the politicians happily comply so they look like they are "hard on crime". You can't keep doing this forever - at some point you have to decide that the punishment is right for the crime and leave it!

      So yeah, this is definitely a valid tool for law enforcement. However, like any tool it can be used or misused, and I am very reluctant to give law enforcement new tools as long as our political environment is tolerant, encouraging and even demanding of their misuse.

  • must proofreader (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:10PM (#11691383)
    "...criminals who violation restraining orders..."

    Hmm, the editors are great at proofreader articles.
  • After all, when I clicked to read more all I saw was "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

    But seriously, this is a good thing. Prisoners already have lost their right to freedom when they were convicted of a crime so I don't see any privacy issues as it pertains to them.

    • one small one (Score:4, Informative)

      by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:15PM (#11691455) Homepage Journal
      oftentimes probation is used as a tool,
      the timeframe on probation can exceed the remaining time on sentance...

      choice 1- get out in 5 years, choice 2- get out now-but have 15 years probation.

      in some rare cases, time served+ probation can exceed maximum penalty time serverd-for an offense....

  • Shows you what the CA gov't thinks of its citizens (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:12PM (#11691407) Homepage
    ... namely that we should be treated like criminals? eh, I gotta talk to my state senator about this.
    • No... it shows what some California Beureaucrat thinks of California citizens.

      The CA gov't has a thousand different opinions of it's citizens... some are good, some are bad.

      But either way, you should talk to your state senator about the lame California Beureaucrats.
    • Even though I agree that states shouldn't require GPS in cars, you have some faulty logic there. If meals for wheels provides the same meal that a prison does on a given day, does that mean they think their patrons are inmates? No... the two are mutually exclusive.

      To put it more clearly, one is about taxes, the other is about probation restrictions.

  • What happens when... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by booyah ( 28487 )
    For some reason you go out of GPS reception?

    Being an avid GPS user myself I know that its easy for them to lose signal. How can they tell if you were just at an angle that the antenna didnt like? Or went into a building? or better yet wrapped it with a metal foil to deceive the antenna?

    How is this any better than existing tethers?

    • Re:What happens when... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by chill ( 34294 )
      If the tin foil falls off or the angle improves, they instantly know where you are.

      The existing tethers don't have even the option.

      Besides, if you start screwing with it they will most likely come get you for a probation violation.

      It isn't *perfect* but it is a definite step in the right direction.

      -Charles
    • They can use the data before and after you lose signal to guess approximate you were. If you were in your house when the signal went off, and five minutes later it comes back and you're still in your house, then obviously you didn't go twenty miles away and beat your ex. There still might be problems at times, but if the device is too faulty, it couldn't (one would hope) be used against you in court.
    • If you go out of reception, there will be a last known position. If for example, you are 15 miles from a forbidden zone and the signal is lost for 5 minutes and your new position is 15.3 miles from the zone, it would be reasonable to assume that you didn't go there. On the other hand, if you are .5 mile from the zone when connection is lost, it would be reasonable to warn the person facing danger.

      I don't see a problem with this use of GPS, but then, my opinion is clouded by experience. I was stalked abo
    • They can easily have some type of notification if you lose signal (which includes wrapping it in foil). As a condition of probation, they can require that if you're notified of loss of signal, you have to call your PO within a certain amount of time... say 15 minutes? That way the PO can still keep tabs on the person, but the person won't get in trouble just for losing signal.

    • What happens when everyone has jammers? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:49PM (#11691953)
      Right now there is little motivation for jamming GPS signals. The occasional terrorist, or the army, might decide to interfere with the signal, but otherwise I suspect there haven't been too many buyers of the GPS jamming system that was being marketed in Russia a few years ago.

      That could all change.

      Certainly by tracking citizens in their cars with GPS (ostensibly for taxation purposes, but anyone with any technical knowhow knows you can read an odometer for tax purposes ... the only reason to use GPS is to know where people are whenever one wants) or by tracking parollees with GPS, we've just given a large population of people a really big incentive to jam GPS signals.

      As a pilot who uses GPL in both IFR and VFR flight, this worries me. Not because I can't fly without it (I can, and have the equipment to do so, though it certainly adds to the workload), but because I may be in the middle of a busy procedure when some jackass decides to jam the signal so he can see his girlfriend in the "forbidden zone", and the odds of losing my signal have just gone up by orders of magnitude thanks to a (perhaps well meaning, but certainly) intrusive big-brother application of the same technology.

      I don't argue that tracking convicted criminals with GPS is a legitimate idea. I do argue, however, that it isn't a very good idea, and the unintended consiquences are worrisome.

      OBTW - Technically, when one pays a speeding fine, one is "convicted" of the "crime" of "speeding." Does that make GPS monitoring of their car for all future driving a legitimate idea. How many people are going to start jamming the signal simply as a matter of asserting their privacy, and screwing up boat/air navigation at the same time?

      This is a boneheaded idea, even if the intention is good.

  • just put them in our skulls when we're born (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bdbafh ( 851601 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:12PM (#11691411) Homepage
    and turn them on as the authorities see fit ... no court order required. time to go look at EFF and EPIC sites again. maybe this time I'll actually donate like I've meant to before ...

    • Re:just put them in our skulls when we're born (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonym0us Cow Herd ( 231084 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:06PM (#11692125)
      I don't think that current technology makes it practical. Unfortunantly, we need at least one more generation of hardware improvements before the universal multi-purpose brian implant can become a reality.

      Not only is GPS tracking needed, but also real time transmit-receive capability. It is not possible to put the entire database of copyright works into your implant. Therefore, when you see or hear something, your implant can communicate with a central RIAA/MPAA database in real time, determine who owns the copyright, and then appropriately charge your credit card for what you have just seen or heard.

      It is even less technically feasible, at present, to determine whether you are thinking subversive thoughts which lie outside the scope of consuming content or doing productive work for your employer.

      Also somewhat infeasible is for the implant to determine or be remotely directed that it is necessary to administer needed medications into your system. (Need being determine by the implant firmware, or by remote command.)

      Improvements in processing power will be needed for various a/v decoders if we wish to convert all content to be DRM encoded almost all the way to the brain.

      I'm sure others here can think of other current technical limitations that mean we will have to be patient and wait for the next generation of brain implant toys.

      Even further out, more sci-fi, would be not only to monitor thoughts, but also to interact with thoughts. Your implent could make it possible for people of the right social standing to be able to have virtual conferences. For mere workers, it would be possible to put up virtual walls that one would be unable to walk through.

      Think of the applications and imagine the tremendous benefits. Think of how much safer this wonderful technology could keep all of us. It would protect our corporations from the scourge of piracy. It would save all of us from the unpleasantness of people who express dissenting views.

  • Restricted Zones (Score:5, Funny)

    by Paul Slocum ( 598127 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:13PM (#11691419) Homepage Journal
    So the collars explode when you enter a restricted zone?

  • Some thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) *
    With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people,

    Huh? All what reports? I.e., of things that have actually happened? (Yes, yes, GPS in rental cars and speeding tickets and pay-by-the-mile and yadda yadda yadda. How is that restricting "rights", exactly? The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?)

    is this any better?

    Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the

    • Re:Some thoughts (Score:4, Informative)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:23PM (#11691580)
      Now, if you fundamentally disagree with the criminal justice system or "the Man" in general, then you'll likely disagree with this just for the sake of it.

      Two days in a row of trolling from you. All your posts are the same crap rehashed. You propose a trollish question (calling slashdotters "latent luddites in the normally pro-tech slashdot community") and then you give some stupid opinion under the guise of you standing back and having nothing to do w/the argument that will ensue.

      In the future state and opinion or a fact. Do not state your boring and open-ended questions that are only there for the amusement you apparently receive out of watching people state their case while you get modded up over asking people to answer your questions more than once.
    • Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the rights" of innocent people, yes, using GPS to track convicted criminals is definitely "better". How are these two things even related?

      Both use GPS?

      • Both use GPS?

        Um. Yeah. Not what I was getting at.

        The poster asked, essentially:

        With all the reports of [X] being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is [using X to track criminals] any better?

        The answer, I think, is, "What the hell does the assertion that something might inappropriately be used for 'innocent' people have to do with it being used with criminals?"

        That's like saying, "With all the reports that innocent people don't like being thrown into prison cells, is it really any bette

    • Re:Some thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PitaBred ( 632671 )
      The problem with your argument is that you fail to take into account WHO is monitoring. And who makes sure they're on the up-and-up? It's not that we have the right to break the law. It's just that we shouldn't always blindly trust those who enforce the laws, especially with technology that could be very easily abused. I want to make sure there are safeguards in place before I'll allow myself to be tracked via GPS.

    • Re:Some thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by asuffield ( 111848 )
      The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?

      No, the right to not break the law without having someone look over your shoulder. If you are willing to break the law then you don't have to have someone look over your shoulder - you can just ditch the tracker. These things can only track honest people. Note that people are only allowed out on probation if it is reasonably believed that they will not break the law again. We're not talking career criminals here, we're talking abo

  • Yes! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fatcatman ( 800350 )
    This is great - I have no problem with this whatsoever.

    Criminals are not innocent people. If you're guilty of the crime, you get to do the time, and if part of that time includes an electronic leash, I think society is all the better for it. An example are these sexual predators... Right now we release them and, other than checking in with an officer from time to time, they're out roaming. Wouldn't it be nice if a cop was summoned to collect them if they went anywhere near a school, or left a certain restr
    • There is an interesting flipside to leashing criminals and public knowledge of them. Recently a sex offender moved in right across the street from my mom. Consequently, because in California if you know there is a sex offender in your neighborhood you have to disclose it in real-estate contracts, nearby house prices have gone down in value. Much to the chagrin of people trying to sell their homes where she lives at this time.

      Now then, while I do understand that it is only money. That the trade of kno

    • Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:36PM (#11691777) Homepage Journal
      For that matter, if government-issued GPS devices get associated in the public's mind with convicted criminals, people will be less willing to accept them in other situations. "A device that tracks my kids" is a lot more teampting for parents than "a device that tracks my kids, just like sex offenders have to wear".

  • Running Man (Score:2, Insightful)

    by elasticwings ( 758452 )
    How long before we just start putting criminals into the Running Man game?

  • And the difference is..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordPhantom ( 763327 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:14PM (#11691433)
    There is an inherent difference between forcing -everyone- to have a tracking device and applying this new technology to already current methods (radio leg collars, etc) employed in the case of someone breaking the law. Making enforcement of restraining orders possible to this level is a Good Thing(tm) in my book.

  • But... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Avyakata ( 825132 )
    Right...sounds fair, but how do they insure that the GPS devices actually stay on those people? If they could take them off, they probably would; they'd throw them in moving cars or something to make it look convincingly like they still have it. The only way to insure that they didn't do that would be to monitor them constantly, which kind of defeats the purpose, or find a way to attach the devices so they cannot be removed...which might be...er, painful.
    • They already have things for people under house arrest. I imagined that the GPS would be similiar, though maybe smaller. Tamper with the device and void your parole and set off an alarm.

    • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      f they could take them off, they probably would; they'd throw them in moving cars or something to make it look convincingly like they still have it

      We already use something like this. It's just not GPS enabled. It has a base reciever installed at the home and office that phone in and report when someones location or if they are out of range (if the phone line gets disconected, they report this too). The criminals only way of getting out of these tracking leg irons is to saw their own leg off. Which I h
    • These people are on parole. An occasional random check (which is made pretty easy, since you know exactly where the GPS device is) to make sure the GPS device and the parolee are in close proximity, and if you find out they aren't, they've violated parole and get to go back to jail and serve the rest of their sentence in the ever so entertaining confines of the penal system.

  • Due Process (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DarthVeda ( 569302 )
    This seems like a perfectly good way for probation officers to check on their flock. It will also provide a disincentive for future criminal behavior under the program.

    Remember, that these folks have already had due process of law.

  • "A" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unsigned integer ( 721338 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:16PM (#11691474)
    Let's stick a red fucking "A" on their foreheard too, while we're at it.

    Or maybe a nice GPS "collar" device that occasionally blurts out "Shun me!".

    • Re:"A" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fatcatman ( 800350 )
      Let's stick a red fucking "A" on their foreheard too, while we're at it.

      Or maybe a nice GPS "collar" device that occasionally blurts out "Shun me!".
      Sounds good to me. If you're a danger to others we have a right to know, and you should be shunned. Or would you rather we just pretended the murder, rape, etc, never happened and accept these people back into society as if everything is OK?
    • I'd be with you if it's after they've served their time. The deffinition of being on probation is that they are still doing their time, still paying their debt to society, it's just that they are not in state prison under 24 hour lockdown anymore, they are in 24 hour probation in their own house. When their probation ends, it comes off.

      The only way the scarlet letter for life and this would ever equate would be if we put people on lifetime probation where they are always serving their sentence until they

    • Re:"A" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anagama ( 611277 )
      Obviusly you are being sarcastic. I won't be. We don't need to identify them as dulterers/adulteresses - we should lable them a big red "F" for 'f***head'. I'm not making a joke. Being stalked is an amazingly devestating experience with serious long term effects. Stalkers should have no part in our society and deserve a permanent brand so others know to keep the hell away.

  • If this is bad, then the outrage is years overdue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:17PM (#11691486) Homepage
    For decades, we have accepted the idea of criminals having ankle bracelets that trigger an alarm if the person leaves the area of their home.

    It sounds like using GPS is just a natural extension of this technology that allows them to be more productive, increase safety to those around them until they've proven themselves, and reduce costs by allowing more non-violent offenders a chance to rehabillitate without being as big a burden to the taxpayer (eg, in prison).

    If we're really outraged about the use of GPS to track the same folks that would have had a radio-locater alarm bracelet before, then I ASSUME that everyone was just as upset about the pre-existing technology.

    Right?

    GPS is a tool, and it can be used for good or bad. The same is true for Nuclear Power. There are many in our society that vehemently oppose anything with 'nuclear' or 'atomic' in the name because they have an objection that's more religious then practical. The same is increasingly true with GPS. The funny thing is, many of the people on slashdot who scoff at the anti-nuclear extremists turn around and apply the same standard of evidence to the evils of GPS that their anti-nuke opponents do to atomic energy.
  • Most of the protections that should otherwise be afforeded to them have been sacrificed.

    My only thought is: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

    Since this doesn't seem to qualify as excessive, crual, or unusual (at least in this context), I don't see what the problem is.

  • Huh? (Score:2)

    by bonch ( 38532 )
    With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better?

    But these aren't innocent people; they are "criminals violating restraining orders." I don't understand what the basis for the question is, and I have no problem with this decision.
  • For its System-1 telemetry equipment, PI Research provide standard GPS receivers in racing cars to track the position.

    In order to provide millimetre accuracy, it is necessary to drop a "beacon" near the track which transmits the same blurbage as the satellites.

    Therefore, i find it somewhat insanely stupid for anyone to recommend relying on GPS to provide any kind of tracking of people _most_ likely to find ways around it!

    All that would be needed would be to take the device off, put it in a faraday cage w
    • ... remembering also to provide a filter / relay for the CDMA or GPRS or GSM data or other radio signals that contact a base station misinforming the authorities as to the location where the criminal may not be found...
    • They don't need millimeter accuracy, for one thing, so what the hell are you talking about?

      Part 2: every once in a while, a cop goes and checks that the device and the criminal are in the same location. If they aren't, the criminal gets his parole revoked. The payoff for the (technically difficult) hack is nowhere near the downside, that of being thrown back in jail and probably having some time tacked on for violating parole/removing a tracking device/whatever they want to do you for.

      Seriously: do you
  • I think this would be useful for sex offenders, especially pedophiles- where their proximity to a school could alert police- or if they do ever decide to take off with a kid- they would be easy to hunt down.
    Also useful in cases where people are placed under house arrest, or limited from leaving the state or country.
    I think it's a great idea, and I hope that technology like this is used to track, and control known criminals.
  • If I were a criminal I'd much rather be GPS'd then in jail. Someone who's being contantly monitored is going to have no choice but to at least become somewhat of a productive citizen, whereas putting them in jail is just going to turn them into a hardened criminal.
  • I don't know much about how GPS works. I know recievers are passive devices though. So, is it possible to build a device one can carry that is "louder" than the sattilites in order to spoof the signal?
  • By all means! Let's let Mass. and other state correctional departments do this. That way the people in California and other places that get GPS trackers installed can have at least a few moments of discomfort when we remind them that they're being tracked much as convicted felons are being tracked. It should make for a fine wake-up-and-smell-the-Starbucks moment.

    Wether it will actually make people rail against such trackers being put in their cars is debatable. One can always hope.

    And for the record...
  • Setting aside privacy issues, what would GPS really accomplish in this case? Restraining order is usually against a person, not a place, so unless you track that person (now we ARE puting GPS on nominaly innocent person) and try to reconcile in real time the difference between them, GPS data is not very usefull. Seems like a better use of technology in this case would be to use a radio based proximity meter for the victim (or whomever the restraining order is supposed to protect) and criminal that will aler

  • It's not really needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:32PM (#11691706) Homepage
    I work in a court and deal with defendants on probation on a regular basis. This device simply is not needed.

    First, the vast majority of people on probation to not run away.

    Second, the ones who do stop reporting are almost always found at home.

    Third, the few remaining get found, at most, a few years later.

    And the fourth reason is the most important. Anyone who was going to run would simply remove the device and run. The entire purpose of electronic tether is to let people out of jail who are NOT a threat to society who will almost certainly NOT run. These are people with hardly any criminal records and who have good jobs.

    • Re:It's not really needed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ZX-3 ( 745525 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @04:00PM (#11692064)
      I was awarded a civil protection order (what my district calls a domestic violence restraining order) in an adjudicated hearing.

      The order has been violated numerous times, but it has been extremely difficult to prosecute these acts of contempt of court, because the respondent can almost never be caught in the act.

      Example: Respondent repeatedly drives past my home. If I call the cops, she is gone before they arrive, and if they do catch her, she can claim it was only that one time, and merely a coincidence.

      I cannot comment on the utility of tracking probation violators, but I can say for sure that GPS tracking would help immensely in curbing restraining order violations.
  • How dare they impose on the rights of these people. Why, it's almost like putting them in prison!
  • Er, isn't that "GPS-disabled" criminals? As in "hobbled"?
  • At Starbucks, two kids with a laptop.

    Jim:
    "Hey Frank, check this out, I just got a signal tracker ping!"

    Frank:
    "Woah, cool, check it out..."

    Jim: tap tap tap
    "Look at this man, it's a felon tracker from the Department of Corrections probation department."

    Frank:
    "Freaky!!!"

    Jim:
    "Based on signal strength, it's, oh, 12 feet from us... "

    Frank:
    "Dang! it must be that guy over there putting sugar in his latte."

    Jim, louder than before:
    "Hey, that guy's a felon on probation"

    Stares from all corners of the store meet the man's, and bedlam ensues.

    No thanks! Anyone remembers the Scarlet Letter? Is this the kind of America our forefathers died creating and defending?

  • Can I buy one of these new GPS devices.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WareW01f ( 18905 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:49PM (#11691946)
    They must get a lot better coverage than mine. It always craps out inside my house, any store, and downtown with buildings higher than 5 stories.

    Seriously. If you're "tracking" someone, they can fall off the map for quite a while before they show up again, and for very legitimate reasons. I don't see how this is reliable enough to trust.

    Better to test them on the criminals I guess. Makes you wonder how many different devices you're going to have once you're a ex-con driving in California with your GPS taxed car on that nifty pay-as-you go GPS insurance scheme.

  • they have a choice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wouter Van Hemel ( 411877 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @03:56PM (#11692027) Homepage
    Criminals have the right to choose: either they do their jailtime, or they wear such a device. That's more choice than they have now, so it gives them more freedom. On top of that, if they are locked in jail, the police knows where they are too...

    Besides, I guess many people would prefer to be free, even if that means wearing GPS devices.

  • zerg (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord Omlette ( 124579 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @07:00PM (#11694121) Homepage
    So when the next terrorist attack occurs and the President orders GPS disabled so that the terrorists can't use them, how will we track these guys?

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Close