Court Rules GPS Tracking Legal For Law Officers 293
Via Engadget (which does a good job of explaining the case), an anonymous reader passed us a link to a GPS Tracking Systems Blog post. The site, which reports regularly on GPS-related news, has word that on-the-sly GPS tracking is legal for officers of the law. A 7th circuit court of appeals ok'd the use of a GPS device in apprehending a criminal. Though the defendant's lawyers argued on fourth amendment grounds, the judge found GPS tracking did not warrant an 'unlawful search and seizure'. The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though, so ... that's some comfort.
It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary left out the most important tidbit of information in this case: The police did not have a warrant for their actions.
If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant, I have no problem with them using GPS as a tool in their arsenal of crime-fighting weapons.
However, I have a major issue with the police, with no reason to think I might be doing something wrong and no warrant to back it up, putting a GPS receiver on my car just in case I do do something wrong.
The judge in this case was a complete and total idiot. He can warn all he wants to, but he just set a legal precedent that says they can if they want to. There is now absolutely nothing stopping the police from GPS-bugging anyone at any time for any reason, or even with a complete lack of a reason. Who here thinks that even though the police can GPS-bug people without a warrant that they simply will choose not to do so because the right thing to do, in the spirit of the Constitution, is to get a warrant first?
Yeah, I don't either. If you give the government that kind of power, it has shown throughout history—including many incidents in recent U.S. history—that it will not only use it, but push it even further.
If I recall correctly, the rationale behind the original decision was that police can follow people the old-fashioned way—a stakeout—without a warrant or probable cause, and that GPS-bugging them is legally no different, because people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.
Well, I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree. The resources required to conduct a stakeout demand that the police don't just do it all willy-nilly for no reason, and anyone who expects to be electronically tracked when there is no reason or cause to do so is an idiot. I know it, you know it, the police know it, this judge knows it, but with the swing of a gavel, he just legalized the excruciatingly stupid idea that you don't have any privacy on the roads. Some people think that talking about Big Brother watching us is an exaggeration, but when I read about stuff like this, it's really hard to see much of a difference.
If there's any justice to be had from this, this idiot judge's decision will be overturned at some point.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
What's worse, would EZ-Pass or On*Star (I have neither system - I'd rather bleed to death at the side of the road after an accident than lose my privacy 100% of the time) data obtained without a warrant now be admissible in court? I suspect that the cops might not even have to leave the comfort of their offices to attach the GPS bug if they play the game right.
-b.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Officer Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all good IF they have a warrant to authorize the tracking. The judge's decision essentially opened the door for warrantless surveillance of "suspects" - lack of judicial oversight over police actions isn't a good thing.
-b.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they have probable cause to believe that crimes are being committed (existence of a chop shop parting out stolen cars), they can tell it to a judge and prosecutor and the judge will no doubt be happy to give a warrant authorizing tracking of the car.
-b.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I can very much see the police's side of this and there is a very reasonable argument to be made that this isn't *that* much different from tailing a suspect (but there's a key difference in the fact that live-tailing is limited because each tail requires an officer), but the entire idea still leaves me quite nervous. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss fears so quickly as you appear to do.
Thinking about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
-b.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously I agree that they should be required to get a warrant, so that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it.
Re:Thinking about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes sense. They're tracking the car.
The police in this case were using the GPS to track the person, through the car. The car itself wasn't at issue. Thats where this all falls apart. If the car was stolen, then they have an argument.
If I find the bug, can I keep it? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about personal GPS Nav system??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Public Road vs. Privacy of one's home (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition, the tracking does not somehow automatically stop when the car EXITS public streets and enters private property. This is pretty much the equivalent of tagging someone's actual body with a nano-GPS device. Sure, the police could physically walk behind you when you're in public, but should they have the right to know what room you are in inside your house, at all times? And should they be able to know your location 24x7, from the comfort of their office chair, without even needing to convince a judge you're a likely suspect in a crime?
I also do think the fact that this makes it much cheaper and easier to do IS significant. It's kind of like privacy on the Internet: lots of things that have always been "public knowledge" have in actually tended to be fairly private due to obscurity. Now, they can suddenly be instantly accessible to anyone in the world, often showing up unbidden in unrelated searches. Such changes in ease of access do indeed call for changes in laws regarding accessibility and privacy of information.
Re:Officer Safety (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember a rule that no, they can't follow a suspect for an extended period of time without getting a warrant. If I'm mistaken, there certainly should be such a rule. The word "search" means "To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore." When the police follow someone around they're searching for evidence of wrongdoing. The only question is whether or not the search is reasonable.
IMO following someone around town, whether by foot, by car, or by tracking device, is not reasonable.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a beautiful statement of the common public misconception (which is often well groomed by government whining).
This isn't about seeing the police side of this. This is about the legitimate derivation of power within a Constitutional Republic. History is filled with dire examples of why it is best for the citizenry to disallow authority for the sake of political or legal ease. At the same time there are no lighthouse examples of why a well controlled government would be a Bad Thing.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to back up and reexamine your premise there. In the US nobody is a criminal until they've been convicted by a court. If you think they might be engaging in criminal behavior, what's wrong with having to get a warrant?
This isn't making a mountain out of a molehill, it's squashing the molehill before it becomes a mountain.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not permanently attached to my car or to me. It can be (and often is) left at home or switched off - I suppose if I were really paranoid I'd remove the battery. OnStar is non easily removable (though it has been done). EZ-Pass stores location data by design - I doubt that cell companies store GPS locations of everyone's phone over time in detail since there'd be simply too much data to store.
-b.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. We tried to warn cell phone users about that. Most of them couldn't see past the "Ooh! Aah! New nifty social status gadget!" mentality.
> they're all terrorists anyway
Every single cell phone call relayed through a satellite counts as an international transmission and is eligible for government surveillance.
Even if you manage to post to Slashdot through only American servers the moment someone in Canada reads your post it becomes an international transmission and is eligible for government surveillance.
Forget the media dog'n'pony show complete with rank'n'file excuses and canned questions. Fact: The US Federal Government is out of control. Fact: They can justify anything they want at any time. Fact: If you notice it you will either be sent on a 5150 as "paranoid", shipped off to Gitmo, or you will meet a brick wall of denial.
Fact: The only economically viable solution is complete and utter dismantling of the Federal Government. Failure to do so will inevitably result in pi55ing off someone who _is_ crazy enough to start a real war or execute a series, not just one, but a whole string of 9/11 style strategic attacks.
It's only a matter of time.
^BumP (Score:4, Insightful)
Crime Control
Due Process
The quick version is that crime control means giving police wide latitude to do their job. If they 'know' someone is guilty, they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to arrest & jail them. Due process says what it means: all the i's have to be dotted & the t's have to be crossed.
Someone who says"I can very much see the police's side of this" is leaning towards the Crime Control school of thought, which is directly contrary to the system of law setup in These United States.
Yet another case that begs the question (Score:2, Insightful)
Comfort? (Score:3, Insightful)
>The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though, so ... that's some comfort.
No. It's not!Re:^BumP (Score:5, Insightful)
I always assert that the rest is pre-empted by choice of the definition of the word "crime". We don't have too many criminals. We have too many laws.
If we could refine our system of laws then, in instances such as this story, the appropriate use of power wouldn't be questionable because there'd be no excuse to abuse it in other more borderline situations.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Opinions: 2
Unsupported Assertions: 3
Facts: 0
Knock it off with the "Fact:" crap. You're not helping.
without warrant != without motive (Score:3, Insightful)
If everybody had a right to privacy everywhere, things like traffic cameras would become illegal. Should nobody be able to check whether it's best to go through First or Second Avenue, because Mr. John Smith is afraid his wife will see his car entering the "adult store" parking lot? And what if her cousin saw you, should she need a warrant to tell your wife? (hey, that wouldn't be a bad idea...)
There is *one* and only one well defined place to draw the line where your privacy becomes more important than my right to watch. The line should be drawn at the borders of your property. The police and everybody else should absolutely need a warrant to look into your home, but once you step into the street my right to see trumps your right to stay unseen.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
The big cell companies have something like 60 million subscribers; to track everybody once a minute, that's something like 4 billion records an hour. So yeah, it's a lot of data, but figure what, 16 bytes for a record, so 64 gigabytes an hour and 11 terabytes a week. So yeah, I don't think that it is something that they would do casually at the moment, but they could very easily be tracking millions of people several times an hour, and given a few years for that 11 terabytes to become more manageable, and well, there ya go.
(I wasn't careful with the math, so someone jump in if it looks wrong)
Yes, it's legal, now get back at them (Score:2, Insightful)
What I do not agree with is the placement of unsolicited materials upon private property by a third party. This sounds to me, on a basic level, like vandalism. Perhaps he can sue, as the police did deface his personal property. Am I allowed to attach papers or spray paint or Mooninites to my neighbor's car? Do we judge vandalism based upon how hard it is to remove the materials from the vandalized object? If so, would it not be vandalism if I simple stuck magnetized sex toys to the hood of my neighbor's car? I mean, just as easy to remove.
On the note about attaching electronic devices (mooninite or otherwise) - we should all be able to 'get back at the man' by suing the government for placing suspicious devices on our property, thereby inspiring terror. What if it was a bomb?! If a bright cartoon character in a public place is a hoax device, I fail to see how a hidden, inconspicuous device mounted to the underside of my car is not of a similar, if not more serious, threat to my well being.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a fact. I've proven it through personal experience at least three times.
> Fact: They can justify anything they want at any time
That is a fact as evidenced in the news over the last two years.
> Fact: The only economically viable solution is complete and utter dismantling of the Federal Government
Proof is available here [slashdot.org].
I don't know why the mods knocked the post down to -1:Flamebait. Apparently they haven't been paying attention to their political studies.
The US is on a crash course to pi55 someone off royally and start a world war. How many paramilitary groups, which are in fundamental conflict with each other (not to mention all the others around the globe), does our own government fund using our taxpayer dollars?
This isn't rocket science. This is basic (primative) human behavior and no amount of CNN sugar coating can change it.
Free nations should be tracking the cops (Score:4, Insightful)
track all the cops all the time, record everyting they say or do.
then track politicians next. then everyone on the public payroll.
they work for us, it's about time we put the hammer down on their screwing around on duty
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
GPSs can under ideal circumstances accurate down to 30cm. On handheld units, perhaps 10m. So WTF, lets go with that number. Further assume that people never travel faster then 1000km/h, which is about half the speed of a Concorde but still significantly faster then any commercial jet today in service. 1000km/h / 10m = 27.77 hz (maximum relevant data collection cycle) - 3 111.27 cycles/day. Say that they are lazy and they store UTM coordinates as 8 bit strings, thats 15 chars; 15 bits. 32 bit timestamps (which would be stupid, may as well be WTF ever GPS uses), and say 50 chars/bits for some kind of UID, we get 97.... call it 100 bits/user/cycle. Or around 40 kilobytes/day. Say I'm wrong, and off by a factor of 10, and they have no DBAs who know about data encoding. 400 k/day, less then 12mb/month.
12mb/day is nothing, in the grand scheme of things, if "they" were motivated to do it. And assuming that they use a non-brain dead encoding scheme like I have proposed, and only record position if there is movement, then we are likely down to few mb/years. Cycle the data out so we only record ~100m accuracy, every 30 sec/max (fractions of hz), we are down to few mb/lifetime.
Re:^BumP (Score:5, Insightful)
All I said, and all that was meant, was that I can see the police's case here. Using a GPS tracker is not, in may respects, different from just following a person around. (Which they are allowed to do, as far as have ever heard.) But, as I noted, there are some differences that make me balk and not really feel that they're quite the same and that the tracker is going too far.
In short, next time, try reading more careful and *not* leaping to assumptions. You'll save yourself some embarassment.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't criminals in the United States, you can not be a criminal without being proven guilty in a court of law. A warrant means that a neutral citizen who has been chosen to make these decisions believes there is some kind of reason to believe you may have committed crimes. Law enforcement is by definition biased and can not appropriately decide when there is enough reason to justify intruding upon the lives of innocent citizens; we have judges for that. If it would be inappropriate to take an action against every innocent citizen in the United States then a warrant should be required so that a judge may determine when it is appropriate to take that action.
'That's like saying they need a warrant to shoot someone, or they need a warrant to drive down your street.'
I think driving down a street is in a slightly different class than searching a person, monitoring their movement and an entirely different universe from shooting someone. If police believe they have probable cause they can perform a search, track someone, or even shoot them when time does not allow the formal process; you can bet your ass they still have to answer to a judge or review board after the fact or face severe consequences for misconduct.
'And it's not like they'll plant that stuff in your shoes.'
Your right, they are in your cell phones and contrary to popular belief they are active while your phone is off. Yes you could leave your phone at home but most people wouldn't have any reason to believe they need to.
'Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.'
It's not worth trading rights for more effective law enforcement. It is better to let every homocidal manic go (what all 10 serial killers in the last century?) than to wrongfully imprison and harass innocent citizens. I would rather roam the streets freely knowing that there are risks in life than not be able to roam the streets at all for fear of the sadistic controling personality types that are naturally drawn and empowered by law enforcement roles.
holy shit you people are conceited (Score:3, Insightful)
Police are only interested in where you've been or where you're going if they have a reason to suspect you of a crime. And if they suspect you of a crime, they can already track your movements - it's called surveillance (you know, like the "steakout" in your favourite holywood trash-flick). Police have never needed a warrant to track your movements for the simple fact that there is no such thing as a right to "privacy of movement"! Nor should there be. If you're moving around in public, people will see you. Period. The only restraint placed on police use of GPS surveillance should be the need to have probable cause.
Re:Yes, it's legal, now get back at them (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ever find a small device attached to the bottom of your car and you didn't place it there, dial the emergency services, report a suspected IED, and hope they don't attempt a controlled detonation.
If it's a bomb you've saved your life (and I've parked in the same carparks as people that didn't check, and died) and if it's a GPS tracking device you've just cost the local police a lot of time, money and embarrassment.
It's a win either way.