Secret GPS Tracking Now Legal In Massachusetts 277
Posted
by
timothy
from the unsecret-kind-requires-anklet dept.
from the unsecret-kind-requires-anklet dept.
dr. fuzz writes "The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled in favor of John Law tracking you with secret GPS devices in Massachusetts provided a warrant is obtained. You've been warned. To the dissenters' credit, Justice Ralph Gants is quoted with 'Our constitutional analysis should focus on the privacy interest at risk from contemporaneous GPS monitoring, not simply the property interest.'"
GPS Blocking (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair... (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, that's a lot better than in Wisconsin, where they use secret GPS devices to track you without a warrant [slashdot.org].
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Jammers (Score:3, Informative)
Suddenly I foresee these [thesignaljammer.com] becoming much more popular, and then much less legal (if they even are to begin with).
They aren't. The FCC frowns on any device that emits a signal the intent of which is to interfere with another signal. At least, they do for those of us not in government service.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:0, Informative)
Yeah, but it's not rape if you enjoy it.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:5, Informative)
Call me a troll, but I'd like to remind everyone that what W started, the O is continuing...
I won't call you a troll, but I'll remind you that neither Bush nor Obama had any hand in composing the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which spelled out what was considered unreasonable search and seizure. The appointing of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court members is also completely independant of the Executive Branch.
Re:Manhattan, NY (Score:3, Informative)
wow...129$ for a 50$ Jammer? (Score:3, Informative)
yea, was thinking the same thing...
According to a news post in boing boing [boingboing.net] and according to the manufacturer's website [brando.com], it's for 50$
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:4, Informative)
The real problems happen when, as in the case of Professor Gates, police ignore the requirement for a warrant and just ram their way into homes/car where they don't belong. (Oh and no a phone call is not probable cause according to the supreme court.)
OK, I'm probably gonna lose karma for this, but...
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident [wikipedia.org] (and yes I know how flawed Wikipedia can be, but it does seem to fit with what I remember in articles from the time and I don't feel like digging further), The police met Gates at his door and indicated that they were investigating a possible breaking and entering. When asked for ID, Gates entered his house AND LEFT HIS DOOR OPEN so the officer followed.
Now, IANAL, but if my memory serves from what I've read (and no, I don't want to look it up right now, I'm avoiding work and don't have much time...)
(1) Not officially requesting a warrant or explicitly requesting that the officer wait outside DOES give them permission to follow you into your house, especially if you leave the door open.
(2) If a crime is suspected to be in progress, a warrant is not required, though it might result in censure of the officer if they can't properly justify it later.
Now, a possible breaking and entering, a door with obvious damage, and a man who is leaving the officers sight because he "needs to get his ID" is suspicious enough that I suspect that point 2 would be enough.
As to who said what to whom and was it racial blah blah blah... I haven't commented on that. I'm only saying that the observable facts suggest that the officer had reasonable justification to proceed without a warrant, at least until identification was provided.
--
I drank what?
Re:GPS Blocking (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the hell is wrong with that state? (Score:3, Informative)
re: deleting spam e-mail: yes, for work e-mail accounts used by municipal (and presumably state -- the article is a little vague) employees within the State of Massachusetts only to remain in compliance with FOIA laws. In other words, if you subpoena the muni, they have to be able to provide the e-mails requested for a period of two years. IOW, not anywhere near as big a deal as you implied, because this doesn't affect private e-mail accounts. IMHO, transparency in the government is a GOOD THING.
re: LiteBrites: if you leave an apparently improvised electronic circuit of unknown purpose abandoned in public places, the cops may very well investigate to determine if it is a public hazard (i.e., a bomb). While I think they probably went a little over the top in this case, your implication is that if you leave a LiteBrite on your front porch, the police are going to come arrest you. Somehow I suspect that even the police in Massachusetts aren't that inane. Considering how many business put flashy-blinkies in their windows and on the streets in just about any town in the country -- including Massachusetts -- I think you are blowing that event waaaaaay out of proportion to claim that it is "illegal to leave Lite Brites out."
re: shirt with LEDs on it: yeah, the reaction to this event was probably a little over the top as well, although I think it is fair to say that Star Simpson didn't exactly display good judgment either. Considering the culture of fear that the government has cultivated, you don't have to be a genius to think that waltzing into an airport with a homemade circuit on a breadboard with a wad of putty in your hand, then walking away when the ticket counter agent asks about the device might raise concern about what you are doing. I don't condone all the paranoia, but given that such fear exists (and, groan, is encouraged), what she did was simply stupid. Furthermore, I have seen lots of t-shirts (and tennis shoes) with LEDs integrated into them that wouldn't raise an eyebrow, so again, what you are implying ("you can't wear shirts with LEDs!!!") is not really true.
re: chemistry at home: okay, yeah, I agree with you on this one. That was just stupid of the government and most likely, in my non-expert (i.e., IANAL), opinion, an abuse of power.
re: GPS tracking: yes, with proper court oversight -- which was part of the ruling in this case -- I don't have a problem with that. The moment it happens without judicial review, however, it becomes an abuse of power.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:3, Informative)
Ya know, that always made me think a bit. If Party A grabbed enough power and precident, how could they not imagine their reign would end someday and Party B have those exact same powers to use against Party A? Seems to me to be a good argument to get rid of those powers lest the hammer fall when you're currently out of favor.
But then, I'm no politician, so what do I know?
FTFA:
If the warrant has the usual prerequisites (probable cause you can show a judge, sworn statements by the investigating officers, etc) seems do-able to me. But for fucks sake get the goddamned warrant FIRST and stop fishing already. None of this 'after the fact' shit like the FISA courts do.
Re:GPS Blocking (Score:3, Informative)
If you suck at topping off (like nearly everyone I've ever seen attempt to do it) then you over-fill and 100% of the gas is no longer in the tank... I was actually at a station once where that happened, and the person manning the desk inside was actually on the ball (imagine that) and told everyone to leave immediately. While leaving we watched him run and get a bucket of gravel, which he subsequently pored on the already vaporising spill (yes, you could smell it even being a good distance away).
Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Informative)
The police don't *intend* to violate your rights,
If the police were trustworthy, maybe we could give them more latitude. As it stands, police are best treated like rabid dogs: dangerous creatures that can cause you lots of pain.
For my friends in Massachusetts (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.8758 [dealextreme.com]
$26 GPS blocker. Or you can splurge and get the $80 mini version that plugs into the cigarette lighter.
"particularly describing" is one problem (Score:3, Informative)
From the 4th amendment: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For example: if they think you have a dead body in your broom closet, they can get a search warrant authorizing a search of your broom closet for a dead body. They are not allowed to turn that into a general fishing expedition to search anyplace you might ever have been, for anything they decide is suspicious as they find it. They have to state in advance what they're looking for and where they are going to look.
GPS tracking seems like the opposite of that: by definition they don't state the location ahead of time, or describe particularly what it is that they are going to seize.
Re:What the hell is wrong with that state? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that is in dispute. She says that she responded to the clerk, turned the lights off and tried to calm down the clerk who was freaking out. The "clay" was a baked sculpture [episodic.com] of a flower that she was carrying to give to the friend that she was meeting.
I'd say that calling the police over somebody with flashing lights, or a red hat, or a leather jacket (all of which have equal relevance to terrorism or bombs) constitutes flying into a panic.
Just to be clear, this was not a TSA checkpoint, or a secure area--it was a counter in the outer atrium, full of people with uninspected suitcases, any one of which could hold enough explosive to kill everybody in the room.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah. Bill Clinton was totally different than GWB. He never would have signed stupid laws [wikipedia.org] that took away [wikipedia.org] our rights or called [wikipedia.org] for regime change in Iraq.
Re:Warrants for Police (Score:4, Informative)
If they are going to base it on warrants, then there is that little pesky difference between being served a warrant, being able to view it and read, being able to give a copy to your lawyers for review, being able to monitor the search and, of course it being secret. It really gives way to much power to law enforcement, once it is secret there is no public review and, with the seeming drop in professionalism in the shift from policing to 'enforcement', the blank check for making up evidence in order to gain arrests and subsequent promotions, or just petty revenge, is becoming more dangerous.