Secret GPS Tracking Now Legal In Massachusetts 277
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.'"
Where is the controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Requires court order. Who has a problem with that? With a court order you can tap phones, plant bugs, install keystroke loggers, just about anything. Seems kinda daft to be maming a fuss about putting a GPS on somebody's car, hell just use the court order to get the cell company to give a feed from their phone.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It talks about police and wiretapping so we'll get plenty of paranoid theories and the resulting jokes. Plus we're guaranteed a mangled Ben Franklin quote.
It directly mentions the constitution so we might even get the lingering Ron Paul supporter! I've missed those guys.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And yet no Hitler? Bah ÂÂ...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay. Well I'm one of the principle persons who quotes Franklin and other Founders, but in this case I have no objection. As long as the police have to get a warrant, then there's independent review by an impartial judge, who can reign-in the overzealous boys in blue.
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 supre
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:Where is the controversy? (Score:4, Funny)
Just because a person leaves a door open (whether a house or car) does not mean the government can enter the property without a warrant.
Sure it does. Don't you watch Law & Order?! 0.o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Had it been a search, it would have been unconstitutional.
It wasn't, and you repeating it ad-nauseum doesn't make it so. It was a police officer investigating a reported crime following the suspect. The suspect met the officer at the door and then walked away, back into the scene of the alleged crime.
If you owned a business and a police officer found an open door at 2AM, you'd feel pretty good if he entered the premises and caught the guy prying your cash register open, yes? Or should the cop think "nothing suspicious here, I'll just move along"?
If someone was breaking into my house and the cops showed up, met the guy at the door, and then didn't bother following him because he went back inside my house, I'd be REALLY PISSED -- at the cops. If the guy got away because he slipped out the back before reinforcements arrived, I'd be REALLY REALLY pissed at the cops.
And if the suspect went back into the house to retrieve a gun so he could shoot the cop, you'd probably be dancing in the streets that yet another jack-booted thug was put down, huh? Hate to break your bubble, but the courts have consistently supported the right of the cops to frisk a suspect for the purpose of ensuring their own safety. Following the suspect through an open door as he walks back into the scene of a reported crime to ensure their own safety is not beyond the pale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how are the police supposed to respond to a breakin-in-progress?
Gee, now I know how to get away with burglary... when the cops show up, just claim I live there and refuse to show any ID. Only the Nazis can just ask me for my ID, right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
principal
rein in
over-zealous
FTFY. Everything else you said was so good, I couldn't stand to see egregious spelling errors. Oh, and, no, you can't skip the commas in your final parenthetical sentence ("...set off by an exclamation point, or by a comma when the feeling's not as strong" -- "Interjection", Grammar Rock).
Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I couldn't stand to see egregious spelling errors.
Does that branch stuck up your anus hurt? This is a CASUAL conversation, not a term paper, so stop being anal retentive.
Mangled Ben Franklin Quote (Score:5, Funny)
It talks about police and wiretapping so we'll get plenty of paranoid theories and the resulting jokes. Plus we're guaranteed a mangled Ben Franklin quote.
Ooh, ooh, I got one!
"I am BEN FRANKLIN, master of SEX and VOODOO!"
I'm not sure if it's exactly relevant to this discussion, though...
Re:Mangled Ben Franklin Quote (Score:5, Funny)
>> "I am BEN FRANKLIN, master of SEX and VOODOO!"
According to the latest Dan Brown book, you're probably correct.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
court orders are rubber stamps. they don't preserve justice anymore. not really.
Re: (Score:2)
FISA Court, most likely. These are state courts. They're a lot closer to the governed than Fed courts are. More chances of the populace showing up at their work with torches and pitchforks...
Re: (Score:2)
What it does NOT mean is they can't do it. It also does not mean they will get in trouble if they do (they may, but they may not). It also does not mean that judges always approve of things that ought to be approved of.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Would be pretty hilarious to put it in an envelope and mail it to Japan. What? They're going over WATER!?!?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you sell the GPS tracker on Ebay if you find one stuck to the underside of your car? What's the going rate for a GPS tracker that hasn't been detuned for civilian use? Is it even legal to own/sell? How would that ebay page read? "Uh, found this tracker stuck to the bottom of my car with a magnet. Buyer assumes all risk that US Government may track you down and request it back. Seller assumes no responsibility if you become an assailant in the US Federal court case against me".
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way to 'scan' your vehicle to screen for the presence of a GPS device?
Re: (Score:2)
Put your car up on a jack, throw a bunch of steel washers at the bottom of the car, Where they stick, is probably where a magnet (i.e. possible GPS device). Presumably it reports "home" via cell phone signal, so you could setup an antenna to listen for cell phone signals coming from your car.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 suspicio
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Will have to look into this more. I agree completely, as long as it is "With a court order", that means there is oversight. It also means they can't do it "Willy nilly" or wholesale. It also usually (and this is why I want to read a bit more) means that they eventually have to tell you that they did it (even if the case never goes to prosecution). It also means, that any evidence obtained could end up the root of a very big poisoned tree if the original order is invalidated. (it happens)
Though, I do wonder
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that court orders for various privacy invasions seem to be easier to get each year and more and more "exceptions" get invented. First allowing the court order after the fact and then creating a special rubber stamp court to issue them without any real questions asked and practically no consequences for abuses.
While in theory the police could keep tabs on someone of interest anyway, doing so without a tracking device requires substantial manpower and costs. That's a GOOD thing since the added
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is an inherent problem with expanding the powers of the executive branch. Even if there's a lot of complaining about it at the time, there's not much incentive for the next guy to back out of those powers once they've been established. There was lots of complaining from some Republicans when Clinton made the FISA court into a rubber-stamping operation after Oklahoma City, but then they ignored FISA entirely after 9/11.
More on topic, I don't see much problem with giving the police broad crime fighting powers, provided there is proper oversight for abuse. A good warrant system can do that, and need not be much of a time burden if the right procedures are in place. But there better be something. Even the rubber-stamping FISA court at least created a paper trail.
Warrants for Police (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it is absolutely critical to distinguish between a warrant-based system for Evidence Gathering by Law Enforcement and a system of Intelligence Gathering by Military Offices. Wire-tapping without a warrant to introduce evidence in a criminal prosecution is a no-no. It is, however, completely distinct from gather intelligence or recon data abroad to target enemy soldiers, spies, and saboteurs. If somebody a valid target to be shot up by a predator drone without a trial then bugging their phone calls isn't really a 4th Amendment issue.
MA state and local policy investigators are part of Law Enforcement and thus all their searches, seizures, wiretaps, and electronic monitoring are subject to warrant requirements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of thing makes me want to design devices to sniff these things out. Catching a few drug dealers is not a fair trade for such a loss of privacy.
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.
Re:Where is the controversy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe every time police acquire evidence through means the regular public could not do, they have to mention it to that person within six months. That person has the ability to file a complaint, not with the same police department (since people might worry about complaining to the same group of people that was watching them---quite understandably), but perhaps to an independent office whose actions have to be transparent by law (and are regularly checked up on by a significant and random (reappointed every 3 months, for example; not a long time period like some organizations are re-appointed) portion Congress, not by a commitee). Statistics about the complaints filed would, by law, be available to anyone by phone call, website, or snail-mail, so the public would be able to fully assess whether the random group of Congress members, studying the actions of police departments gathering substantial evidence, would be able to raise their voice if the group was ignoring complaints for some departments, etc.
This is something taxpayer dollars ought to be paying for; we pay for law enforcement, so we should pay for its oversight (not by raising tax dollars, though, since that would be arguably unfair).
If someone knows of a system that does this sort of thing already (besides the courts; it's ridiculous to expect someone to pay $500 for a lawyer's time just to raise a minor complaint), and has vast public oversight, I'd be happy to know...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was lots of complaining about the Patriot Act by the Democrats when Bush was in power and now it looks like they're going to renew most of it.
And what of the war in Iraq, where has the dissent on that from the Democrats gone? Where have the anti-war protesters gone? Or were they simply anti-republican?
Just adding a "the Democrats are just as bad" Ying to your "the Republicans are bad" Yang ;).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is an inherent problem with expanding the powers of the executive branch. Even if there's a lot of complaining about it at the time, there's not much incentive for the next guy to back out of those powers once they've been established. There was lots of complaining from some Republicans when Clinton made the FISA court into a rubber-stamping operation after Oklahoma City, but then they ignored FISA entirely after 9/11.
There's another problem as well. Loyalty to political party is apparently more important than loyalty to the Constitution and checks and balances. Can you imagine the reaction from Congressional Republicans if Bill Clinton had been the one running the War on Terror?
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: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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every one knows it is the T between the W and O that is in charge.
Re: (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:
GPS Blocking (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GPS Blocking (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the sale of such devices, like radar detectors, would be illegal. BTW I haven't been to Oregon in a long time. Will I still get arrested if I pump my own gas?
They have a similar law in New Jersey. Last time I was driving the NJ Turnpike, I waited and waited and waited for an attendant but he never showed-up, so finally I just did it myself. When an attendant finally noticed me, he had a fit. I told him to I'm from Maryland and we know how to pump our OWN gas without help. I'm not going to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Radar detectors aren't illegal except in Virginia, and even there, there's a case waiting to be made that federal law governing radio signals preempts the state restriction.
Re: (Score:2)
You never would. But the station may have to pay a fine if enough people complained that they were making you pump your own gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Oregon and NJ are the only two states that prohibit pumping your own gas. I live in Oregon and they usually try to claim safety. I live in Portland, and it borders another town in Washington which allows people to pump their own gas. If it is so unsafe, why don't I hear about all the gas station explosions that must be happening over there? A-giant-pain-in-the-ass-of-anyone-whose-ever-had-to-wait-while-the-attendant-finally-gets-around-to-you is what I call it. You know, when I'm not out of breath.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Topping off? Why do people continue doing that? It's unsafe and it's just plain dumb, there's a better than even chance you'll be paying for gas that goes right back into their system.
Re: (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 lea
Re: (Score:3)
Ok I need to respond to this. I don't disagree with what you tried to say but I'm a little stuck on disambiguating the part about the monopoly customer opinions. If you put the comma after the "when you have" it makes it seem that after you masterbate, monopoly customer opinions don't matter. if you put the comma after the monopoly then it seems that if you own the game of monopoly th
Re: (Score:2)
Your proposal would not fit inside the ~80 character limit imposed on signatures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:To be fair... (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. The Massachusetts decision makes sense: If you can show probable cause, you can intrude upon a person's privacy, but *only* if you show probable cause. Wisconsin decided that privacy is subordinate to police effectiveness. Problem is, you follow that track too far and you end up with a police state and no rights to speak of. The police don't *intend* to violate your rights, they simply do whatever is allowable to uphold their mandate (keeping the peace). If you don't restrict the range of allowable activities, and they can use technology to supplement their numbers, upholding their mandate most effectively requires them to scan every phone call, track every car, open all mail, etc.
Technology allows quantitative differences to become qualitative differences: Police can already tail anyone on a public street. But limited numbers mean they are only able to do so for a small number of people, so they tend to have good reasons when they do tail. But if you can track every car effortlessly and keep a database of movements, you can go on fishing expeditions. Someone dumped a body on the side of a highway? Quick, pull up the logs and find every person who passed that stretch of highway recently. Then demand DNA and fingerprint samples from all of them (assuming you haven't already collected them). It's effective, at the cost of invading everyone's privacy.
Re: (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.
Jammers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, now they don't know where you are till you shut off the ignition!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends entirely on the make of the car. My VW's outlet is on all the time, and my previous vehicle, a GM, had it on all the time too (though I think the behavior might have been selectable).
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:Jammers (Score:4, Insightful)
The jammer is a big red arrow that points straight at you. That sort of defeats the purpose if you want to remain inconspicuous.
Gimme a break (Score:2)
How hard would it be to detect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if I found an unauthorised GPS tag/tracker on my car, would I be OK to put it up for sale on ebay?
Me, being a geek, I'd probably hack some interesting tracks into it (can probably download tracks off the internet of people's holidays) including one that would spell out F*** Y** when overlayed on a map.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought GPS devices needed a relatively clear view of the sky. I'd imagine the body of the car would block the satellite signals, but maybe I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious place to install it is under the dashboard or the rear deck. Dashboards are made out of foam and plastic these days and there's plenty of always-on, ignition-on, etc. power under the dash. A rear install is trickier, but a lot of cars have an amplifier back there these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How hard would it be to detect (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How hard would it be to detect (Score:4, Funny)
guess again, sales of Preparation H(tm) were up 8% in Massachusetts last month and nitrile gloves 10%. they probe and plant while you sleep
No Suprise (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Probable cause is what's needed to OBTAIN A WARRANT. If you don't have a warrant, even if there's probable cause, then the search/tracking is inadmissable evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Manhattan, NY (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If Massachusetts is tracking Manhattan criminals, there are bigger problems than GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Discover hidden GPS tracker on car
2. Drive to orphanage, tell them a friend of yours is interested in picking up a lot of young girls and taking them to his large mansion where he'll keep them safe.
3. Drive to seedy area of town where "working girls" are located. Park for 2 minutes.
4. Drive to governor's mansion and ditch car for the night, pick it up in the m
Look out .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, look out for more "car theft" now.
The cops need a warrant... where is the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot News Flash! If the cops obtain a warrant, they can do stuff they can't do otherwise!
Personally, I don't even think a warrant should be necessary, but MA has gone above and beyond here and required one. If your house can be searched, your phone tapped, your DNA scanned, your financial records checked, etc., with a warrant, why not a tracking device on your car?
SirWired
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And while they're at it, why don't they shoot you for food? Your analogy sucks.
Re:The cops need a warrant... where is the problem (Score:5, Funny)
Or if we use a car analogy, they could attach a gps tracker to your car while you aren't looking.
Re:The cops need a warrant... where is the problem (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot News Flash! If the cops obtain a warrant, they can do stuff they can't do otherwise!
Yeah, it's like when Pacman eats the big dot...
Here's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Advocates of this sort of thing say it is like having a police officer tail a person of interest. I'm sorry but it is not at all like that.
Prior to tracking by GPS, if the police wanted to track someone, they had to assign an officer, or multiple officers, to track him. This is the world we lived with, and this world is the context in which we reasoned about whether or not cops should be allowed to tail someone. I'm sure there was very little debate, if any, but that was because the scarcity of police relative to the population was a limit as to how many people the police could tail. It did not occur to us that the police would start tailing everybody, or even very many people. It was simply unimaginable that they would have the resources to invade the public's privacy
With the advent of GPS, we are now in a completely different economic-political context requiring that we must reconsider the issue and not simply continue right along with the policies put in place in a different world.
Where once police had to carefully consider whether or not it was worth the expenditure of their limited manpower to tail a person, they now no longer have to. Where once privacy protections were taken for granted by the very nature of what tailing people required, they can no longer be. It is reasonable to consider the possibility that GPS tracking could become widespread for all sorts of issues that would be considered minor, today. The police, as the costs of such tracking drop, will ask themselves "Why not?" The cost to society will be an enormous loss of privacy.
Don't let anyone try to tell you that there is no privacy issue because cops already tail people.
Plan (Score:2)
1. Remove GPS tracking device and attach to neighbor's car.
2. Have awesome alibis when neighbor goes somewhere
3. Profit?
Our Most Liberal State (Score:2)
Reasonable? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I disagree with your disagree (Score:2)
"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."
Sounds like a warrant is needed to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that a police officer can enter your vehicle or home without a warrant if he or she believes a crime has been, is being, or will be committed?
You mean in hot pursuit, to prevent evidence from being destroyed? I don't think there would be many situations like this that would facilitate installing a GPS tracker.
How is it that a police officer can run 24/7 surveillance of video and audio without a warrant when he or she is investigating a suspected crime?
Only of public spaces, not inside of your home. This should eventually be restricted as webcams on every street corner with automatic facial/speech recognition would create a bit too much surveillance of everyone.
How is it that a police officer can tow a vehicle, search a vehicle, or even confiscate a vehicle whithout a warrant when he or she believes it has been used in the commission of a crime?
Yes, there is an unfortunate and overbroad exception on search of cars that supposedly have reduced privacy expectations compared
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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, bec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't "fly into a panic". She didn't just walk into an airport with a blinking light attached to her.
She walked into an airport with a blinking electronic device AND DELIBERATELY IGNORED A SIMPLE QUESTION ASKED TO HER BY AN AIRPORT EMPLOYEE. That is either stupid ("I don't have to deal with airport employees") or arrogant ("Airport employees are beneath my level of acknowledgement") or both.
That employee reported the situation, wh
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.