Student Sues FBI For Planting GPS Tracker 586
GabriellaKat submits this snippet from Yahoo! news, writing "'Yasir Afifi, 20, says a mechanic doing an oil change on his car in October discovered the device stuck with magnets between his right rear wheel and exhaust. They weren't sure what it was, but Afifi had the mechanic remove it and a friend posted photos of it online to see whether anyone could identify it. Two days later, Afifi says, agents wearing bullet-proof vests pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment in San Jose, Calif., and demanded their property back.' Now he has decided to sue the FBI. This story was also covered last year when he found the tracking device."
$200 fine (Score:3, Informative)
Re:$200 fine (Score:5, Informative)
The government will either go with:
A) State secret and demand that its dismissed. [wikimedia.org]
B) State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed [salon.com]
C) Get a retroactive FISA warrant. [fff.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My words eggs act, Lee!
Way to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to take people's freedom away and treat them like criminals, then why the fuck does America exist?
If we're going to act like some police state or other oppressive regimes, then America is dead.
And if you really think we need this kind of monitoring to be safe, I'd like to point out that even the most monitored states around the World aren't any safer - if anything they're LESS safe because it allows for the abuse by the watchers.
If the FBI gets away with this, I'll consider America and Her values to be completely dead as opposed to mostly dead because of the PATRIOT Act.
Re:Way to go! (Score:4, Insightful)
If we're going to take people's freedom away and treat them like criminals, then why the fuck does America exist?
ohh, oooh, call on me! I know the answer!
"to enhance the power and profit-making of big business?"
(did I get that right?)
sigh.
Re:Way to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
We're so friggin' afraid to die that we don't mind living in a golden cage. Even if it's just spray paint. Everyone's crying for more protection, more safety, no matter the cost. It's not just the whole police state thing running rampart. When was the last time you have seen kids play outside, climbing trees and skinning knees? Everything has to be "safe and sane", cotton-wrapped from cradle to grave. And that's what people want, it seems! That's what you get in a sue-happy environment, where people refuse to think for themselves and instead blame everything happening to them on everyone else. If you're stupid, someone else is to blame for your accidents. You used a rotating chair as a makeshift ladder and broke your leg? Sue the manufacturer, he didn't tell you that it's a STUPID idea.
People seem to think that they are not responsible for anything, at any time. We're just far too happy to delegate every kind of responsibility to ... well, anyone! And here's someone who promises to keep us safe from terrrrrists? Great, here, have my freedom! I'm far too scared to die to worry about that petty little thing!
9/11 was traumatic for the US. For the first time, in decades, if not centuries, the US were attacked by someone on their own home ground. And so suddenly too. Unprepared you get hit in your own home. It's about as traumatic as a sudden burglar breaking in and beating you up. Now multiply that by a few 100 million. This is how the US population felt after this event. And much like people who survive such a burglar situation, they start calling for more security. You can see alarm systems sales skyrocket when a burglary series runs rampart across town. But not with people who want to prepare and protect against it, it's usually people who HAVE already had a "visit" who are buying, despite the fact that the horse left the barn, it's not that they'd expect the burglar to return, it's simply a psychological reaction to it. It's this traumatic experience that leads to this behaviour.
And the fact that you cannot protect from such attacks is no deterrent from trying either. It is impossible to make the US "secure". Are you kidding? Yes, you can monitor everything that gets in and out of the US, but how do you want to avoid people mixing up bombs? We're talking about some 200 million people, do you think NONE of them has the ability AND the willingness AND access to the materials to bomb something? The odds are slightly against you there.
But, people, it's been a decade. It's time to shake it off. Yes, remember and never forget, but you have to live again. The US were the epitome of freedom, liberty and the ability to make your own way without interference from state or government, for almost all of its existence. People went there from countries that suppressed their strive for self-realization and happiness. This US of today is not anymore what we saw in it. I want my US back!
Read your anthem, people. Read those last lines. "Land of the free. Home of the brave". It's time you act like it again!
Re: (Score:3)
More people die from automobile accidents than from terrorists. But you don't see everyone so scared that they'll slow down to the actual speed limit.
Re:Way to go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Way to go! (Score:4, Funny)
So he was in a playground, safely fenced in, with safety-inspected and groomed trees, and not out in the woods like we were. Yes, that's quite namby-pamby.
*sigh* Okay, fine, everyone, I'll ask him. So how far DID you have to walk uphill both ways in the snow while dragging your knees through lava rock just to get to school, grandpa?
Re:Way to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how the FBI has operated since its inception? Google the FBI and MLK Jr. , the FBI and communists, the FBI and 1960s radicals. I don't know why people don't realize this is business as usual.
why the does America exist?
For the same reason as always, to line the pockets of the richest 5% while subduing the people with fantastic lies about "Freedom". The easiest early example would be The Sedition Act of 1798, which effectively made anti-government speech treasonous. We are a nation of hypocrites; our leaders rule under the principle of doublethink, whereby "Freedom" enjoy supreme lip-service, but truly must it exist only to keep the masses docile and in servitude.
American "Freedom" as you are taught in school is A LIE; it is pandering and idealistic. It ignores the fact that our founding fathers decreed that "All men shall be created equal" while holding slaves. It glances over the MANY instances of genocide of American Indians. You'll never read about the times that people have been imprisoned or worse for practicing freedom of speech. America is a great country, but you must understand that the common notion of a worsening state of affairs is a product of ignorance.
Why? (Score:2)
If they can't find it, it is clearly useless. Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:3)
As usual you are missing something ;) My guess is it doesn't work to well when its, gasp, not powered on! After the discovery of the device the victim unplugged the one foot long battery pack from the GPS unit thereby disabling any tracking abilities.
In a free country (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy would succeed in suing the absolute shit out of them, and the agents responsible would be fired (all the way up the chain). The FBI has repeatedly spit on the cornerstone of our legal system which supposedly guarantees a man to be innocent before proven guilty. They have turned it around once again and forced this man to prove his innocence.
Now let's see just how free this country really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know? This is the land of the free (unless you're suspected of something). Guilty until proven innocent by a jury of people that you have nothing in common with. Uh, I mean, peers.
OTOH, he did make some comments about blowing up a mall. Not that he was planning to do so, but about how easy it would be. He probably had some other profiling flags, too.The thing with the FBI is, they don't really have to justify anything if they don't feel like it.
Re:In a free country (Score:4, Insightful)
To be the devil's advocate - gathering evidence IS the attempt of proving guilt.
Re:In a free country (Score:5, Insightful)
To be the devil's advocate - gathering evidence IS the attempt of proving guilt.
No... gathering evidence is the attempt to establish guilt.
It is a well known fact that everyone is guilty of something. Especially due to the vast vague laws on the books. If an officer searches you enough they will be able to find some law you have broken, even if you are an upstanding citizen. There are a massive enough obscure laws on the books to do so.
Hell, 95% of the population can be jailed on the streets at will for the so-called crime of "disorderly conduct". You ever take a quiet stroll in the park? Disorderly conduct!
You ever take a walk in the woods? Disorderly conduct!
You ever use the bushes outdoors as a bathroom? Disorderly conduct, public indecency, littering.
We live in a country, where you have liberties. Even if you are guilty of something, the government is not allowed by the constitution to harass you or go on a fishing expedition to figure out what laws you have broken, obscure laws or not
Re:In a free country (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and infringing on your freedoms while gathering evidence is inevitable. To prevent abuse, though, law enforcement is traditionally required to obtain a warrant. This means they've gone in front of a judge, argued why infringing on this person's rights is so important and got the judge to agree. In practice, it is a rubber-stamp in many cases, but at least it is some form of a check and balance system. Recently, however, law enforcement has been whining that getting warrants are too hard and take too long and we'd all be safer if we'd just let them do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it. After all, like the old saying goes: Absolute power guarantees absolute safety doesn't corrupt at all. (That *is* the saying, right?)
Re:Expectation of Privacy on Public Roads (Score:4, Insightful)
So if he drives his vehicle onto private property where he can't simply be visually seen from a road, is this tracking now illegal?
This is why we must have laws which prevent warrantless tracking of any kind.
Track people only after gov't is tracked (Score:3)
The original Reddit post (Score:5, Informative)
Reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_mean_the_fbi_is_after_us/ [reddit.com]
Images of device:
http://imgur.com/OM6nE.jpg [imgur.com]
http://imgur.com/sspLU.jpg [imgur.com]
http://imgur.com/f4V2T.jpg [imgur.com]
http://imgur.com/srhrK.jpg [imgur.com]
Re:The original Reddit post (Score:4, Informative)
ALSO:
a post he made in which the FBI cite as a reason(probably the only one)
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q [reddit.com]
Re:The original Reddit post (Score:4, Informative)
actually that's a post his friend made.
the guy who got bugged didn't even post that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
If it were me I would have called the bomb squad and made sure all the TV crews were there to see them pull the tracking device off. I think the government and friends have granted themselves far too many powers since 9/11 etc and all of which wouldnt make a damn difference had it all happen again. Its a convenient justification to make it easier for which ever department has the resposibilities to do something that could be a bit easier if they were able to spy on you, read your emails, listen to your calls, check your bank transactions, etc, etc and now track your every movements. None of which is going to stop a guy with a cash plane ticket and a box knife is it now? I think the balance between privacy and security has now long been broken and ever day it seems to be getting worse. Its only when people like this guy stand up and make a point that it shouldnt be happening that something might ever possibly change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just "notice" it in the middle of big-city downtown, where a controlled explosion would also knock out a quarter million dollars of glass. Besides I was googling the numbers off the device and Utah has put out bids to purchase two of these mechanisms. It's pretty likely that these thingys aren't FBI-only and most bomb squads would very likely recognize them at once. Then they would remove it with much fanfare and theatrics and transport it for a controlled detonation in the FBI property room; maybe even sen
I would have just put in on a long distance semi (Score:3)
and left it at that.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
Too bad you could not get it onto a plane. I wonder how much trouble you would get into taking it or trying to take it on checked luggage?
Re: (Score:2)
Should just DHL it to the Iranian embassy or even overseas to China or something.
Re:I would have just put in on a long distance sem (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
I don't know, like say you are a terrorist and a Unlawful combatant [wikipedia.org], as such you don't have any rights and put you in to Guatemala Bay prison [wikipedia.org], torture you there and release you after a few months [wikipedia.org]. If he tries to sue, the Obama administration will pressure the courts to not hear the case and to drop the charges. [commondreams.org] Oh wait, that was the CIA, o.k. never mind.
At the time it was legal... (Score:2, Interesting)
The question surrounding GPS tracking has been a topic for discussion for a few years now. Last year when this took place, I believe that a California court stated that it was equivalent to an officer tailing an individual, and a vehicle that was on public property could have the device attached to it without a warrant. According to the article, a Federal Appeals court over ruled this and claimed it unconstitutional.
From the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrant
"Demanded their property back" (Score:2)
Some balls.
Subtlety is clearly their middle name, and also their first and last name. :P
Out of curiosity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe a warrant is needed to tail someone, but the act of putting a tracker on the person's physical property is what is in contention.
With a tracker, you are followed everywhere you go in the vehicle, but with actual man power, the agent could follow you in a store and observe first hand if your motives are suspicious or just a daily routine.
One can hardly defend against an electronic accuser. Ie: if the tracker info is used against you in a court of law, it's a simple fact and there's no way t
Re:Out of curiosity (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a better idea. Rather than track all the cars, let's track the cars of people with red flags like sending lots of money to the Middle East, having a father with political connections in the Middle East,
Are either of these things illegal ? Are either of these things indicative of illegal behavior ? If you think so, I sure hope you never get racially profiled in the same way. It's bullshit. Unless you want to do the same to people who send money to Sweden and a father with political connections in Sweden. Or Mexico. Or Belgium. Or Japan. But then you are still just a xenophobe.
and having friends who make online posts about bombing malls.
Like in computer games ? Or as a hyperbolic way to point out the idiocy of security theatre ? Point out the idiocy of what the TSA is doing would be enough to get you "flagged" ? And what is a "flag" ? Who oversees these "flags" ? Is a judge ever involved ? We are infringing on an individual's liberties here; there better be judicial oversight. Alternatively, get rid of judges altogether and have the FBI carry out executions at will. Policestates are not that bad if you have nothing to hide.
And as a result of having red flags, the FBI decides to get a little more information about these people, not harassing them, damaging their property, or interfering with their lives in any way.
Other than infringing on their civil liberties and rights, sure. In that case, let's record every phone call ever made and keep it archived for a couple of years. This does not inconvenience people at all, they would not even notice it, nobody would be harassing them about it either. Better keep a log of all internet activity too. This is easily feasible. And it'll help with getting a little more information about people who get flagged in the future. Surely this is an idea we can all get behind ! Nobody would ever abuse this data or these privileges, not at the FBI. The FBI does not make mistakes, of course. And if they do, they can cover it up easily enough.
Yeah, I really have no problem with that. Why are you making a false equivalence between that totally reasonable activity and putting trackers "on all cars in the country" -- suggesting the FBI is just fishing randomly and harassing anybody they see fit.
Because the only reason the latter is not happening is that there are supposedly safeguards like judicial oversight. The FBI will conduct its operations the way it is most efficient and easiest for them to do. If they are allowed to use a tool, they will use it -- doing anything other than that would mean they are not doing their jobs efficiently or well.
Now an argument could be made that what they did here is reasonable. And if that argument can be made, why did they not make it to a judge and get a warrant ? We, as a society, infringe on people's liberties and rights all the time, balancing them against the interests of the society. To make sure this does not get abused by the executive, independent judicial oversight is necessary. That way we all get a fair shake and don't end up in a policestate. In an ideal world, anyway. We are far from an ideal world, and getting farther and farther away.
'We want our property back'? (Score:2)
Talk about gall.
By the way, is it also OK to "attach" a tracker (trojan) to a computer system?
And then when you're caught, demand "your property back"?
Law Student Analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Also: ". . . the agents who showed up to collect the device were "hostile," threatening to charge Afifi if he didn't immediately cooperate and refusing his request to have a lawyer present" and earlier stated, the agents "demanded their property back." I might just be a first year law student, but if you leave your property in my car, and make no claims to it and abandon it, then it could be mine. Also, the agents only "pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment" probably to avoid the whole warrant issue of collecting it from his apartment. Yet, any time law enforcement shows up, it is my understanding that you don't have to give them any information besides the identify statutes require, like name and maybe ID if your state says so. So I'd sit in the parking lot, and not invite them into my home and tell them I don't want them to search my car without some kind of pretense. Also, I'd turn my smart phone recorder on since we were having the discussions in public.
Perhaps they could have just followed him with a tail to get all the GPS type info, or put a drone over him. I don't think there's an expectation of privacy for the outside of your car, but if it was found in the engine compartment, that might be different. I don't like adding to the car with a device... that seems like some kind of alteration, or trespass to chattels (personal property). Government tort exemptions probably apply for this kind of thing, whether it's constitutional or not.
I'm much more concerned with the adding a device to the personal property than I am the expectation of privacy claim. IF I wanted to follow someone all day, I could collect all the information about their whereabouts.
An interesting quote (Score:5, Interesting)
The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency."
So the FBI admits they're doing a lot of GPS tracking without warrants.
There's supposed to be ``justice for all'' (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that they actually had to access a person's private property (his car) and place an unmarked device in it. Any such devices should be clearly marked as government property _and_ matched up w/ a search warrant # which is on file in the same locale as the vehicle is registered in.
I think it would have been far more interesting if instead of removing it, the mechanic had instead:
- rolled the car out into the public street
- called the local police department to report a suspici
Return property? (Score:4, Insightful)
They demanded it back? So that's an admission that it's theirs. Idiot move #1. They need to write that sort of stuff off.
The proper answer should be: "My attorney has it. He's having it analyzed by experts."
Next time, have some fun. Stick it to a police car parked at the doughnut shop. Then, make an anonymous call to the cops and report a rumor that some gang members in a couple of black SUVs are looking to knock off a cop to make their rep in the neighborhood.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]",
Exactly! Government agencies never do anything wrong and never target innocent citizens! All hail our three lettered overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
The US is singularly unable to assert any "moral highground" arguments.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm funny this way, but I refuse to accept responsibility for events that happened 900 years ago. Besides it's not like there isn't enough blame for both sides either.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.
From Wikipedia's page on the Crusades:
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands.
So, Muslims attacked the Byzantine empire and the Byzantine emperor asks for and receives help from Europe. So, it's Europe's fault for not telling the Byzantine emperor Alexios I to simply give up and die in place?
More:
While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered Calabria in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.
Someone is wrong here. You say the Crusades were "because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas" and Wikipedia states that it was because of Muslim aggression into the Byzantine empire. Hmmm. I wonder who's wrong?
".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an
"....turn the other cheek...." - The Holy Bible
And Christians are the bad guys.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with your source is that it confirms what the OP said. From EB - "Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion."
Thank you for proving two things - 1) that the OP was telling the truth about Muslims provoking the Crusades and 2) that you're not too bright and have no clue what you're talking about, merely parroting what the TV tells you to say.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, there was plenty more justification than that... like the fact that Muslims were occupying large parts of Spain, Italy, and Greece, oppressing people, and attacking many Christian nations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't find an appropriate moderation category, so I'm just going to call you an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself. No, better yet, allow me [lmgtfy.com]. So, the FACTS show that in the past 10 years, there have been the exact same number of pro-life demonstrators murdered than abortion doctors.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself.
Wow, nice way to specifically cherry-pick your conditions (just in the U.S., just successful murders, not attempted murders, kidnappings, cases of arson, and only in the last 10 years, not the full history) to make your point! Do you also, by chance, feed numbers to Fox News for reporting on global warming? But congratulations, you did in fact inspire me to look it up myself.
Here's a better link to give people an overview of the history:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Re:So who is he really? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know. Maybe the reason was a tip from somebody who might have had a grudge. Maybe the reason was something the suspect said at a political meeting. maybe somebody misspelled a name on a form. There are lots of possible reasons, some good, some bad, and some borderline cases that might call for closer oversight of Homeland Security, and the real questions here all depend on those reasons.
You mentioned his travel. If he travelled frequently, always to locations that are considered hotbeds of terrorism, at times that were suspiciously coincidental with some known terrorists, also visiting those locations, that's a pretty good indicator to probe further. If his travel isn't that clear cut an indicator, then maybe what needs to happen here is the FBI needs to refine their process to avoid spending a lot of money and time following up on bad intelligence. But, you don't know that one way or another.
Re: (Score:3)
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to track where a car is going.
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to do anything, and those lowly whiners should just STFU and let them 'do their jobs and protect us'.
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip.
Yeah if I found a device on my car, I'd damn keep it for my own amusement.
When the scaredy clowns in their pussy vests came back for it. "What property, I know the FBI doesn't do illegal things to citizens, so you must be mistaken. Why don't you both go on down to the gym and pump each other".
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Informative)
There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip
You're joking right?
The "phamplet press" of colonial time was 100% biased to whatever side of the political fence the editors sat on, and would print rumors and innuendo in ways that would make the editors of the weekly world news blanch
They did occasionally get things right, like when they busted Thomas Jefferson for impregnating Sally Hemmings (vindicatated 200+ years later), but they also printed stuff that would easily get you sued for libel and slander today.
Considering the founding fathers went out of their way NOT to put limits on it, and considering the state of the press at the time of the constitution really illustrates just how far-reaching freedom of the press should be...
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious ?
"Yasir Afifi"
That sounds like a terrorist name to me! And he's studying, clearly to make bombs! I bet he looks arab too!
I'm being sarcastic, but I don't think I'm too far off.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
To paraphrase: "All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"
People like you should never ever ever serve on a criminal jury.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?
Republicans are a strange breed. When it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation, "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers ...".
But when it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability.
Go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says they wouldn't be? The cost of those devices probably isn't huge, and once you've got them distributed you can probably loosely track a few dozen people for each agent on the case. Why wouldn't they widen the net to people who have some third-, fourth-, or fifth-degree connection to an actual "person of interest"? It seems like it would be terribly efficient to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?
You are the reason that our civil liberties are being eroded so effectively these days. "He was being investigated by the FBI, therefore he must have been doing something wrong?" Are you insane? Mind you, this is not to say that the FBI is a particularly nefarious organization, but is it ever prudent to give anyone that much unchecked authority? Even if the FBI as an organization was totally beyond reproach (which it isn't), you still need to take into account that it is composed of people, all of whom are
Re: (Score:2)
the comment in question was damned tame too.
I see worse here on slashdot daily.
"bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it u
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you want to see a better picture of why the FBI was interested in him, take a look at this following comment from the last time this was on slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1813728&cid=33839634 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
But isn't the issue here rather whether or not the FBI was legally authorized to wiretap him and not whether they had any putative reasons for doing so? I mean, the police may have many reasons and many of them might be flawed. For example, in some regions of my home country (where I'm not living now) I would be suspicious to the police just because of the way I look and behave and because I'm not talking the local dialect , yet this would not give them sufficient grounds for wiretapping me.
Can the police i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, probably he just fit one of the crystal ball profiles? Tech student, arab sounding name, all that's missing is getting a solicit call from an organization "under surveillance" (remember, kids, we only track who you call, not what you yack) and suddenly he's very interesting. Even if he told them to get lost and that he's not interested in their imaginary friend bullcrap. And who'd want to fuck virgins anyway?
The point is that tracking and monitoring has become so trivial to execute, technically, that
Re: (Score:2)
He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q [reddit.com]
I'm sure I've done the same. I have a pet (completely hypothetical) theory of where in Birmingham, UK, you could plant a car bomb to have a catastrophic effect on the whole nation's transport, and I'm bound to have discussed it on some mailing list, newsgroup or forum at some point in the last 20 years.
I don't think it would justify bugging me.
Re: (Score:2)
Brum, or a catastrophic effect on the whole nation's transport ...
Fair trade off I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
aw.
You know the classic romantic trope, where the girl is plain or even ugly, but over time reveals herself to be beautiful on the inside.
That's Brum.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to the watch list, citizen.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
no.
you've got your facts wrong.
his friend made a comment on reddit about how insane it is to obsess about terrorists blowing up shopping malls.
"bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /"
that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.
but he did so while being brown which makes it far far more serious.
Re: (Score:2)
that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.
What gives you the idea we're not?
Re: (Score:2)
because when this story hit the news the first time there were so very very many people on here gleefully talking about checking their own cars for such bugs.
mainly because they wanted a chance to take them apart and examine them.
Re:So who is he really? (Score:4, Funny)
ah the great slashdot dissapearance of 2010... it all makes sense now.
it's deeper than we thought!
Re:So who is he really? (Score:5, Insightful)
He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
And he's right, which is why so many Americans are complete morons. To live in ANY free society, you risk being murdered, or worse, at any time of day or night. Period. The fact that so many idiots now suddenly believe they can be free, and have no risk while being free, means they are ignorantly demanding the removal of everyone's freedoms. Only these same people are too stupid to realize what they are really demanding - a non-free society. And guess what, that's exactly what we see; the destruction, well serious erosion, of liberty and freedom.
Sadly, those who are demanding the absolute protection of America are the most un-American of them all. These people are the real terrorists and all too often are openly embraced by the American public. Sadly, our forefathers are well established about warning us of these tyrants among us.
The reality is, its trivially easy to mass murder people in any free society. And what you linked to is exactly what he's saying. If terrorism is really such a threat, why don't see see mass murders on a daily basis? The commenter's point, which is completely accurate, is since we don't see terroristic mass murders on a daily basis here in the US, the propaganda is full of shit. The public is being mislead and lied to on a daily basis. The people "saving us" from tyranny are the real tyrants.
To be absolutely clear, I absolutely am NOT advocating violence. I'm only pointing out that in a free society, just as people have the freedom to go to work or store, some crazy has the freedom to kill them. And the only way to prevent that crazy from having his freedom is to prevent the rest of us from having ours.
As a side note, with very few exceptions, when you find people saying the US Constitution and our forefather's well known historical positions on life and liberty no longer apply, you've identified either an idiot or a tyrant.
Re: (Score:2)
anyone who thinks being put in positions of authority doesn't turn ordinary nice people into sadists needs to read up on the Stanford Prison
Experiment.
Re: (Score:3)
No the rational person should ask what is happening here. They should not assume either side is correct off the bat.
The problem is your statistics on use of force are biased. You would need a real study done with impartial judges, this cannot be done as the police would end up short of man power soon. Not because all uses of force are unjustified but because it only takes one to lose your job. I also suspect that your statistics completely ignore unreported uses of force. Surely you see the problem with onl
Re: (Score:2)
except he really WOULD have committed a crime then and the slashbots here would be saying "look what he did, he IS a criminal" instead of "he must of done something wrong. We don't know what it is exactly but the FBI doesn't hunt people who are good citizens."
Re: (Score:3)
See here [wikipedia.org]
Basically, the FBI, in demanding it back, is going to have to claim that it's 'mislaid property', which is when you set something down but fail to remember that and walk off. Like if you leave your purse at your table in restaurant. (As opposed to lost property, which is when you drop something and don't notice.)
Sadly for them, for it to 'mislaid', they cannot do it on purpose. Mislaying property requires you to accidentally leave it behind, and as their entire purpose of attaching it to the car
Re: (Score:3)
Well he does have photos of the device, a unique FCC ID that traces back to the FBI, and a plausible story of being pulled over. It's not like he's some paranoid "I was abducted" fool. Last I checked, the legality of inserting a tracking device on someone was questionable.
Re:Article not worth my time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy for the FBI to show the legality of their surveillance operation: simply produce the warrant signed by a judge. Clearly it doesn't matter if the suspect knows about it or not, otherwise they wouldn't demand their device back. There is no logical reason at this point not to tell the suspect why he's monitored: if the suspect is guilty, he very well knows why he is monitored anyways, and if he is not, he can probably exactly tell the FBI why it's all a waste of time and money.
Dear FBI, if you have nothing to hide you can clearly show under what jurisdiction you are monitoring people, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
Well, you could probably be prosecuted under some sort of anti-stalking legislation, perhaps "harassment." If you start following me around, yes, I can actually report you to the police, and something may come of it.
Re: (Score:3)
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with?
If you did it? Harassment and stalking.
If the FBI did it, and it was warranted , nothing. If the FBI did it, and it was unwarranted , nothing, after a very public lawsuit that gets settled.
Re:What exactly is illegal about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.
Let's look at your facts, shall we?
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car)
Totally irrelevant to whether the search is legal. If I'm stopped by an officer as part of a traffic stop, refuse the officer entry to my vehicle (which is totally legal to do), and he grabs the keys and searches my vehicle anyways, that doesn't make the search legal despite the fact that it didn't damage the car in the least.
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so
Irrelevant for much the same reason as the last one. Cars on public streets are still considered "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Also, it's more likely the car was parked in his driveway (where he found the device), or a privately owned parking lot.
3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
So? If my phone is bugged without a warrant, just because it's an amateurish job does not mean that the wiretap was legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, so this is going to probably incite some serious hatred on me... But I'm quite unclear about why this is illegal
Yes, the FBI was being creepy and I don't condone what they did... BUT lets look at the facts:
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car) 2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so 3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
Is it against the law to put something on someone's car when it is in public? Because I see parking tickets and flyers being put on peoples' cars all the time.
Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same.
I'm hoping there is a lawyer -arm chair or otherwise- around that can unofficially shed some light on where the illegality is involved.
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
First, although it is not the central point of my response to your posting, I have to question your statement "Your car is government property if it is in public" - really?? What confused notion of property do you have? Property rights do not transfer to the government just because your property is located in a public rather than a private location. I think you may have meant some kind of diminished expectations of privacy (in this case, with respect to the car) when in public, which is generally held t
Re: (Score:3)
1) Attaching something to MY car with magnets could actually be damaging, if you put it in the right place you're probably damaging my storage devices. Even if you don't have any in your car, it's by no means illegal to transport magnet-sensitive devices in your car.
2) Public or not, the CAR is still HIS property. If I get the right to put up a sign in front of my pub on public ground, you cannot mess with the sign legally without my consent.
3) Doesn't really matter after 1 and 2 anymore, and I cannot comme
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need an updated copy of the Audobon Society Troll Spotting Guide.
GP did have some lovely plumage, though, am I right?
Re: (Score:3)
"Losers weepers; finders keepers." "Posession is nine-tenths of the laws," and so on. Balls thrown into my yard become my property - same applies with GPS devices found in my driveway.
I hope for your sake you aren't a lawyer, because the law says differently. It technically becomes "abandoned property", and depending on the state there are obligations you must fulfill before it is legally "yours."
Re: (Score:3)
Balls throw onto your property do not become yours, idiot. They are clearly lost property. You are required to hold them until someone asks for them, or until a certain amount of time passes, check state law.
However, that is unrelated to the issue here, which is that GPS trackers attached to things are neither 'lost' nor 'misplaced'. They have been clearly placed somewhere deliberately with the intent of them staying them after the person left. (It's not like they were just taking GPS readings and dropped
Re:Held on with Magnets???? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean seriously -- if this had happened to me, I'd have gotten rid of the thing, and claim I never knew about it, and it must have fallen off the car.
Keep in mind that they didn't know what it was (hence why they took a picture and posted it). Then the FBI descended (and at that point it's a bad idea to claim that the item you were so curious about was thrown out and destroyed - not to mention the bloody thing was probably still broadcasting).
Now, the *next* time someone finds one of these things on their car - there's no limit to the wackery that can ensue. Off the top of my head:
Re: (Score:3)
"A friend" posted photos of it. So either the FBI is casting a wide net or the friend is probably being tracked as well.
Re:Held on with Magnets???? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, if someone deliberately places a pamphlet on your car, you can claim it as yours. (It's also littering for them to have done that, but whatever.)
You do have to actually claim it, though, it's not automatically yours. You can refuse to claim it as yours and just move it to the trash or something. (Sorta moot WRT a pamphlet, but might be relevant if it was $10,000, and you didn't want to ever 'own' it because you'd have to pay income taxes on it. Yes, silly example, but whatever.)
All laws concerning lost (aka, dropped) or mislaid (aka, set down but you forget to pick it up) property have one overriding rules: They require the property to have been left accidentally.
Leaving something on purpose means it is, by definition, neither lost nor mislaid. There's really no way to argue that a GPS tracker was accidentally left attached to his car, as that was its entire purpose.
So unless it's part of the few specific exceptions in the law, like packages delivered to the wrong address, it's now abandoned property. Property that someone deliberately left on someone else's property.
You can basically treat abandoned property as your own. While some states do let the original owners demand it back within a certain amount of time, they have no recourse if it cannot be returned or is broken.