GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts

Fun at LinuxWorld writes "Following on the heels of California's plan to put GPS receivers in cars, Massachusetts wants to fit criminals who violation restraining orders with GPS devices. Wearing the device would be a condition of probation (meaning you can refuse, but then you get to serve your time in jail), and fines and punishments would be imposed if the person entered "restricted zones" (under the terms of the restraining order). With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better? Will it fix the problem?"

Appropriate use

[BWJones (18351)]

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

Re:Appropriate use

[*no comment* (239368)]

I don't care for the GPS to track how much you should pay in taxes (uhm you do that at the gas pump, you drive more, you buy more gas, your car pollutes more by burning more? you pay more). In this instance I don't believe that tracking cons is really a violation of anyones rights.

Re:Appropriate use

[networkBoy (774728)]

"I don't believe that tracking cons is really a violation of anyones rights."
More important, is upon commission of a crime you are knowingly risking loss of several of your rights (privacy being a big one).
This is a perfect use, so long as glitches don't cause too much greif.
-nB

Re:Appropriate use

[serutan (259622)]

I agree with parent. Various house-arrest devices have been in use for many years. They are essentially lower-tech gadgets that detect when the wearer strays too far from a second gizmo attached to their house or whatever. GPS would give judges a lot more latitude in specifying the terms of probation. Example -- allow the person to travel to work and the local shopping area but nowhere else.

Re:Appropriate use

[Tassach (137772)]

Indeed. The Constitution says that no one shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". If you've been duly convicted by a court of law, that IS due process.

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

Re:Appropriate use

[Your Pal Dave (33229)]

GPS would give judges a lot more latitude in specifying the terms of probation.

Longitude too!

Re:Appropriate use

[kdark1701 (791894)]

I'm not sure how it is in Massechuses (sp?), but here in Michigan, one can get a restraining order with no proof. The accused can get the order revoked, but its a pain in the ass. More often than not, it degenerates into a "his word against hers" type of case.

Re:Appropriate use

[n1ywb (555767)]

You'll note the devices would be for people who have already violated the restraining order. Restraining orders are easy to get in most states, they're also easy for the defendant to not violate them. Don't screw up, don't get a tracking device. Simple.

Re:Appropriate use

[n1ywb (555767)]

Word up. People who break restraining orders are usualy one or two steps from commiting a violent crime.

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

Not just Appropriate use

[temojen (678985)]

In addition to not seeing any problem with this, I see it as a great good for society. Keeping lesser criminals out of jails could save a lot of public money, and reduce the chances that they'll become "hardened" criminals.

Reluctantly agreed.

[pavon (30274)]

In high school there was a classmate of mine that was on probation, or parole or something and he had to wear some type of tracking device around their ankle. At the time I was absolutely appalled by it as all he was charged with was non-violent drug offenses. Why was our government tracking this kid who was not a danger to anybody?

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

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

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

Re:Appropriate use

[dreamchaser (49529)]

They are talking about people who violate restraining orders here. The vast majority of those cases involve domsetic violence. You're arguement might be appropriate in another discussion, but it's a bit off topic for this one.

Re:Appropriate use

[biglig2 (89374)]

No it's not. History teaches us that when you give a law enforcement agency powers, they use those powers. The FBI have used the PATRIOT act against people who are clearly not terrorists.

This is the founding priciple of the US: to give the state as little power as possible. Do you want to end up like us poor sods in the UK, where the constitution gets changed on the whim of Tony Blair?

Me, I think it is fine to attach tracking devices to convicted felons, although I'd rather prefer putting them in prison. But be under no illusions that this will just be used on wife-beaters. They'll put these things on file-sharers, Linux users and other communists given half a chance.

must proofreader

[by Anonymous Coward]

"...criminals who violation restraining orders..."

Hmm, the editors are great at proofreader articles.

Shows you what the CA gov't thinks of its citizens

[rsborg (111459)]

... namely that we should be treated like criminals? eh, I gotta talk to my state senator about this.

Restricted Zones

[Paul Slocum (598127)]

So the collars explode when you enter a restricted zone?

And the difference is.....

[LordPhantom (763327)]

There is an inherent difference between forcing -everyone- to have a tracking device and applying this new technology to already current methods (radio leg collars, etc) employed in the case of someone breaking the law. Making enforcement of restraining orders possible to this level is a Good Thing(tm) in my book.

If this is bad, then the outrage is years overdue

[Chairboy (88841)]

For decades, we have accepted the idea of criminals having ankle bracelets that trigger an alarm if the person leaves the area of their home.

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

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

Right?

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

It's not really needed

[Anita Coney (648748)]

I work in a court and deal with defendants on probation on a regular basis. This device simply is not needed.

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

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

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

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

Can I buy one of these new GPS devices....

[WareW01f (18905)]

They must get a lot better coverage than mine. It always craps out inside my house, any store, and downtown with buildings higher than 5 stories.

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

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

Re:Idea

[tyresyas (826753)]

Frankly, I don't want the police having the ability to track my car at will, especially given the new freedoms under the Patriot Act to surveil poeple without a warrant under certain circumstances. If you want to do that, that's fine, but making it mandatory in cars is extreme, and I doubt I'm the only person that doesn't have complete faith in the authorities to use it only for my protection.

Re:Idea

[Ironsides (739422)]

It's called low-jack and onstar. They already do this. The problem with making it mandatory is that people do not want the police to be able to find the car unless the victim so chooses. With low-jack and onstar, the victim has to give the permision for low-jack and onstar to tell the police where the car is. With it in by default, the police may not need anything in order to track you, and it may be made illegal to disable it in your own car (insert big brother concerns here). Additionally, making it mandatory would probably increase the cost by several hundred dollars (not a small amount, even on a 20K car). For now, it remains an accessory or luxury item.

one small one

[way2trivial (601132)]

oftentimes probation is used as a tool,
the timeframe on probation can exceed the remaining time on sentance...

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

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

Re:Some thoughts

[garcia (6573)]

Now, if you fundamentally disagree with the criminal justice system or "the Man" in general, then you'll likely disagree with this just for the sake of it.

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

In the future state and opinion or a fact. Do not state your boring and open-ended questions that are only there for the amusement you apparently receive out of watching people state their case while you get modded up over asking people to answer your questions more than once.

What happens when everyone has jammers?

[FreeUser (11483)]

Right now there is little motivation for jamming GPS signals. The occasional terrorist, or the army, might decide to interfere with the signal, but otherwise I suspect there haven't been too many buyers of the GPS jamming system that was being marketed in Russia a few years ago.

That could all change.

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

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

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

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

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