Police Secretly Planting GPS Devices On Cars 609
bfwebster writes "The Washington Post has a long investigative article on how more and more police departments are secretly planting GPS tracking devices on the cars of people they are investigating — usually without a warrant. After-the-fact court challenges on this technique have largely upheld such use of a GPS device, though the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is required."
Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day? If yes then I believe this should require a warrant. Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Grump
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day? If yes then I believe this should require a warrant. Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Grump
Let's try a better analogy:
Do the police need a warrant to overhear my conversations while I'm on my cell phone in a public place? No, but they are legally required to have one if they're going to bug my phone.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Funny)
It depends, is it an African midget or a European midget?
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Funny)
Do the police require warrants to bug my house? YES! The difference between my house and my car is very little so yes they need warrants too.
Yes, but do the police need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on your house?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Using your example of sorts: following a car physically only tells you where the car is while it is on public property. The minute that car drives onto a ranch or farm, or the moment it drives into a privately owned garage or building, the police either have to stop cold at that point, or have a warrant handy. A GPS tracker will track exactly where the car is no matter what.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Interesting)
A GPS tracker will track exactly where the car is no matter what.
Given the limitations of GPS, except for when it's in a garage or building ;)
Seriously, though, if the police put a tracker on my car, and are unable to produce documentation demonstrating that they have done so, is the tracker mine if I discover it before they remove it?
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, though, if the police put a tracker on my car, and are unable to produce documentation demonstrating that they have done so, is the tracker mine if I discover it before they remove it?
IANAL but I'd never want to piss of a cop, knowing that some are loose cannons.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Good argument. Then you'd also agree that I can put a GPS on anyones car without permission, including the police, elected officials, or you?
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No if a private citizen does it they go to jail. [engadget.com]
It's not at all obvious from that (angry and low-fact) engadget post the the person in question got in trouble just for using a GPS. The dude was stalking his ex-girlfriend. I'd want to know if she had a stay-away order against him, or if he'd threatened her. Doing these things would certainly justify sending him to jail, with or without his use of a GPS — though the GPS might be considered evidence that he was engaged in stalking.
This is what I hate most about the blogosphere: somebody reads a news
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Interesting)
an example today: New Orleans cops who shot and killed civilians. Dismissed.
as to "If you do it"; a while ago in Portland OR the Mayor and chief of police (now the new mayor) said it was ok to look through the trash of a person of interest so... a local paper looked through the MAYOR's trash and published the results. Sure were a lot of wine bottles.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as to "If you do it"; a while ago in Portland OR the Mayor and chief of police (now the new mayor) said it was ok to look through the trash of a person of interest so... a local paper looked through the MAYOR's trash and published the results. Sure were a lot of wine bottles.....
Yea, but if I park my car by the curb, unlike the garbage, it is still my private property and the police have no business putting their property on my property.
IMO, that's the relevant difference between putting a tracking device on a car and digging around in someone's garbage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
Would you trust /.?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/05/1730239 [slashdot.org]
"According to this article at CNN: Police arrested a man they said tracked his ex-girlfriend's whereabouts by attaching a global positioning system to her car. Police said Gabrielyan attached a cellular phone to the woman's car on August 16 with a motion switch that turned on when the car moved, transmitting a signal each minute to a satellite. Information was then sent to a Web site that allowed Gabrielyan to monitor the woman's location." A ruling last year stated that police need a warrant to track individuals in a similar fashion.
found this too: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2334039 [go.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've simplified that way past the point where the comparison would be true and valid.
There are situations where a cop can legally point a gun at you or me, and, yes, there are also situations where you or I could legally point a gun at a cop. At least where I live, that's the case. Of course, that would require the cop to genuinely appear to be doing something illegal and life-threatening... Roughly the
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day? If yes then I believe this should require a warrant. Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
The problem is twofold:
1. If they damage your car, that is vandalism/destruction of private property.
2. If they find some sort of incriminating evidence and are on private property without a warrant then that evidence is inadmissible in court.
Therefore it's prudent and not trespassing when they do this. Until then, those pricks in the van otside can waste all the gas they want.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as said police follow you around on public property only, they are well within their rights to do so, since they don't have to trespass on your property or violate your privacy to do it. But the moment you walk onto or into a privately-owned property, they need a warrant. Your driveway and garage can be considered considered as private property, for instance. Your car itself is private property, and requires (or should require) a warrant before the police can do anything on it, to it, or with it phy
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Quantity has a quality all its own".
It would take 5 officers to tail someone 24/7. That is enough to stop almost all frivolous or abusive tracking. Without that deterrent, the only thing that could block abuse would be judicial oversight.
The difference between "following" and "tracking" (Score:5, Interesting)
An easy way to answer your question, and countless others like it:
"What would happen to me, as a private citizen, if I did this to a cop?"
If the answer is "Nothing," then it's probably a reasonable thing for the cops to do to you. If the answer is "Waal, I believe that there'd be a tasin', boy," then it is not.
So, you tell me. What do you think would happen if you were caught placing tracking devices on police cars?
And as for the courts permitting this kind of crap to occur: remember the most important lesson of the Gulag Archipelago. The judicial system is your last defense. When they fail to protect your rights, the time for peaceful reckoning is past.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry. Their "duties" do not include tracking people with GPS transponders. I'm not saying it should be legal to do it to the police... I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal for anyone to do it without a court order.
Re:The difference between "following" and "trackin (Score:5, Insightful)
For you, a private citizen, following a police officer or other official while in performance of their duties is illegal.
It begs to be asked: why?
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day?
No.
If yes then I believe this should require a warrant.
But its no.
Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Good point. I wonder if the police would object if I went up to their patrol cars, ghost cars, and other vehicles and slapped my own gps transmitters on them, and then published their whearabouts in realtime on google maps. I mean, I could do all this legally if I just had a bunch of people follow their cars around all day and post their whearabouts, right?
So whats the diff except that it costs much less and is more discrete?
Yet, something tells me the police would object strenuously to this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cops ain't citizens, what makes people think the two should be equal in what they can do?
Think about, doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs to citizens, should citizens be allowed to prescribe drugs to doctors?
Surgeons are allowed to cut open citizens, should citizens be allowed to cut open surgeons?
Lawyers are allowed to legal advice to citizens, should citizens be allowed to give legal advice to lawyers?
We have all kinds of rules that say people in proffesion X can do things that people not in the job can do not. Hell, a postman can open mailboxes and even open mail. Good luck doing that as a private citizen. Do you know that there are laws against who can put items in your mailbox?
For that matter, even simpler things like exceptions to wearing a seatbelt exist for people who got to get in and out of cars a lot. WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL!
Analogies Not Sufficient (Score:5, Informative)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day? If yes then I believe this should require a warrant. Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
No, they don't need a warrant to tail you, your whereabouts in public places isn't considered a search, but public information. However...
The Sixth Circuit held [wislawjournal.com] in the Baily case, of attaching a beeper (rather than GPS, c.1980), that merely analogizing with tailing isn't sufficient to decide the issue, it's one of reasonable expectation of privacy.
The judge in the 7th circuit Garcia case wrote :
Personally, I read that as a warning, not a suggestion, but it's what he feels the law allows for. I'm slowly being persuaded by Moore's Law that perhaps a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the right to privacy (which many of us feels already exists in the 4th amendment) would be an OK thing. Now, to get Congress to pass that (ha!).
Bruce Schneier argues [schneier.com] for the requirements of warrants for these kinds of tracking, to prevent rampant growth and abuse of the police state.
Fortunately for the police state, citizens are voluntarily loading up their cars with tracking devices (EZ Pass, Tire Pressure Monitors, OnStar), so they don't have to even bother installing a GPS device in some cases. Sure, everybody knows that cell phones can be tracked, but how many people know that federally-mandated tire pressure monitoring systems send out a unique 'MAC' for every wheel?
What's gotten people burned in several cases I've read about is that they were driving vehicles they didn't own, and the courts make a distinction there. Does the car you regularly drive have your name on the title or your wife's? That's exactly what got one guy's 4th amendment defense thrown out - his wife 'owned' the car he used, so they weren't tracking his property and he didn't have standing.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day?
If they do it for very long I'm betting you'd have a harassment case.
what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Well, at the risk of repeating you, it costs less, which means there is no natural inhibition to them doing it on a large scale, and it's more discrete, which means the public is unable to connect with it as an issue for discussion.
The cost / large scale surveillance issue is ultimately an extension of reasonable expectation of privacy. While a person does not have a reasonable expectation to never be seen when out driving around, they do (at least IMO) have a reasonable expectation to not have their entire route history recorded.
The public awareness issue is a simple matter of who is watching the watchers. The public should know how many of these things are in use and (after a blackout period to allow temporary covert surveillance) who they are being used on. The reason is accountability; if the people decide they don't want this, their wishes must be obeyed. But the people cannot express an informed opinion about that which they cannot see.
A black & white following a car around is a public statement, "We are watching you." A GPS device with no warrant is also a statement, "We don't want you to know how much we're watching you." I don't trust a "Democracy" that doesn't want me to know what it is doing (after a reasonable black-op period of course, maybe maxing out at something like a year or two) in my name.
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." - James Madison
I figure Madison was a pretty sharp guy, and he spent literally years discussing and forming his concepts with other heroes of our history. You can study the causes for his views in such pieces as Common Sense and The Federalist Papers, or you can just respect his credentials. But if you haven't spent a few years studying the topic, you should beware that the risks he wanted to avoid are not just hypothetical.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
They don't need a warrant.
Essentially, the police can make any observations they want, provided they do it from a vantage point they have a right to be. They can, for example, make aerial observations of your home provided they don't fly lower than is normal or prudent.
A cop can watch you walk across a public square. He can even note this down if he wants to. Technology adds the wrinkle that he doesn't necessarily have to be in the square to do this. He can use surveillance cameras. Or a computer with face recognition software.
This is a bug in the Bill of Rights. It was hacked together all too hastily, therefore it isn't very good about laying out actual rights. It's more focused on curbing specific abuses. Well times change, and technology changes, and with it the kinds of abuses that are possible.
The law as we inherited it from our forbears assumes that surveillance is too costly to employ frivolously, and that therefore the government has a strong disincentive to use it; and if it is used there is an assumption the government has a strong incentive to stop. And this was true for a long time. As a consequence, suspicion is viewed from a legal standpoint as something more benign than it really is. Suspicion leads to investigation which either leads to exoneration or an indictment. Failing either of these results probably meant that there just wasn't enough investigation possible given the resources and time available.
Anyhow, that's how you can fall onto a terrorist watch list and the onus is on you to get yourself off and if the system keeps dropping you on it, tough luck for you. The possibility of cheap, automated suspicion is something that would never have occurred to the founders.
The new frontier of tyranny is the use of widespread, unpredictable surveillance, not for gathering information, but for exerting social control. The Chinese are masters of this. Under this form of tyranny, you end up internalizing whatever rules the masters want.
There is nothing specific in the Constitution that keeps the government from using technology to watch, catalog and cross reference every movement of every member of the population, provided that the information is obtained legally. Legally would include any observations they make from a public place, or can buy from a private source. And since surveillance is clearly one of the things the government is empowered to do, and such uses of surveillance aren't expressly forbidden, there is a school of Constitutional thought that says this is allowable.
Fortunately, this kind of literalist reading of the Constitution is not yet the prevailing one.
With respect to the GPS on the car -- that could be an interesting Constitutional case, although not one I'd like to see before this court. But then, you never know. It reminds me of a case a few years back in which the police used thermal imaging of a suspect's home walls as probable cause to support a (successful) search for a marijuana garden. The arguments were all over the place as you might imagine, but Scalia, if I recall, was one of those who thought this was probably not allowable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ok, but with a warrant, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with the parent (and grandparent).
That is, as long as they don't charge you for breaking traffic laws while they're investigating whatever-else
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because in some cases that is exactly what is happening. Speed limits in some areas are set unrealistically low. Local traffic is basically ignored at any speed. Out of state plates will be pulled over and ticketed, even though to be safe they should be flowing with traffic.
Traffic laws are also subject to politics. We don't get safety all the time. Sometimes it is just the perception of safety. Speed variance is a bigger killer than raw speed, but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle. This results in one subset of the population doing the speed limit and the other subset of the population driving at a reasonable rate of speed for the road. So you'll get a spread of, say, 15 mph. A car going 75 is much more likely to hit a car doing 60 than it is to hit another car going 75. But we blame the speeders because they are speeding, rather than seeing that the system is stupid and dangerous.
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
It sucks that you get so many tickets for speeding. To avoid this, you should slow down. I suspect your argument comes from your perception of what the "flow of traffic" and "reasonable speed" is, which apparently can do with some recalibration.
Slow down.
(Please?)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Funny)
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
No he was spot on.
It is the speed variance that kills.
The ditch on that corner he failed to negotiate was only going zero miles per hour. The total variance was probably in excess of 70mph.
Same for that 2mph pedestrian he killed last week.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
If you actually research this statement instead of taking a knee jerk reaction, I know you'll find that speed variance IS the culprit, established by many studies. You might also find that the recommended speed limits are at a speed such that 85% of the cars will be under it, that raising and lowering speed limits away from that 85% level has very little effect on speeds, and that jurisdictions set speed limits away from the 85% level as a response to lack of revenue or to give residents a false sense of something being done.
Go ahead. Look it up. Here's a clue: FHWA-RD-92-084
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The operative word in GGP was "kills".
You should read the paper you referred to [ibiblio.org] again. It does not say what you say it says. Even then, I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992, which doesn't really address the question at hand. And the "here's a clue" thing makes you look like an ass.
Greater speed leads to greater a greater chance of fatalities. Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992 ... Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.
Heh, you start out implying you have the study on your side, then degenerate into the typical nanny state "You are anti-social and I know better than you what's good for everybody" when the proper response is to let people think for themselves, which, in that study, they do remarkably consistently and safely.
You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only my observation and not a scientific study!
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Informative)
I drive safe because I couldn't live with killing someone.
Nice idea, but your anecdotes do not make a scientific study. Numerous studies have shown it is the difference in speed that causes accidents. You can make all the feel good statements you want if that's what makes you feel better, but you aren't driving safely when most of the other drivers are piling up behind you and swerving around you just because it makes you feel better.
I drive safely because I know what safe is, not because I let gut instinct run my logic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with raw speed isn't the main killer, people not paying attention is the biggest problem, but unfortunately that cannot be 'fixed'.
but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle.
I daresay it depends greatly on the vehicle your driving, the speed limit is typically set for what a car with crappy suspension, bald tyres, and in general bad maintenance etc could handle.
put a light sportsbike on the same road with a new set of tyres, and (if alone and no other vehicles on the road going slow) you could safely do double the speed limit with a year o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
of course, increased speed only makes sense with a sensible amount of visibility, even on mountain tracks that typically have no traffic or random bits on the road, it makes no sense at all to go faster unless you have at least 3 seconds viewing distance ahead of you, or rather enough time to slow down enough to avoid any obstacle you may see.
I just assumed other people did the same, but then again if they did we wouldn't have half the number of speed related crashes we do now I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
actually in one local jurisdiction they lower your speeding ticket to a moving violation precisely so they can keep the entire fine instead of sharing it with the county and state.
I know of many small towns where the speed limit drops from 55 to 35 in a hundred feet or so usually at the bottom of a hill. This is down to both slow down local traffic and to give the local sheriff a spot to sit and nab people who are just passing through and don't know enough to slow down before they get to close.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does everybody allways acts like they are being cheated out of their money when caught breaking traffic laws? They are laws, you know them and they improve safety.
Perhaps because the current system has the built-in assumption that you won't usually get caught, so perfect enforcement would make the fines and points against your license stack up way faster than designed? Or maybe because it sometimes appears to be more of a revenue-generation system than a safety-enhancement system...
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just quite a bit more difficult to spot.
Bull Shit, with a capital BS. How hard is it to watch the average prick driver in your town change 4 lines at a time, with no blinker, cutting off one car in each lane? How hard is it to spot some 90 year-old fart in a Buick pull out in front of me from a side street, when there isn't a car within 2 minutes BEHIND me? How hard is it for a cop to sit at an intersection and spot people making illegal left turns against the red, because they don't want to have to wait another light cycle? I could write more tickets for tail-gating in ONE day on the beat than I could write speeding tickets in an entire month, which brings me back to the main point. Why do the freakin' cops sit at a "speed-trap" for 20 minutes, one or two times a month (mind you, not at an intersection, where the majority of collision accidents happen) if they are out there to protect us from evil speeders? If speeding at the particular (cough, convenient, cough) spot is such a public danger, then why the hell aren't they out there EVERY day? Why do the sit in conveniently unoccupied construction zones? To protect the absent workers and their precious gear? No, because fines are "doubled", meaning twice the profit.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Interesting)
Otherwise they'd ticket people who fail to yield, make illegal lane changes and tailgate...
Each of those is a ticketable offense, as is the catch-all "reckless driving". They're just quite a bit more difficult to spot.
The point is that the police departments make no effort to enforce them. They enforce two things: Speed and Intoxication.
It is hard to argue with drunk driving. Having a moving object that ways 3000+ lbs cruising with no brains in control is a good use of traffic enforcement.
But speed?
Everyone "Knows" that speed is dangerous. The problem is that the facts don't support what you think you "Know". Lets try hard statistics (that they don't tell you because they aren't sexy).
- 80% of fatal traffic accidents happen at 45mph or less. (We spend most of our time in SoCal a 5mph on the freeway)
- The California Highway Patrol used to have a list of the top 20 root causes of accidents.
#4 on the list with 16 percent was driving too slow!
#16 on the list with a fraction of one percent was driving to fast.
- In the mid 80s the NHTSA commissioned a report to show how many lives 55mph saved. The report was delayed 18 months because they didn't get the results they wanted. After massaging/spinning the statistics for a year and a half the best they could come up with is if they ignored the vast improvements in auto safety each life that they saved cost 150 man/years of extra time on the road. An analysis of the data showed that the safest speed to travel was 10 to 15 mph faster then the flow of traffic. (Car and Driver had a great analysis of it)
Now if you consider the vast improvements in auto and tire safety it becomes obvious that the actual risk from driving went UP because of the 55mph limit. The 1st obvious reason is because if you are crawling along at a speed that doesn't require that you pay attention people won't pay attention. (Refer back to the bit about moving objects with no brains controlling them...) A second reason is they had bred a generation of drivers that were unsafe a 55 because they had learned "aiming skills" instead of "driving skills".
Traffic enforcement is about revenue. Fear a government that has become so disconnected that it thinks you are its source of income instead of thinking that it is supposed to serve you.
Oh and back to the original point of this thread...
Ben Franklin would have a conniption. The United States was the land of freedom. If it wants to become that again then it needs to ALWAYS error on the side of freedom. You think these things make you safer? More secure? Security is a FEELING. They are protecting you from things that aren't a credible threat. The government can NEVER make you safe unless they lock you in a closet. You are mortal!!! Life has a 100% mortality rate. Being safe is never the point unless your eyes are closed. LIVING is the point. Go out and live and don't worry. You might experience some things that have a little risk involved with them. If you do you will probably smile because you are LIVING!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be a lot more compelling if it weren't wrong.
First off, of course most fatal accidents are going to happen when going less than 45mph, the vast majority of driving done each year in the US is on arterials, which are usually designed around a 30 or 35 mph limit. Around here, it's not so hard to find a couple of places where going 40mph would cause a car to go off the road or flip in good conditions.
Not to mention that the effective speed is more or less doubled when in a head on collision. Head on
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
60 residents, 14 police officers, almost 3000 tickets issued a year.
So many in fact that AAA put up a billboard outside of town warning drivers about it.
Granted, an extreme example, but don't pretend it doesn't happen.
Paying attention behind the wheel (Score:3, Informative)
You want drivers who are paying attention? Bring back the manual transmission! It's almost impossible, even at 5 mph or stop-and-go conditions, to operate such a vehicle without constant attention to the surrounding conditions.
Driving a stick shift in bumper to bumper traffic sucks, but I sure as hell don't find myself falling asleep at the conn any more.
Mal-2
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
And once those gps units are small enough, they'll be able to plant them on your person and track you everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They already can.. they're called mobile phones. Triangulation can get your location down to about 10 feet.
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Interesting)
Logan's Run had this concept.
Runner!
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's suppose that an officer on the street can observe me in my house by looking through the window. Is the police officer then justified in mounting a camera to the side of my house and pointing it in the window without first obtaining a warrant?
I think most people would agree that the police do not have the right to mount a camera to my house, building, or any other structure without my consent or a court issued warrant.
If mounting the camera to my house is not allowed, why are they allowed to mount other foreign objects (GPS) to my moveable property (car) without a warrant?
Whether reasonably measurable or not, they are, without my express authorization or compensation, using energy from my vehicle and causing additional wear and tear on my vehicle. This could be construed as theft of service (transportation fees).
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
"There is no such thing as a "right" to privacy"
Is there a place in the constitution where a right to privacy is specifically mentioned as something the people do not have?
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I have no sympathy for Mr Cheney but on that matter he is right.
I'm not sure whether your comment should even be dignified with a response, but on the slim chance that you aren't just trolling I'll give it a shot.
No, it isn't just a piece of paper. For one thing, it is the supreme law of the land in the USA, so the suggestion by a sitting official in the executive branch that it can be casually brushed aside is inherently tyrannical.
For another, it is the document that established the modern idea of popular governance. It is an enlightened document that outlines basic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, you're paying money in gasoline and car upkeep to transport their gizmo. Send them a bill for (mass of tracker)/(total car mass) * gas cost.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But if you drove enough, you could make that .05% *really* hurt them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they attach it to my car without my permission, doesn't it become MINE to do whatever I want with? Seriously, how many of these do they really expect to recover and download data from? Plus, doesn't it become "theft of services" the minute they hook it up to my car's electrical system?
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they attach it to my car without my permission, doesn't it become MINE to do whatever I want with?
Good question. I'd think you could take it off and toss it in a dumpster if you found it.
Seriously, how many of these do they really expect to recover and download data from? Plus, doesn't it become "theft of services" the minute they hook it up to my car's electrical system?
I doubt they wire it in. Its probably just battery operated and attached magnetically, probably lasts 5-10 days, before they go pick it up/swap it out.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd think you could take it off and toss it in a dumpster if you found it.
Wouldn't it be more fun to attach it to a random taxicab instead? If you really want to screw with someone, you could always go to a gas station near a freeway, look for someone towing a boat and obviously on their way to some vacation hotspot, and then attach the device to the boat when its owner isn't looking...
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like it would belong to you at that point, but I doubt that would hold up in court; if you did anything with it, an accusation of impeding a police investigation would probably trump your claim of ownership. Then again, doing anything other than what a police officer arbitrarily wants you to do could be construed as impeding an investigation.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
One phrase: Plausible Deniability
Police: "Did you put the GPS tracker we put on your car on the cross country bus?"
You: "GPS tracker? What's that? I saw something stuck to my car, but I thought it was someone's "hide a key," so I took it off and put it on the curb so the person who owns it could come find it." Like I said, I didn't know what it was and I didn't put it there, so I took it off. It wasn't mine. I don't know what happened to it.
In short, they may put it on my car, but I am under moral or legal obligation to practice "ordinary care." I can't take it and sell it as if it belongs to me, but I certainly don't have to protect it in any way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Toss it on the roof of a Penske truck or something! They'll be following it all over the country!
I fucking hate cops. They all believe that if you're in jail that you're guilty, they're only interested in processing cases not justice, and a good majority of cops are just psycho-bullies from grade school who want to shoot a gun.
Mod me down if you want, you'll think differently when you're at the shit end of their crooked stick.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two kinds of cops in the world...
There are the kind that are natural leaders, commanding in their presence, and like to help people out.
And there are the ones that were the kids that got picked on in school, that nobody liked or paid attention to, and now its their turn to be asses back to everyone that wronged them.
Unfortunately, the second kind leave a lasting impression.. (kinda like that old saying, give good customer service, the customer will tell a friend, give bad customer service, they'l
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you post at +2 with trolls like that?
They may not dispense justice, but they can arrest and imprison you for days without filing charges. You get to be packed into a room full of real criminals for 72 hours while they figure out if you should even be charged or not.
But I guess since there are no crooked cops this is not a problem.
If you have nothing to hide (Score:4, Funny)
I don't see the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! When can I install a webcam inside your house and broadcast it on the internet 24/7?
Re:If you have nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
The police and FBI have a long, sordid history of intimidation, harassment and disruption of dissident groups and activists (up to and including murder [wikipedia.org]). Any state surveillance of people should require a warrant—both to provide some oversight (which isn't much, considering the way some courts like to rubber-stamp these requests [commondreams.org]) and make a record of the state's activities against its own citizens.
Scarier still... (Score:5, Informative)
If you RTFA, you'll see a poll asking if people approve this tactic. As of right now, 55% do.
Re:Scarier still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Big Brother Reversi-Reversi? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is to be wondered how the cops would react if a citizen group began to secretly bug cop cars with GPS devices and tiny cameras intended to capture what they do to people in remote or isolated areas or late at night when the cops think no one can or is likely to see them.
free directions? (Score:4, Insightful)
One Page Version (Score:4, Informative)
This is illegal search, requires warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
It is quite clear that this tracking indeed is search for which a warrant is required under the constitution. This is a type search which was not envisioned at the time the founders wrote the constitution and far more more dangerous and frightening than they likely imagined. They are spinning in their graves for certain. We are seeing grave risks to the very threat to our freedom by tyranny, worse than what the founders of the US had feared. The way everything people can do can be monitored tracked and then data mined would have shocked and deeply disturbed them if they were alive to see this. We should be very concerned about these dangerous trends.
Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Alright, having just written a legal brief on the subject, I'll explain the legal rationale behind these rulings so that we can actually have an intelligent debate on this subject.
The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, only applies when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the item or information searched or seized.
Here, the information about the person's location is what is being "seized." Thus, the way the debate is framed centers around the question: Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location?
Now, the law is pretty clear in some respects. For example, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home. Thus, the Fourth Amendment applies, and police need a warrant to track your movements in your home.
On the other hand, you have no expectation of privacy when you travel out in public. This is rather obvious because when you travel in public, everyone around you can see you and knows where you are. Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and it has been long established law that police can conduct surveillance on anyone in a public area without a warrant. (Note: This is the same basic rationale by which placing cameras on street corners does not violate the Fourth Amendment.)
The Supreme Court has further extended this rationale to apply to electronic tracking devices (e.g., GPS, Triangulation Beacons) used for tracking people in public. The rationale is that as long as the subject is in public, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his location.
Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not apply and you have no constitutional protection against police attaching a GPS device to your car. Police can track your car with a GPS locator, provided they break no laws with respect to installing the locator (A non-constitutional issue).
That said, the Supreme Court has left the door open to regulating this type of behavior by police. The majority opinion in U.S. v. Knotts left open the possibility of using "different constitutional principles" to regulate police use of tracking devices if "dragnet type law enforcement practices" developed. Dragnet in this context refers to systematic and coordinated measures for apprehending criminals or suspects.
Thus, presumably one could argue that if the police started using GPS devices in our cell phones to track everyone in a systematic manner, another constitutional principle, like for example the right of privacy, could be applied to find a constitutional ground to prevent it. Whether the Supreme Court chooses to use the dicta in Knotts is of course up to it.
Anyway, that's it, have fun debating.
Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few interesting points in your post: It all hinges on the "reasonable expectation of privacy".
If I'm walking down a public road, and I look around and don't see anyone nearby, do I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
Is there legal distinction between short term privacy and long term privacy? e.g. Is my expectation that people will not follow me around for any significant period of time "reasonable" under the US constitution?
If a police officer is patrolling in a marked police car, do they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or would it be ok to tag that police car with a GPS tracker and display the location real time in a Google Maps mashup? Is there some other law that would prevent this apart from the constitution?
If the above is ok, what about if the police office is parked behind some bushes/a billboard in a "Dukes of Hazard" style speed trap. Does that officer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
What about if said officer is patrolling in an unmarked car (but one which was ID'd as a police car earlier), do they now have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
I'm guessing that most of these questions haven't been answered by US courts. I'd be particularly interested if there is a distinction between the expectation of privacy for police officers and the expectation of privacy for the general public.
Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
If a police officer is patrolling in a marked police car, do they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or would it be ok to tag that police car with a GPS tracker and display the location real time in a Google Maps mashup? Is there some other law that would prevent this apart from the constitution?
If the above is ok, what about if the police office is parked behind some bushes/a billboard in a "Dukes of Hazard" style speed trap. Does that officer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
What about if said officer is patrolling in an unmarked car (but one which was ID'd as a police car earlier), do they now have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
Well the Fourth Amendment only applies to the actions of the States and the Federal Government (i.e., federal and local governments plus their agents), so all of these questions are irrelevant.
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is to govern when the government needs a warrant to search or seize something. If it's just an individual citizen acting in this manner, there is no Fourth Amendment issue.
I'm not going to speculate on your other questions because they are a little more complicated and frankly I don't have the time to analyze them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, you have no expectation of privacy when you travel out in public.
That's a vast over simplification, particularly due to your leaving out the word "reasonable." The courts have ruled that public phones can not be wiretapped without a warrant. Clearly your assertion is in conflict with that ruling.
Similarly, 10 years ago it was impossible to put a gps-tracker on a car in this manner. Why should the advances of technology suddenly make what was impossible now 'reasonable' without any significant review - either judicial or through legislation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not my assertion, read United States v. Knotts [findlaw.com]. The Supreme Court specifically distinguishes traveling in public from wiretapping a public phone. Plus, there's a lot of federal wiretapping law unrelated to the Fourth Amendment, so wiretapping phones is more complicated, with more issues.
As for the evolution of technology and reasonable expecations of privacy, read Kyllo v. United States [cornell.edu].
Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
ChrisMP1 is correct. Being seen in public is not the same as being tracked, electronically or otherwise.
From what I gather, your legal brief justifies stalking in public.
Turnabout is Fair Play? (Score:4, Insightful)
hehehe - here's a thought; I'm guessing I'm not the only circuit hacker here. I figure with $50 worth of parts from Mouser I can make one of these that will store to an SD card. If you have a cop that stops at the local coffee shop regularly, and drives the same car, stick on on his car and pick it up a couple days later. It's no different than trailing the officer around all day, after all.
Who's with me?
OK, now here's the real question; if we are afraid to track the government - even just the local public enforcement officials - at the same level as they are tracking us, do we not have a very serious problem?
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!" -Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson spent years contemplating these issues, and debating them with many of the period's other great minds. Have you spent enough time researching it to disagree? If not, you should not blindly accept his statement - but you should spend the time studying. This great experiment is worth it. See Common Sense and The Federalist Papers if you need a starting point.
This is ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Before the patriot act, electronic surveillance of a US Person required evidence and congressional oversight due to the importance of the constitution and our bill of rights. These procedures have never been a speedbump to a legitimate investigation.
We are more and more becoming a police state. Wake up people. This is not how an honest government treats its citizens. The word 'warrant' has a definition; a definition that suggests there is legitimate REASON behind a 'warranted' invasion of a citizen's privacy.
No warrant = no reason.
New Zealand too (Score:3, Interesting)
This happened in New Zealand a little while ago.
A guy found some police tracking devices on his car, ripped them off, and listed them on TradeMe [slashdot.org] (the local eBay replacement).
Not just the police (Score:3, Funny)
I was talking to a guy who works at the local university's outdoor program centre. They rent all sorts of camping and sports gear, including handheld GPSs. Apparently a guy came in one day and was interested in renting one. He asked how rugged they were: for instance, suppose it were to be attached to the bumper of my wife's car. Would that be likely to damage it?
Couple this (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a crime problem there and the government imposed a "curfew" that eventually ended up becoming what is practically all out martial law [youtube.com]. It started out as a teen curfew and now people are reporting that they're being told to not come out of their houses by the police. They're not simply advising it, but ordering it by punishment of law. Enforcing it via men with guns. Now with the ability to know where you go and what you do there is absolutely nothing stopping a situation where an entire population is under constant monitor.
It's beginning. No, scratch that, it's began. I wouldn't be surprised if a full force take over of the government occurred before the next president is sworn in. Before the end of the year, even. Normally, I'd question myself for saying such outlandish things, what with my active, run-away imagination and all, but this time it's all adding up. I gotta get my family out of here.
Article Summary Misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Note though the Washington Supreme Court has disallowed GPS evidence, the District Court in the instant case has specifically ALLOWED it. From TFA:
When this gets to the Washington Supreme Court it is likely they will not reverse any conviction, based on the US Supreme Court's stance that tracking a car with a beeper is OK (also from TFA).
Bottom line: This technique is here to stay.
It's Like a Car... (Score:3, Funny)
You have to imagine the GPS satellites driving around on big...highways...except way up in the sky. Kind of like really fast...flying cars. Way up there.
So the car drives around like, if you follow me, the car, and then the other cars that are, um, way, um, up there. Can see it through their windshields because they are like...cars, see?
And then that all does stuff like that, and then the police go where the "car" is by using transportation of a nature that can best be understood by imagining a car, only it has police in it.
So that's the best way to understand all that.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:4, Informative)
If they have a warrant
They're doing it without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty.
The cops don't get to assume guilt and violate anyones 4th amendment rights based on a hunch. That's what warrants are for. They have to present probable cause, based upon sound information and reasoning, satisfactory to a court, prior to violating someone's rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.
The current argument are on the exact meanings we can infer from "secure" and "searches."
Remember the root of secret is the same root of secure and have a common e
Link? (Score:3, Insightful)
one could cut the wires etc.
I'm interested if anybody has information on how to do this. Actually, I'd rather co-opt their CDMA hands-free speakerphone for my own use, but I don't know how to get an ESN off it or implement dialing. Bluetooth FTW.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's true that GPS devices are radio receivers, not transmitters. But receivers emit signals too, and these are detectable. In countries where you have to pay license fees to operate a TV or radio, they send out detector vans [autoblog.com] to nab scoflaws. I also recall reading in Spycatcher [amazon.com] that MI-5 used them to detect secret shortwave receivers; don't recall how they distinguished KGB agents listening for instructions from Moscow Center from innocent Lawrence Welk fans.