Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking 226
The EFF is trumpeting a victory in a case in which it and the ACLU filed an amicus brief. "The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search warrant. ... The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a search warrant based on probable cause. ...the court noted: 'When it comes to privacy... the whole may be more revealing than its parts.'"
I'm still curious (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens if you find such a device on your car? Sure, you can call the police because there's a suspicious item on your car (which may be dangerous!! what if it exploded?) but do you think they would say something like "oh no, that's ours!" -- or could they tell you to leave it there?
What happens when you run a packet dump and notice a government spyware program? whee! ...
Re:I'm still curious (Score:5, Funny)
If it wasn't secured to your car with duct tape, you can probably be pretty sure it wasn't done by the police.
Re:I'm still curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, I know that IT professionals get stereotyped as the guys who ruin peoples lives by either making their work a living hell with Windows Updates breaking every application - or by exposing some personal emails that shouldn't have been sent on your work outlook account, or even by neglecting to upgrade you off of that old Windows NT box.
But really, how bad does it have to get before you start suspecting that someone might have planted an explosive on your car?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most drivers I know in Chicago willfully place such devices in their windshields for paying tolls. I know they aren't GPS yet, but probably future versions will be and people will use them and sign away on whatever forms in the name of connivence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>I know they aren't GPS yet, but probably future versions will be
How do you know that? The current gadgets are actually quite dumb, because it keeps them cheap to handout for free. Converting them to a GPS device would be about 20 times more costly, as well as requiring an external power plug, so I think your prognostication is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RFID toll tokens have already been successfully used to prove location and travel:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericfitz/archive/2007/08/10/ez-pass-logs-used-in-divorce-cases.aspx [msdn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which has nothing to do with GPS. GPS can pinpoint your specific location and make it easy to police to come get you. In contrast EZpass only shows a few points spread-out over dozens or even hundreds of miles. i.e. Only when you enter and exit the tollroad. AND it's typically old data that would be of no use for police to locate you.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever driven in Chicago? How much does it cost for the city/county/state to install and upkeep all those scanning stations on the roads. How much would it cost in the future when most cars sold today already have GPS standard and ability to access the cell network? What do you think OnStar is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there's nothing that says those systems have to remain in place. If you're that paranoid about it, you can fix that in your garage: it's not terribly hard to remove, remount, and re-balance a tire, and the sensors are just stuck to the inside of the wheel with some 3M double-stick tape.
Re: (Score:2)
Your car won't pass inspection unless they're operational.
Re: (Score:2)
Please supply a citation for this. It is not part of any state inspection I am familiar with, and many states do not have inspections at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You know new cars are mandated to have wireless tire pressure monitoring systems from the factory, right? And each tire has a globally-unique MAC?
Its a short range transmitter.
Far more frightening is the reflective metal plate bearing a registered unique series of numbers and digits that all cars are mandated to have attached to the vehicle in plain sight. These plates can be seen and read at considerable distance, and can be trivially traced to the registered owner. Over the last couple decades reliable el
Re:I'm still curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What happens if you find such a device on your car?
You leave it there for a while. So they get used to the fact that they can trace your movements. When they are comfortable with tracking you, you remove it and stick it on a cop car. Then you call a friend and tell him that the deal will go down 'at the usual place this afternoon'.
So the ATF, DEA or whomever mounts an assault on Li'l Johns Bar and Grill, where most of the local cops hang out all day.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What happens if you find such a device on your car? Sure, you can call the police because there's a suspicious item on your car (which may be dangerous!! what if it exploded?) but do you think they would say something like "oh no, that's ours!" -- or could they tell you to leave it there?
What happens when you run a packet dump and notice a government spyware program? whee! ...
I wouldn't report it, I'd attach it to the nearest taxi.
Re:I'm still curious (Score:5, Interesting)
A long while ago (about 1996) I noticed unusual traffic coming in to my hobbyist server. Things that nowadays are just part of the background noise: port scans, SYNs to nonexistant hosts (I had a /28 block on a fractional T1. NerdPeen ACTIVATE!), that sort of thing. The source IP address in question then crawled my website and connected to my SMTP server and sent mail to itself (wisdom such as "don't be an open relay" was not widespread at the time... my diagnosic skills were better than my security skills at the time).
A few nslookups and whois later, and a traceroute or two, and I was at Langley. Huh. Was someone there doing something? Or was it spoofed in some way? It's not like I had ever done anything interesting in my life other than flip a significantly-non-stock VW Rabbit onto its roof and host a website for friends to post their dirty pictures. Hmmm, maybe that was it. 007 wanted pr0n!
A few emails and one phone call later and I was talking to an instructor at Langley who was teaching basic network forensics. He said they were choosing random domains then learning what they could about them and presenting that knowledge as a classroom exercise, and apologized if their was any disruption; he said it was only an attempt to do basic recon of non-NATted networks, not penetration (insert joke here). My response was something to the effect of "OK, no problem, I understand. But... I noticed . I shouldn't have. And I'm a total amateur at this. If your students are going to be able to do their jobs, they need to be less obvious about it."
If you find a BatBug on your car, the cops need to know of their incompetence. Then send it to Gizmodo!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1996, everyone was much less sophisticated in their understanding of IP networking and its exploitability (as evidenced by me having an open relay, no firewall, and all hosts fully exposed to the Internet without NAT). We look upon it in horror now, a decade and a half since, but consider. What network security practices did ANYONE have, other than "have good passwords and don't have your FTP incoming directory world-writable"? Who had a firewall in their house? Linux was on kernel 1.1, and few had even
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it's legally yours to do whatever you want with it. I suggest you attach it to a pigeon.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I'd probably pull it off and attach it to the nearest semi going across the country. Or maybe a squirrel.
And then install a jammer just in case they try it again with a bug that's harder to spot. Maybe even generate a fake GPS stream showing that the vehicle was at 30,000 feet, traveling at Mach 7, over the northern coast of Ecuador.
aw (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to plunk a few of these GPS units onto several elected offical's cars and post the results. Hilarity is sure to ensue.
Nice one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice one (Score:4, Funny)
Yes sir! Right away sir! I will start EFFing as soon as I see the opportunity sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about now?
After all, it is about EFFing time.
So far so good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets see how this goes on appeal.
This is the kind of issue that winds up before the supreme court. It is simple, and obvious, but somebody is going to argue it to their last breath.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
But, but, but, but... "National Security!!!"
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
And "The Children!"
Re: (Score:2)
...who use the Computers, because the bible says that computers are the BEAST! ...and listen to that heathen rap music by Marylin Manson!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If we don't track people, TERRORISTS will KIDNAP your KIDS and use DRUGS to turn them into GAY SUICIDE BOMBERS!
Or worse yet, they might share music. Oh, think of the artists! What will the poor artists do if we don't track people?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it really is a national security issue, all bets are off.
But it probably isn't. It's the Bush administration's legal stink-bombs gumming up the future, just as they were planned to do.
We waste our time and money and attention trying to remove the rotting fish from the walls, while he and his buddies are laundering the money they looted from our safe.
Re:So far so good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, when I read the headline, I expected ninth circuit. I mean, I'd be shocked if this decision had come out of the 4th or 5th, but even the D.C. circuit coming to that conclusion is a bit surprising, IMHO. It's not exactly a bastion of liberalism or civil liberties.
What's particularly baffling is that the ninth actually went the other way. So it's almost certainly a sufficiently contentious issue to get certiorari. I'll be interested to see the appeal, too. It seems clear that warrantless GPS tracking could be easily abused, and that the relatively low cost and effort involved makes it a fairly significant escalation of police surveillance. On the flip side, one could legitimately argue that anything you do in a vehicle is done in a public place and that you have no expectation of privacy. So it's definitely not clear cut either way.
I would tend to err on the side of requiring a warrant, particularly given that it is a relatively low bar and given that there is minimal chance of the decision to plant a GPS device being so time critical that a warrant could not be reasonably obtained. And if we see warrantless GPS tracking used in a sufficiently widespread way, there is substantial risk that people will employ countermeasures to jam GPS signals in and around their vehicles. The resulting mess would endanger public safety. So it is important that GPS tracking be very limited. Requiring a warrant does this. Without requiring a warrant, the temptation is too great to use GPS as a crutch in place of proper surveillance, which in the long run would be seriously detrimental to society.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt the Supreme Court will hear the case.
To the best of my knowledge, there are not a plethora of conflicting lower court rulings on the issue. And while there is a constitutional question to be answered, I don't see it as wildly different than other cases they have decided such that it needs a separate ruling. These are the major criteria that the justices use to determine whether or not to hear the case.
Just because you are technically able to appeal up to them does not mean they will gra
"government claims" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eventually it will be *DOT (with the * being your state). Got to come up with some way of taxing electric car users to use the road if they aren't paying for it in fuel taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1746238&cid=33167504 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you saw a toll road go away after the 10/15/20 years period where the road was to be "paid off"? Same reason why the states will find a way to replace the revenue generated by a fuel tax for "roads".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the tolls on the I-90 going through Buffalo were removed a few years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know, that undefined blob of mental mass that you can blame everything on and assign as the cause and/or solution to all of yours and the world's problems.
You are just lining yourself up for a "Your Mom" joke, by the way.
GPS tracking may be off limits all together. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with GPS tracking is that it's typically used more for intellegence/surveilance type stuff. You do this before you get a warrant, in order to get enough probable cause to do a search.
In many jurisdictions police use GPS at their own discrection because they see it as equivalent to tailing, but also because they can't get a warrant. Most police are actually pretty good about getting warrants before doing stuff when they can; there's no reason not to, and it makes a case stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
GPS tracking is more akin to wiretapping or planting bugs. It also requires probable cause and a warrant.
My question (Score:2)
I wonder if it is illegal for a private citizen to plant a GPS tracker on my car. If so, are there specific laws prohibiting tracking devices, or does it fall under some broader statute like trespassing or vandalism or the like.
Re:So just use cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus increasing the cost, meaning they won't do it.
Re:So just use cops (Score:5, Insightful)
And they'll just tail you night and day, just as if they had a GPS on your car, and they won't need a warrant.
How is this about my online rights, exactly?
That takes manpower. That's not something you can do willy nilly. They'll be damn sure the person is a suspect before doing that.
Tackers can put be on a bunch of cars and automatically monitored for viewing later at cops leisure.
Meaning the GPS trackers can be used as a dragnet - let's put one on a bunch of folks' cars and see what we find regardless if they're a suspect or not. Cops then see what they think is suspicious and create a story around it (intentional or not) and now innocent guy is a suspect for a crime in the imaginations of the cops. Or innocent guy just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and innocent guy is now in a bunch a legal trouble.
Re:So just use cops (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the assumptions we deal with, or rather fail to deal with, is we assume the government has "better things to do". We may be small fry, but there is an enabling going on. You're only small fry until you've pissed someone off for whatever lawful reason. (Disagreements happen even when both parties are being lawful).
Out west, they think "Washington is so far away" but really they aren't anymore.
We think GPS-tracking is based on public information....
But all these ideas are based on the assumption that the government has better people to go after. Having a limited resource like man power, assures the biggest offenders are handled first, and on down the line to the jay-walker. But as computers can work 24/7/365, and never forgets, and technology gets cheaper, the force of the law gets more prevalent.
Given enough information, you can identify a person at a crosswalk, using the intersection cameras and mail them a fine. If it gets in the mail soon enough, it'll be at their house before they get home.
So historically speaking there is a notion of "scope" or "reach" (as typified by "long arm of the law"). As we get more technology, it becomes easier to become a victim of government. Even if they don't act on what they know about you (cost-benefit) they can still use it at a later date. Most of us I am sure have some unflattering FBI files, collected opportunistically. Drunken Facebook postings and blog posts, its all there to be compiled and added to your dossier...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So just use cops (Score:5, Insightful)
A GPS would be able to track you while on private property, a ranch maybe, a couple of agents couldn't do that so in such a case a GPS is more invasive of a person privacy.
Another factor is if someone else drove the car that had the GPS attached, they would be tracked even though they are not "a person of interest". This would be problematic if you tried to use a GPS track of someones car to place a specific person at a location at any time.
In regards to Police, in their minds EVERYONE is guilty of something and its their job to catch you, and they feel its alright to use every trick in the book to get you to say something they can use against you.
Remember its "Anything you say can and will be used used against you".
Interesting to Watch. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Cops need to sleep
3) There's not a detailed electronic record of every movement
4) Not cost effective
5) Cops hate it
It's quite a bit different. Not to mention that cops tailing your car doesn't fall under the category of "electronic surveillance", and so it isn't part of the slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
And they'll just tail you night and day, just as if they had a GPS on your car, and they won't need a warrant.
You are right, but that means they need enough cops in order to get 24/7 coverage. Which means that a single cop who is looking to get something on me for some personal grudge can't do it all on his own, he has to get someone far enough up the chain of command to authorize all that manpower involved. Not only that, that much expenditure of manpower over any length of time is going to be noticed by the politicians holding the purse strings. Yes, it is still possible for a person in the right place to abuse t
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
Just wait until more electric cars are on the road requiring some type of toll or other form of tracking so that people can be sent "use taxes/road taxes" since folks aren't fueling up with liquid fuels that are normally taxed for this purpose. Then if they want to know where you've been, it's just a sopeana away. Or more than likely, the laws will be written to where all law enforcement has to do is file a request of information.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think your complaint is driven by paranoia.
First off, we're giving massive tax rebates for buying one of those, and for good reason. They eliminate almost all of the bad things that gasoline combustion causes. Which obviates the need for gasoline taxes, which will still apply to those who drive gasoline vehicles. We'll raise the taxes on them and force them into electric vehicles.
Second, it's much more efficient when the time comes simply to slap a bigger tax on registering a vehicle.
Third, it isn't il
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Gas taxes have nothing to do with "the bad things" about gasoline. Gas taxes are what is used to maintain the roads. A large part of the states Transportation budget comes from the revenue collected through gas taxes.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Gas taxes are what is used to maintain the roads. A large part of the states Transportation budget comes from the revenue collected through gas taxes.
If we go with hydrogen fuels, then obviously a tax on fuel will still be possible, and would be much easier than GPS for everyone. If we go with electric cars, then increased license and registration, increased sales tax on cars, and increased other taxes would still be an easier path to covering those expenses than GPS. If for some reason we are absolutely sold on sticking with "You pay for exactly how much you drive," I'd expect some type of correspondence with your odometer, not telling them your position at all times.
Installing a GPS in everyone's car is the most complicated and expensive way of measuring how much one has used the roads and would face significant public opposition. Politicians usually take the path of least resistance. I think it's unlikely GPS will be trotted out as a widespread policy.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you understand what the gas tax is used for. It is there to help pay for the maintenance of the roads and highway system, electric cars do not obviate the need for road maintenance. Hijacking it to push a public policy agenda is a mistake I'm not going to get into here (too far off topic). Increasing the registration tax to cover the maintenance needs places a greater portion of the burden on those who don't drive very far compared to the current method, the gas tax is not perfect for this either but those who use the roads more do pay more on average.
As far as the government holding information about you, remember that knowledge can just as easily be used to your detriment as it can to your benefit. As history shows us, trusting the government to always do the right thing doesn't tend to work out so well.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple registration tax cost based on odometer mileage solves this problem.
Increasing gasoline taxes to reflect its externalities is as close to a free market solution as we can realistically get.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New Defcon contest: odometer hacks. Plug into the little interface jack under your dash, and viola! Abatement!
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different from now?
Odometer hacking would let you increase the value of a car far more than it would let you avoid taxes.
It would also still be a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say that the government is collecting data on you. They know you bought a huge amount of diesel fuel, say you have some land and had a stump you were going to burn out. A few days later you purchase a large amout of fertilizer for revamping your garden or yard. You don't think some branch of law enforcement would knock on your door?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it didn't. It wasn't about what the government could do with the info, it was about what it could legally do with the info.
And I don't mind law enforcement knocking on the door of people who atypically amass explosive components. Those are the people they should be asking questions. And the more times it's unnecessary the better.
I would mind a lot if they knocked-IN my door for that. But to do that they need a warrant. Which moots all of these arguments, since with a warrant they can tap your phone
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Think about it. Right now people are taxed @ ~$.20 - $.30 cents a gallon in fuel taxes that in most states is already figured into the list price of the gas at pump. And gasoline taxes don't go to pay for cleaning up the environment. They go to building/maintaining roads (or at least that what the politicos say...whether it does or not is another debate)
Very few people think about the fact that the gallon of gas is really $2.30 plus $.25 in tax. No, they just see $2.55, pump and go. The cost of the tax
Re: (Score:3)
Registration can easily be taxed monthly with some months using estimates and other months requiring an odometer reading which is verified come inspection time. Simple enough and no $1000 lump sum fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the clock on a car is so unreliable that the MOT (roadworthiness test in the UK) certificate has the mileage on it, the V5 (log book or "pink slip") has a section where you can fill in the mileage at sale/transfer of ownership on it.
Trusting tax collection to a device owned and operated, maintained and presented by the person paying tax
Re: (Score:2)
Odometer tampering would be far more valuable for the purpose of selling a used car. Yet, it seems it rarely occurs.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Funny)
it's just a sopeana away.
Look, it's subpoena...or if you insist on using the Americanized form which is so ugly that most Americans don't even use it, subpena.
Sopeana sounds like a Mexican pastry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just tax the odometer mileage when you do the registration?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't hard to do with existing technology, GPS not required. Just require drivers to purchase those transmitters and put up readers along the road. Like a toll, it will tell you who drove by what.
In Maine, it was called TransPass for a while now EasyPass which works all the way down to Florida, with some pockets of resistance here and there.
Yes, as alternative fuel cars proliferate, the gas tax won't work. I predict that the government will increasingly tax truckers first, for various reasons. Then
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know what's really asinine about that kind of idea? You could just use the fucking odometer to measure usage and it'd work just fine!
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The bottom line is that for as "liberal" as Obama is coming off it makes me wonder how fucked we really are. the Tea Party has too much NeoCon blood in it to bring the GOP back around. The love affair continues on with the current idiot in the Whitehouse... Civil rights abuses are going to be winked at for generations if something isn't done in the next 2 or 3 election cycles.
We're really fucked.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse what Obama is doing with what Bush did.
Bush committed a crime by suborning those illegal wiretaps.
Obama is trying to avoid having to prosecute Bush and his administration for that crime, and to avoid having the government sued over what Bush did.
But when it comes right down to it, and he can't avoid it, that's what will happen. And it won't be Obama's fault.
Enjoy your healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
The Obama administration is continuing the practices. Stop apologizing for them. It is not necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the guy doesn't have qualms [salon.com] calling you, a U.S. citizen, a terrorist and placing you on a CIA hit list, and then try to deny your father the right to hire an attorney on your behalf, somehow I doubt he's going to think twice about tapping your phone without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
* I'm not saying Obama's policies are more evil than Bush's, but IMHO, continuing an illegal policy simply because you didn't create it is no less evil -- or at best, is only slightly less evil -- than putting such a policy in place.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
They're still bamboozled and think that "change" meant change as in "different".
They still think that democrats are different than republicans in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%, does that sound like W or any recent president?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>You've noticed that Bush is out of office now, right?
Yeah I know. In fact the idea to track us via GPS or our cellphones didn't come from Bush. It came from Obama who is just as bad.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point is that, during the Bush years, democrats were loading bemoaning Bush's wiretapping plans and whatnot, with the implicit idea that they wouldn't have done the same in his place. Now that it's happening, they're revealed as a bunch of hypocrits.
Not that this surprises me in the slightest mind you.
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
What it really exposes is that partisans are hypocrites regardless of party or ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right wing and I was outraged at most of Bushes stuff.
I spoke up plenty.
Who the fuck are you to be talking shit? You don't know the difference between neo-conservatism and conservatism.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You might be in that 1% group of conservatives that were outraged, but as a majority, right wingers went along with everything Bush did. Bush had screwed up enough by 2004 that he deserved to be voted out, and yet there was
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Remember, 'neocon' is a term invented by a leftist, and as a perjorative. No one I consider a Conservative uses that term in any other fashion, and certainly not about themselves. The Left and the uncommitted use it.
You can try and deny it, but the truth is obvious for anyone who cares to look into it. It is a common political tactic to try and define your opposition in either the least-favorable light, or into an untenable position. All sides use it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is simply a shortening of neoconservative. A political philosophy some might not agree with but certainly not solely a pejorative.
You seem to try to use left/leftist in a similar manner without really understanding what you are saying.
I would suggest you remove the log in your eye before attempting to address the speck in they eye of others.
Re: (Score:2)
I was conservative until 2004, although I started having misgivings about the Republican party back when Bush Sr. was in office, and changed my official party affiliation from "Republican" to "undeclared". Now that I've established my political preferences (i.e., I'm anything but leftist), let me say that I seriously dislike the modern neocon Republican party.
I always understood the Republicans to be in favor of limited Federal government, small budget, strong state's r
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the policies Bush supported and tell me with a straight face that any of it was liberal, or left wing. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Way to block Bush and the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
And Obama's policy on wiretaps and surveillance is left-wing? There's not a nickel's worth difference between them. this is not Left v Right, Republicans v Democrats, it is Us v Them.
You're losing this argument.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how I'm losing an argument. I never claimed Obama was a liberal, or left wing... What I did state was that Bush was a right-winger, which he is.
Re: (Score:2)
They are both far right, corporatist is what they are. It is a fringe rightist movement that seeks to blend the corporation and the state into one device ruled for the profit of the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now we have no viable alternative. The Teabaggers aren't it. Most of those people are just Republican activists trying to push us even further to the right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now we have no viable alternative. The Teabaggers aren't it. Most of those people are just Republican activists trying to push us even further to the right.
Sadly, I have to agree. My local tea party has remained loyal to the original concept of the modern tea parties, which is just to protest government intrusion in general, but many of the larger ones have become extensions of the neocons. Basically, if they create a formal organization or elect a leadership, they're in opposition to the spirit of tea parties. Without any formal leadership, the opportunity for corruption is practically nil; with leadership, practically guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it's an aisle issue. It's just that the people just haven't elected anyone to stand in their aisle.
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish people would start to understand that there's more than one dimension to politics. Who the fuck cares about imaginary "left vs. right" differences; the real concern is that both parties are skewed way too far towards authoritarianism!
Re: (Score:2)