Slashdot Mirror
Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices
djembe2k writes "Score one for civil liberties. The NY Times is carrying a wire story (free reg. required, yadda) reporting that the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects. A warrant actually was obtained in the case at hand, but the prosecutors argued that they hadn't really needed one, and they lost on this point. Here's the full text of the ruling."
Look here.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Honestly people, why keep linking to the "reg required" links?
NYTimes Story
Alternate story
Not sure what I think about this. On the one hand, I have to favor any ruling that increases privacy. On the other hand, what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around? Is it merely that it allows someone to be tracked without significant effort or expense, thus expanding how much information can be collected with limited resources?
Twenties Retirement
The liberty to break the law?
That's not a liberty I'm aware of.
No one wants to be tracked, but that's not what we're arguing here. GPS is publicly available information, just like court records and property deeds. The judge is making a completely arbitrary distinction and is wrong.
OTOH, do I want the police to have to wait to get a warrant before they can use this technology to trace, say, an actual violent criminal?
It's not something I've given a lot of thought to, I admit, but it seems the better this sort of technology gets, the more difficult it will become to legislate how it is used.
philcrissman.com.
It's not the job of the police to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime; that's what juries are for.
If the police couldn't use GPS for whatever reason, they'd just have someone around to tail them everywhere anyways. Using GPS is just using technology in place of someone actually being there to follow the person. I fail to see why they'd need any more of a warrant to use a GPS to track a suspect than a warrant to monitor someone.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What we're talking about here is the police actually going to your car and placing a tracker on it. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between this and, say, using an inbuilt navigation system in your car to track you.
My view is that, whereas the first option might be ok in some circumstances with a warrant, the real danger to liberties is when the second option starts to become viable. If the police are investigating a specific crime, and they have evidence that leads them to suspect you, then they will be able to convince a judge to let them track you and gain a warrant, which is pretty benign so long as proper processes are followed and there is enough transparency to monitor their activities. What would be scary would be if they could just check up on anyone, any time, because we all have GPS in our cars or phones and implanted in our brains.
What will be interesting will be to see how the two scenarios are construed by the courts: is it a more serious matter to track someone using their own GPS than it is to place a tracker on their vehicle, or vice-versa? I hope the bar is set higher for the use of someone's own GPS device, or at least set to the same height. It is all to easy to envisage a police policy arguing that there is no harm is using the GPS system to 'check' where people are without their knowledge - kinda how the compulsory location identification technology in phones is justified because it lets emergency services find idiots who phone 911 and then fail to give their location. Once there is some degree of ambiguity the system is open to all kinds of abuse. Therefore I think the best solution would be for a warrant to be required for any kind of tracking to occur.
It's great to see the law actually adapt to a new scenario with some degree of success, anyway.
Read Pynchon.
"The devices in this case were in place for approximately 2-1/2 weeks," Madsen wrote. "It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson."
The only thing preventing the police from following someone 24 hours a day for 2 1/2 weeks is the cost. It would be quite expensive to allocate a group of officers for 2 1/2 weeks. Could it be done, sure why not. Its not like its hard to follow a large metal object.
So, instead the police decide to attach an inexpensive gps tracking device to his car which a single officer can review from time to time and have other officers follow up on. If anything this is LESS intrusive since the police are not watching the suspect's moves 24hours a day, they are simply watching where his car goes.
gg judge
The prosecutors contended this was no more intrusive than having an officer tail a suspect, for which no warrant is needed.
But they assume that just because you pay taxes to drive a car, they can go up to it and modify it without your knowledge as part of a criminal investigation? That is irresponsible, and it breaks (some amendment, sleepy, can't remember). ^_^;;;
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
When ever I commit a crime, I would just search my car and set up a system that turns my car's frame into a big antenna broadcasting static on the same frequency as the GPS system.
NarratorDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
It's really about the tracking data obtained being admissible in court.
So there's a murder, a body dumped in the woods. The cop finds out through a GPS device on your car that your vehicle drove from the victims apartment to the woods right after the murder.
Without a warrant to obtain that data, the judge throws this evidence out. Otherwise it would be a violation of your rights. There's very little a cop can do to you without a warrant, they can't step onto your property, peer through your windows to see whats going on.
A more extreme example you'd see on "Law and Order", I suppose.
Potheads who grow their own are paranoid about cops patrolling the neighbourhoods with heat-sensing cameras, looking for the "hot" houses - which would be a tip that there's some lamps running in there. Or watching power bills for extra usage. They can't - they've tried and judges have thrown it out. You need a warrant first. Public property is fair game, though, and they can go through your trash once it hits the public curve.
Anyhow, that's getting off topic. Point is, this is no shock. Without a warrant a cop is limited to what he sees in public property, he can't go onto your property or through your car without permission.
With exceptions (that they love to exploit) like they can search a trunk of a car if there's a safety concern. They like to pull over suspected dealers, play "hey now I think your exhaust might be leaking, we need to look in the trunk for your safety!"... Though a good lawyer chews such actions up in court.
By and large, Judges are very pro-citizen and very anti-cop. They were all attorneys or DAs and know the games they play, and aren't impressed.
What are we talking about again? Oh yeah. GPS. Dont worry about the local LEOs slipping one into your pocket and watching you. Thats federal black helicopter shit (and if you get the feds on your case all bets are off)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This ruling was by the Washington State Supreme Court and only applies to warrants issued in the State of Washington. "There is no controlling legal authority" (as Gore once said) in the other 49 states -- so be aware (that is if you are doing anything that might cause the police to want to track you).
I was wondering if this might actually constitute tresspass to property, as they are messing with your car without your knowledge or consent and without necessarily believing that you are guilty of anything.
The police do not, for instance, have the ability to enter your home without your consent in the absence of a warrant, so how is this different? If an ordinary citizen did it they would be guilty of tresspass for sure.
Read Pynchon.
They are called license plates, they are just old school technology.
I live in Spokane where this creep killed his daughter. The cops got a warrant before they put the tracking device on his vehicle, just in case.
I'm pretty sure the WA State Supreme Court ruling was that they have to get a warrant before they put a GPS tracking device somewhere.
But I bet if somebody was a "terrorist" we can bypass warrants and judges. Thanks Patriot Acts One and Two!
When you realize that most new cars have GPS as well as cellphones, the requirement of the State to get permission to aquire the data BEFORE THE FACT is extremely important. After all, without such oversite the abuse is enourmous. Mess with the local deputy's daughter and a dead body just might be found near where you made out last night! Get the idea. You were there for way to long, so you must have commited the crime, right? Unrestricted access opens up all new ways of setting honest people up. There's nothing special about granting GPS for someone who's already a suspect and you would search their house or grounds. It's only 15 minutes of paperwork to protect our freedom!
And that's really the issue here. With the laughablely low standards for warrants these days [in car faxes, phone-a-judge, patriot? act] , is there really any reason NOT to simply follow the few procedures we have left? We expect tripliate paperwork for the simplest screw on a FAA certified aircraft, how much dicipline should we expect from a man with a GUN comming after ME or YOU! We might be KILLED too!
The article specifically mentions the Global Positioning System (GPS). So what if in a few years time, cops use Galileo? Then, if the ruling blankets satellite systems altogether, what about radio frequency pingers?
Hell, if everything electronic is banned altogether, why not attach a canister of UV florescent dye under the car and follow the trail left behind with a UV light and goggles?
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
I have to draw the line when the police move from using passive survellience and tracking to active transmitting devices on a person who has yet to be proven guilty. They want to prove something, fine. Do the footwork. Gather the evidence. Maybe even tail them if in some cases, but you do not touch the them or their property until you can prove them guilty. In theis case, I have absolutely no problem with the warrent requirement. That is unless you don't mind the police breaking into your apartment to isntall bugs because they suspect you guilty of something...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
It freaks my brain that they WEREN'T required before. Somewhere in Washington there is a guy with a reciver capable of plotting every stupid thing you do in a day. If he's got a floor plan of your house, he can tell how many times a day you take a leak.
Any kind of serious survelliance without a warrant...The only possible reason you'd want to be able to do that is so you could track people for whom a judge would refuse to give a warrant. I had my property searched WITH a warrant which had been issued because I TALKED to someone who was indicted in a crime. Guess that was too much bother for old Ashcroft. Bastard. I think he should be required to submit AT ALL TIMES to every violation of civil liberties outlined in the so-called Patriot Act...especially the one about "enemies of the state" being held in Cuba with no trial, forever. I think the founding fathers would have named him an enemy of the state.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Bzzzt. Read the case.
... '{W}hat is voluntarily exposed to the
general public and observable without the use of enhancement devices from
an unprotected area is not considered part of a person's private affairs.' ... The court has also affirmed as constitutional
searches involving sense-enhancing devices such as binoculars or a
flashlight, allowing police to see more easily what is open to public view. ... 'However, a substantial and unreasonable
departure from a lawful vantage point, or a particularly intrusive method
of viewing, may constitute a search.' ... Thus, where police used an infrared thermal device to detect heat
distribution patterns within a home that were not detectable by the naked
eye or other senses, the surveillance was a particularly intrusive means of
observation that exceeded allowable limits under article I, section 7.
Where a law enforcement officer is able to detect something at a lawful vantage point through his or her senses, no search occurs under article I section 7.
citations omitted for readability purposes
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
What is really interesting is that law enforcement officials really did "just suppose" that it was their right to use this technology to build a case without restrictions, authorization, or even explination.
The simple reason, as other posters have pointed out, is attachment of a device to a person or his possessions requires some form of interference with those possessions or the person.
Anything which involves intrusion should require a warrant.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The prosecutor had to add that in to crank up the fear level. OOO! Those bad criminals now have privacy rights. What would be a more accurate statement is, the court had expanded privacy rights for all citizens. But, of course, that doesn't get the soccer moms worried enough to ask for a repeal of the Bill of Rights.
And the argument that the cops can freely place a GPS on your car and track you because it's just like tailing you, is flawed. A much closer analogy would be to say that they can secretly place a bug on your clothing because that would be the same as following you around listening to your conversation.
GPS device thief caught by GPS
They even "get it" , that if a warrant isn't required here it isn't required at all, meaning that the government is completely free to put a GPS device on you and everyone else for the purpose of tracking everything you and they do. That is hardly freedom (the ruling even goes into why it would infringe freedom) and so the warrant is required.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Score one for civil liberties....the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects.
Which brings us to the Patriot Act, which makes this ruling totally moot if you get some feds involved that can mutter the t-word. As in "Oh yeah. I almost forgot judge that we thought he might be like a terrorist and stuff, so no warrant required." Although why even explain it to a judge when a military tribunal will do? But why bother with a tribunal when you can just hold the person indefinitely without ever charging them?
But it sure is a relief to have this one on the books. If we ever get the constitution back, it might even matter.
I suspect that the biggest use for GPS, and similar tracking technology, is for people to track stolen goods. In such cases the tracking device is in the goods. I understand that the courts look favorably on this use of technology.
Seems to me that this story only applies to cases of police intruding to install devices. This sounds quite reasonable to me, although I admit I can see reasons why the police would want to be able to install a tracking device when they do not have time to get a warrant.
For example, imagine if the police were in a high speed chase. Rather than risking bystanders, if the police had a good picture of the driver, then tagged the car with a tracking device and let the car go. In such cases, the tracking device is not really gathering evidence but simplifying the act of catching a person who committed a crime.
IANAL, but I could see a court deciding that the use of such technologies to track suspects is okay, but the actual evidence gathered by the devices are not permitted in court as evidence.
Get a private investigator to do it. PIs are not subject to the Bill of Rights.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
roses are red violets are blue spaghetti smells good you smell like poo
Important safety poop
Poop comment
Ruling on GPS pooping devices
joystick poop
Once upon a time, in a land called.....POOP!
Use the poop button
Check those POOPRLs!
Logged-in users aren't forced to poop
poop sandwich
poop cocktail
poop kabobs
poop smoothy
poop on a stick
candied poop
caramel dipped poop
Poopview
poop.
poop
GPS jammer pictures
If you don't have a warrant, you can't search or seize. I think that attaching a GPS device is equivalent to an undeclared search. Specifically, they are searching for your whereabouts at any time they desire (again, unannounced). At least in a physical tail situation you can confront the investigators.
Also, it encourages entering it into evidence, which is only circumstantial.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I would not make note of a black Crown VIc with antennae following me for 2 weeks.
Okay, I get to work a few minutes before the place opens (welfare job at the time), I carried a purse at the time (yeah, yeah), well, some cop goes by, sees me standing around, passes once, comes back around and starts to question me.
Meanwhile my immediate supervisor shows up and sees what's going on and explains things to the cop, and he goes away.
Meh. There's worse police stories around here. The police force in Niagara Falls, NY is teh fux0r.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
It's a pity that the UK doesn't get it. Here the government have reintroduced the Snoopers charter so your mobile phone location (as well as your email, telephone, website logs) can all be accessed automatically (i.e. without a warrent) not only by the police, but also by departments like the fire service, local council, etc.
In true 1984 double speak, allowing more departments access to this information has been described as "imposing further restrictions" on the use of existing powers.
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Implicit in the "No one is free to break the law." argument is the "If you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to hide." argument.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Hardly off topic, dumbass moderator.
Just because you don't like the post doesn't mean you HAVE to mod it down, even when you can't find an appropriate category to mod down with.
Go get a life, or die in your parent's basement with your dick in your hand.
coming soon to/already on, yOUR desktop/network?:
.compliant. if you think that you are already compliant, & it's somebody else, consider this a chance to rat them out, to gain re-admission to the onLIEn wwwhirled again, (c SourceForgerIE(tm) all rights reserved, you have none).
/.puppets.
.asp on that. when the lights come up, there'll be no going back, & no where to hide.
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, we don't care.
alert: you've been lax in yOUR payper liesense 'upgrades', you're out.
alert: there's a rumour that you've been badmouthing/lowrating the corepirate nazis, & the naykid furor of the felonious kingdumb, you're out.
alert: looks like yOUR kids have been listening to music again, you're out.
alert: although you appear to be browsing regularly, you've failed to make a purchase recently, you're out.
consider this a chance to stare at your monitor screen, & plan how you can become
etc... lookout bullow. these foulcurrs haven't a clue yet, as to what J. Public can do, once he's peaced off. they live in a tiny wwworld, consisting of only their owned greed/fear based goals. they should get ready to see the light.
we're building a vessel that floats on almost any suBStance.
as to the newclear power/planet/population rescue initiative:
it's all free (as in survival), & available immediately to you/all of US.
as you can maybe already see, yOUR survival/success is not the least bit dependent on the gadgets/combinations of the greed/fear based corepirate nazis, & their phonIE ?pr? ?firm? buyassed
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet (somtimes that means not buying anything, a notion previously unmentioned buy the greed/fear/war mongers). seek others of non-aggressive/positive behaviours/intentions. stop wasting anything/being frivolous. that's the spirit.
investigate the newclear power plan. J. Public et AL has yet to become involved in open/honest 'net communications/commerce in a meaningful way. that's mostly due to the MiSinformation suppLIEd buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup FraUD execrable, etc...
truth is, there's no better/more affordable/effective way that we know of, for J. to reach other J.'s &/or their respective markets.
the overbullowned greed/fear based phonIE marketeers are self eliminating by their owned greed/fear/ego based evile MiSintentions. they must deny the existence of the power that is dissolving their ability to continue their self-centered evile behaviours.
as the lights continue to come up, you'll see what we mean. meanwhile, there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the planet/population rescue (from the corepirate nazi/walking dead contingent) initiative.
EVERYTHING is going to change, despite the lameNT of the evile wons. you can bet your
we weren't planted here to facilitate/perpetuate the excesses of a handful of Godless felons. you already know that? yOUR ONLY purpose here is to help one another. any other pretense is totally false.
pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example). that's quite affordable, & leads to insights on preserving life as it should/could/will be again. everything's ALL about yOUR motives.
take care, we're here for you.
Now I am looking forward to the new 3G phones, I just played with one yesterday. Video streaming that worked and other fun stuff. It also had GPS so you could see where you are but someone else could request to get your coordinates and it would show up on their map. Of course on my phone it asked if it was ok to send that information to the requesting phone. But one could fear that it would be possible to request it without your knowledge.
But then again, if you were proffesionel criminal, you would not carry it around if it was a issue. Only the stupid would.
that old tune title (hope we don't get 'busted' for using it) "make the world go away", takes on new/varied meaning in these times.
the prevalent notion that 'everything will be taken care of' without yOUR knowledge/participation is insidiously misleading.
in our estimation, the biggest 'threat' against US (aside from continuing to fire bullinedly into the 'crowd', whilst demanding applause), would be a failure to recognize our 'role' in the problems. we're victims for sure, but whoare ALL the perpetrators (see also: corepirate nazi puppets), gets lost in the ?pr? ?firm? generated propaganda spew.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. seek others of non-aggressive behaviours/intentions. that's the spirit.
the lights ARE coming up now. pay attention (to yOUR heart, for example). that could lead to new ways (see also: newclear power plan) of thinking about/dealing with, the needs/rights of others EVERYWHERE on the planet.
having the attention span of a gnat, & similar ambitions, might be ok if you are just planning to be a consumer/type one liners.
take care of each other, you're all we've got. we're here for you. get ready to see the light.--
worth reading, again, with feeling.
"It takes a long time to teach the judges, legislators, and public to understand technology. Right now, they're getting a strong dose of "education" on the Internet's threats and harms, and not hearing so much about its potential. Shouts of "piracy" often outweigh consideration of how we might communicate with more open media formats, but judges like Stephen Wilson in the Grokster case are starting to listen through the shouting. We're encouraging more people to think about how the law shapes technological innovation, how the technology itself can foster creativity, and then to do something about it to advance the public interest."--
"The stability of the large world house which is ours will involve a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing"-oriented society to a "person"-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A civilization can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy."
No, I did not read the article.
It is just some backlash against a corporate agenda.
May these backlashes wash over my body like waves on a beach.
Sweet.
Why not add more paperwork and delays while the next low life scum readies a bomb in a shopping mall or school.
Yippee
for the use of thermal imaging cameras, previously used to detect indoor cultivation of Marijuana.
IIRC, the decision came down from the SCOTUS a year or so ago, split 5/4; Scalia wrote the majority decision. It involved a case where police used a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera.
Many cultivators of marijuana use enormous grow lights inside their homes. Despite the fact that they cover the inside of the home with aluminum foil (ostensibly to maximize their grow lights), such operations are easily detectable from the street with a simple thermal imaging device. The SCOTUS ruled this was an invasion of privacy.
At technology increases the ability to spy, the court seems to have kept pace... Bravo.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
1: Open fuel fill door. (Do not remove gas cap.
2: Insert GPS device. DO NOT AFFIX THE DEVICE TO THE VEHICLE.
3: Close fuel fill door.
4: Track the suspect withour a warrant, as you did not attatc the device to the vehicle, you simply placed it INSIDE the vehicle.
Please note that this only works until they suspect fills up and finds the device laying atop his cas cap. Please make sure the suspect has a full tank first. Unless it is me. Make sure I'm on "E" first.
Moreover, the intrusion into private affairs made possible with a GPS device is quite extensive as the information obtained can disclose a great deal about an individual's life. For example, the device can provide a detailed record of travel to doctors' offices, banks, gambling casinos, tanning salons, places of worship, political party meetings, bars, grocery stores, exercise gyms, places where children are dropped off for school, play, or day care, the upper scale restaurant and the fast food restaurant, the strip club, the opera, the baseball game, the 'wrong' side of town, the family planning clinic, the labor rally. In this age, vehicles are used to take people to a vast number of places that can reveal preferences, alignments, associations, personal ails and foibles. The GPS tracking devices record all of these travels, and thus can provide a detailed picture of one's life.
By this philosophy, any similar tracking of one's on-line "travels" without a warrant would be just as revealing. In this day and age, a person can visit internet locations that easily reveal his/her "preferences, alignments, associations, personal ails and foibles." I don't know if the court had this association in mind when this concept was drafted, but it does seem to apply...I'm a cop and as long as I obtain a warrant based on facts, I feel that I am protected, and not hindered, by the warrant. Rather than resent oversight, I welcome the protection that it offers. Shit doesn't always roll downhill.
And furthermore, many police cars now have GPS units on board. While it feels like big bro (no more leisurely donut breaks), it also allows other cops to respond more quickly when one needs backup but can't transmit their location due to the fact that they are getting their ass kicked (or worse).
Three people have already found GPS devices secretly planted on their cars. Two of them were animal rights activists, the third was a girlfriend. One of the activists was installing a trailer hitch and found the device, then two more were quickly found on the other vehicles.
y .html
This will probably be getting alot more common as these things get smaller and cheaper.
More info here:
boulderweekly.com/archive/071703/coverstor
From reading the ruling, I believe this case only has applicability in Washington state, since the court cited the Washington constitution as the reason for its ruling. Washington state is more liberal and its constitution is thus more respectful of certain individual liberties, but this doesn't mean Texas can't do things differently... or can it?
Currently hooked on AMP
Very interesting. Ingrained into me by the Boy Scouts many years ago is that the justice system in these United States holds that "a person is innocent until proven guilty".
Following this logic and the above quote, we can deduce that Mr. Korsmo holds that the court expanded privacy rights for the private citizen, Mr. Korsmo and every other resident of Washington (and presumably for the residents of the rest of the States, as well).
I suspect the truth is (if someone from Washington more well-read on the Constitution [of Washington, for the non-domestic readers] could verify) the court refused to improperly and illegally limit a private citizen's liberties. The argument goes that the Federal Constitution describes the governements authority and the method in which it may limit what a citizen may do (and in some cases, the content of what it may not attempt to limit). It is quite clear that anything that is not limited by law, the government is not allowed to control. Since no constitution may violate the federal constitution, it seems that the Washington government has not been permitted to to limit its citizens (neither by law, nor likely would that law be permitted under the constitution of Washington) by allowing its law enforcement (executive branch) to use GPS this way. It would seem that Mr. Kormsa doesn't understand the difference between suspect -- or perhaps that he is making a public, political pronouncement to encourage the public to back some law.
[Perhaps I am wrong, but it makes me wonder how I would understand the constitution had I not slept through Civics classes so long ago.]
Were it only a jurisdictional issue, you'd be dead on, and having the Washington State precedent could be of some bearing in other states. The problem with appealing to this decision elsewhere is that the actions were found to be in contravention of a privacy guarantee in the Washington State Constitution, not the search and seizure provisions of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So unless other states have similar language in their constitutions (and a similar case-law interpretation of that provision), this still isn't very useful outside the Pacific Northwest.
I'm too lazy to google the subject at the moment, but I do vagly also remember a case in washington regarding the leaving of surveillance equipment. Someone was nice enough to leave a camcorder in the girls locker room at the Kingdome for the benifit of recording images of the cheerleaders changing. While this was considered to be in bad form, and generally accepted as being illegal, the only means they had the procucte the guy was under the wiretapping laws, as in the video wasn't the problem it was the onboard mic on the camera that was the *criminal* act.
While police would need a warrent to plant a camera / recording device, it seems most interesting the fact that this prior precident might make it perfectly legal for any old joe who has legit access somewhere to plant a recording device, so long as it's not audio.
Also, i'm somewhat shocked the fact that this issue has not popped up before. It's not like we didn't have radio tracking devices before.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Now if we can get cell phones classified as GPS tracking devices, we'd be making progress.
I think the grandparent post was joking...maybe...
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Anyway, not that I really think that I'll ever have one attached to my car... But given that I'm a radical, i.e., I believe in a constitutionally limited government and that people have inalienable rights that can be inconvienient to fascists like Asscroft, I might be targeted for such a device in the future. Any tips on searching one's car for such devices?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
I'd just like to think that someone in the private sector would do it better. I'd personally use an advantech biscuit PC 486 or 586 or something, and use PC/104-bus modules to get a PC card slot and a GPS device, then slip the cellular modem into the PC card slot. Ta-da! Now just install dos, card services, and a neat little program I could probably whip up in assembler within a week, and bango, the little computer will be calling a number, talking to a modem, and giving me updates on your position as often as I like.
Total cost? Probably about a grand for a good antenna, good batteries, the biscuit PC, a nice enclosure, some small rare earth magnets. And you know what else? Mine will be about half the size of that crap, using all off-the-shelf components. In fact if I applied myself, I bet I could install it in such a way that you would never know it was there, even if you looked under your vehicle, unless you knew something about cars.
I mean, think about lojack. That's been around for a long time now, and it fits in a box the size of a small car stereo amplifier. You really think someone willing to spend a grand or two can't toss one of these together? And the more money you're willing to spend, the cheaper it gets. I bet you could just contract some korean company to make you a finished product the size of a palmtop computer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This plot will be discovered by a really sharp defense attorney who will note that the police couldn't have placed the device there when they said they did because the defendant was out of town or something.
And by the way, how can a GPS antenna which needs to see the sky be hidden? Maybe they wired it into the regular AM/FM antenna?