Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices

Posted by michael on from the unwarranted-surveillance dept.

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."

5 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by wmspringer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  2. How could this be enforced? by revividus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

    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.

  3. Re:Civil liberties? by dorko · · Score: 3, Interesting
    That fact is moot in as the police had a warrant.
    BZZT! Wrong answer.

    The officers installed the GPS transponder under a "warrant authorizing a search of the vehicles for blood, hair, body fluids, fibers." Maybe I missed that lecture in my E/M fields class, but what part of the GPS signals are made up of blood, hair, body fluids or fibers?

    Other than that, I agree he is a sick bastard and I'm glad the court upheld the conviction.

  4. posting without reading? by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Read the ruling, the court makes it pretty clear.

    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.
  5. Re:No Reg Links by flonker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why doesn't /. become a NYT partner, and automatically replace all NYT links with partner links. They link to enough articles that I feel like I'm reading the NYT anyway.