Slashdot Mirror
Man Stalks Ex-girlfriend With GPS
grouchomarxist writes "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.
This has also been covered briefly on Engadget and more thoroughly on BoingBoing, where links to the original article and the District Attorney's report are provided.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
"transmitting a signal each minute to a satellite." WOW - this guy had a SATELLITE too? ...Why does the News continually report GPS technology as sending data TO a satellite - GPS receivers are completely passive.
Either our media/news is completely ignorant, or they assume that all their readers are completely ignorant.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
See this archive on The Smoking Gun from a man arrested for doing the same thing in 2002. I guess someone else just took the hint and tried it again 2 years later.
;)
"Meet Paul Seidler. The 42-year-old Wisconsin man was just busted on charges that he conducted a high-tech stalking campaign directed at a former girlfriend. Kenosha police allege that Seidler placed a Global Positioning System tracking device under the hood of the woman's car and began monitoring her movements."
Hey, it's a slow weekend, so I think a near-dupe of not-so-cutting-edge news is forgivable
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
She was his ex-girlfriend so that does make it pretty different. you could say you have a right to modify your own property and track your wife and if she has nothing to hide then why should she have a problem with it? but why should she have to be put in a situation like that? its no different from government cameras in your home - if you have nothing to hide, why should you care? but why should you be put in that position? there are all sorts of conflicting rights going on here and the whole thing needs some looking at.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
That was a ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court (the state I live in) and I remember reading about it. This ruling has no effect in the other 49 states or on the Feds. While the ruling may influence other judges, the Washington State Constitution generally has more citizen friendly rules on privacy and related matters than the U. S. Constitution or most state constitutions, which may narrow the applicability of the reasoning in this case to other judicial venues.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.