Slashdot Mirror
Police Secretly Planting GPS Devices On Cars
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 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
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
Take a device that detects whether or not there is a GPS sending and receiving info, and you find it in a car, dump it in some predetermined location with counter measures, and lead the cops to a trap? Bye bye cops...
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?
I don't see the problem.
If you RTFA, you'll see a poll asking if people approve this tactic. As of right now, 55% do.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
If they have a warrant, what's the diff? Seems cheaper and better to me. When someone is legitimately suspected of committing a crime, a warrant is able to provide for phone tapping, search of premises, etc.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
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.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
Googling around, it seems most of these things just store GPS location data and are recovered later and played back.
It will be used until the tables are turned and the GPS devices are placed on police cars by the "terrorist" or should I say concerned "badguys" taxpayers. Whats next mandatory GPS implanted in your kids, A George Orwell world - Think about it.
That's the Transparent Society solution, for sure.
i bet most people wouldnt care if the gps gave them free directions. free gps for everyone!
At 2:44 PM John Doe visited a strip bar, after stopping by an erotic book store....
Or.... at 4:54 John Doe visited a book store specialising in conspiracy oriented books. Security cameras and credit card transactions acquired by warrantless NSA surveillance show leaving with David Icke books. John Doe then visits local Dennis Kucinich campaign headquarters. Flag as national security threat for possible detention without habeas corpus, speedy trail by jury, charges, evidence or right to legal representation, and for indefinite incarceration and water boarding at Guantanamo Bay.
They have been doing this for over 10 years.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The article on one page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081203275_pf.html
These things might help an investigation, but the data could not be used as evidence. How could they prove that someone didn't pull the device off the car it was planted on and carry it around for a while?
For me, the problem is that surveillance is initially presented as a solution to a problem, such as the example used in the article. As time progresses we dont think of protecting our own interests because there is a degree of selfishness involved in how we assume that we wont be affected, because we dont cause trouble. However as time has shown, some of these tactics/developments begin to overlap with the ability for others to make use of the information provided by it. i.e. the conveniece of credit cards and the ultimate exploitation of people racking up debt and paying interest. Furthermore the subsequent rfid chips which are now penetrating the market and making our lives so much easier. I dont even have to swipe anymore! Then, take the instance of rfid's being mandatory in every single product carried in a walmart. Well two and two together, now a major company can track what you buy, when you buy it, and your general disposable income habits. To some that may be private information, to others, useful in efficiently providing goods and services when needed. As long as we continue letting the intial idea pass of "its ok since they're using it to fight crime or are making our lives easier" we will continue to relenquish some of the information we once saw as private or personal. If you're ok with police illegally placing them on cars to keep the system "well", without a warrant, then you are stating that you are trusting their judgement in those actions, even if it means something different to them down the line.
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.
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 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 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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It is quite clear that this tracking indeed is search for which a warrant is required under the constitution. This is a type search which was not envisioned at the time the founders wrote the constitution and far more more dangerous and frightening than they likely imagined. They are spinning in their graves for certain. We are seeing grave risks to the very threat to our freedom by tyranny, worse than what the founders of the US had feared. The way everything people can do can be monitored tracked and then data mined would have shocked and deeply disturbed them if they were alive to see this. We should be very concerned about these dangerous trends.
As I understand it, GM has been installing On-Star in all their verticals for some time. On-Star has GPS capabilities and also transmits audio. Since no one forces one to use the technology (one could cut the wires etc.) I don't think a warrant would be required in those cases.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
one could cut the wires etc.
I'm interested if anybody has information on how to do this. Actually, I'd rather co-opt their CDMA hands-free speakerphone for my own use, but I don't know how to get an ESN off it or implement dialing. Bluetooth FTW.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'd leave it at my garage. The perfect alibi, the police themselves would testify I never left my home while whatever they were investigating happened.
If I add my GPS tracker to a GPS to find out who is using GPS on me, when it leaves my car, I am simply acting to investigate something on my property and if it turns out that it is a stalker, I am justified. In any case, if it is in my possession it seems it would be mine to do what I please with. I hardly think planting things in my pocket constitutes theft by my action.
Assuming the proper warrant is in place, this will catch stupid criminals.
The smart ones are aware of this technology and will use it to their advantage. Find the gizmo on your car. As long as you are just running (legal) errands, leave it there. When you go out to make your midnight connection, you relocate it to a friend's (or stranger's) vehicle headed to another location. When you are done with your business, you recover the unit and stick it back on your own car. The cops have a record of you traveling to one location while you are doing business elsewhere. Instant alibi.
Have gnu, will travel.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a drugrunner, sexual predator, money launderer, etc. However, does any company sell a GPS signal detector that could be used to determine if a signal is coming from your car? Some sort of little box that would light up or spike a needle if such a signal was found... Now, I know that there are a lot of vehicles emitting GPS signals, so it would have to look for a very localized signal.
Of course, such a device in the hands of a criminal would easily tip them off if/when they are being tracked by the police. That person could then take the appropriate counter-measures to throw off the investigation...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
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.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Well, how can people fight back against this? Easy:
Secretly plant GPS trackers on police cars. Then, use the data to see:
1) How much time cars spent at coffee shops,
2) How much time cars spend at fast food restaurants,
3) How much time cars spend idle during a shift,
3) How much time cars spend idle at night,
4) How much time cars spend patrolling high-crime areas,
5) How much time cars spend patrolling low-crime areas,
6) How much time cars spend chatting it up instead of patrolling,
7) How much time cars spend in certain areas,
8) How much time cars spend sitting at the station, rather than patrolling.
Police agencies can claim that you need a license to perform investigations on them, but you can point out that they need a warrant to investigate you. So, seeing as how "After-The-Fact" court challenges permit such surveillance, you can say that the court challenges also permit you to do the same without one, since a warrant is also a license.
If you personally release the information, you have to defend yourself against unlicensed investigation. But, if you release it anonymously, not only will you truly embarrass the department, but you will probably get enough publicity where agencies will shy away from using such tactics if they now they could be humiliated on a national, if not global level.
So what if they caught violent criminals and drug dealers. What good is catching 1 suspect when you had to track 10 Honest Joes?
Honest civilians CAN'T:
1) Carry firearms without a permit. (Impossible to obtain in most of California),
2) Carry a knife without a permit,
3) Defend their property (In California, you have to make an attempt to leave before you can use any force against an intruder/criminal),
4) Defend yourself against an intruder without considering the lawsuits you can be liable for from the attacker/criminal/intruder.
California is geared to put the law on the criminal's side. Our legislators think it's better to let the police handle it, even when in most cases the criminal will never be caught and you'll never get your stuff back. If you want to move here, get ready to bend over for the criminals and politicians (thy are pretty much the same thing, anyway).
Of course, their will be departments who will cite the cost of fuel when it comes to actively patrolling an area. All you need to say is "Get out and walk". If an officer is incapable of doing foot patrol, then how is he capable of being a police officer? I know plenty of officers who used to walk beats. It CAN be done. Plus, when an officer walks a beat, he spends more time in a given location, rather than just driving by for a second or two. It's easy to hide from a driving by in a car, but it's much harder to hide from one walking by you.
At my University, there are always officers out patrolling the campus. CSU Monterey Bay, where I attend, is a *massive* campus, and everybody, even cops, have to drive the 3 miles between graduate/employee/student houses ("East Campus") and main campus. But when cops are in the main campus area, where the dorms, residence halls, and undergraduate apartments are, they do alot of footwork. Even at night, they are always patrolling the entire campus. East Campus is so far away, the only practical way to get there is to drive, YET they still very actively patrol that area nonetheless, even during the quiet summer sessions. Officers even eat with us, chat and joke it up with us, and have a very prominent personal and physical presense. Unfortunately, this is not the case with most city and municipal departments, where most of law enforcement's time is spent patrolling the break room for truant donuts and "hot" coffee.
I'd rather have to carry a weapon and deal with a criminal personally (even if I end up losing), than let Big Brother shove a leash up the public's ass.
Only Barney Fife needs a satellite to do his work for him.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
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.
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 (the local eBay replacement).
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
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?
Given the less than ideal state of this world, with the criminal elements that still florishes and the ever spreading threat of terrorism, the government the law enforcement agencies are really grasping here in many ways.
The fundamental problem is that our laws are not updated quickly enough for the new realities and challenges that are facing this world.
Now, say you are a completely innocent person, no crimes, no infractions. Do you really care if Big Brother watches over you? If you don't participate in any illegal activities, then, really, where is the harm? After all, the good of the one cannot always outweigh of the good of the many. "yeah, cheap Star Trek-like reference here" :)
Seriously, since it's their job to protect us from threats, the authorties require ways of not only stopping threats and crimes, but also, in preventing them whenever possible.
So, our individual freedom and our right to privacy, must bend a bit, in order to ensure that the society we live in, is as safe as possible.
So, GPSing potential suspects, is that ok without a warrent? well, yes, I think so.
I know that in the US, Canada and England, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I know.
And, when you look it in that light, then, this does violate that principle, this I agree.
But then again, if the authorities "suspect" a person of planning a crime or suspect they have already committed one, we need to give them the leverage they require to perform their duties, and to investigate.
And to err on the side of prevention is certainly without a doubt even more beneficial, especially in terrorist threats.
In the end, truly innocent and law abiding citizens, really shouldn't have anything to fear.
Note: there are cases, where innocent people are falsely identified and accused of misdeeds, I can see that as a counter-argument to the above statement. Obviously, no system is perfect, and improvement is required by all forms of law enforcement agencies to further improve their investigative techniques so that they will not and/or are less likely to falsely accuse an innocent person of a felony this person is not responsible for.
Truckers. Via CB radio.
The police used to hate CBers because avoiding speed traps used to be as simple as listening to your CB. When a CBer passes a speedtrap, he broadcasts his location to anyone within listening distance.
Now, there are internet sites which track speed traps. Information is power, webcams are cheap. We might as well turn our own cameras toward the street.
I'm not quite sure why everyone is so up in arms about this, when the police have been able to track you - and even bug your conversations - with your own cellphone. Sure, you can take out the battery, but then what's the point of carrying a cell in the first place?
Chances are, the next car you buy will include the ability for the police to track you with the vehicle's own GPS. If you get the bluetooth option, they'll be able to bug your car, too. That is, if you're one of the few people left on the planet without a cell phone.
For the truly paranoid, I'm sure there are some relatively easy ways to detect if you've been bugged:
The real problem I see in all of this is not the surveillance per se, but rather, the attitude of suspicion and outright hostility the police have toward the general public, and the exercise of our God-given freedoms. The surveillance society would be a moot point if our justice system actually acquitted the innocent reliably. Now, it seems as if law enforcement is purely arbitrary and capricious, and that, combined with effortless surveillance and the availability of lethal force is a recipe for disaster.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
with what's happening in Arkansas. No, not the assassination of that congressman, but rather what's happened in the small town of West Helena, Arkansas.
They have a crime problem there and the government imposed a "curfew" that eventually ended up becoming what is practically all out martial law. 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.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
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
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
So will scanners that can monitor 1575.42 (the GPS frequency) be outlawed?
In the 90's, drug dealers used cellular phones (and probably cordless, too...) ..
but as it became apparent that they werent secure, these 'one time use' prepaid
cell phones became popular
What will the criminals do to circumvent this? A scanner could be had relatively
cheaply.
In terms of privacy issues, it seems like there are a number of cases where this
was very useful, and indeed did catch a criminal. However, being suspicious of people
with power, and especially of cops with high school diplomas, it seems very easy for
it to be abused - GPS transmitters for consumers are pretty cheap, and for the police
it might become so commonplace that they could use it on *anyone*..
"I don't like that guys looks .. I'm going to throw GPS 443 on him and see where he goes .."
Maybe devices that jam 1575.42 will be created. Or devices that send out false information. I found little about this in a cursory google search, does anyone
else have any more information on this?
Oh. And if I found one, its either getting dissected, or sold on ebay in another country.. But how many criminals will think (or have thought, since they seem to have
been doing this for several years now...) to check their car for locators?
Man, the future will be way more futuristic than we previously envisioned ..
If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
Time to make an oversized tinfoil hat for my car.
Remember that 55% were dumb enough to reelect bush in 2004 too.
There are things dumber still:
The Dems who nominated John F Kerry as a viable candidate. Kerry? Gore? You gotta be kidding!
I see plenty of armchair "geniuses" who criticise politics. Seldom do the same try to stand up and do something about it. (e.g. A lot of people talked about doing their own Unix like OS. Linus grabbed the CPU by the bits and produced something viable.)
If anyone with real leadership threw his/her hat in the ring, he/she would be a shoe-in for this election.
This election?
Personally, I'm leaning more and more to the famous war hero pilot who was shot down over France in his Sopwith Camel.
If they attach something to your car, it decreases your MPG for transporting their device. It seems that it would be either Theft of Services (transportation) or theft (gas used to transport it).
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.
from Wikipedia under Community Property:
Joint ownership is automatically presumed by law in the absence of specific evidence that would point to a contrary conclusion for a particular piece of property.[1] The community property system is usually justified by the idea that such joint ownership recognizes the theoretically equal contributions of both spouses to the creation and operation of the family unit.[2]
So, unless the wife was claiming sole ownership or these events occurred in a non-community property jurisdiction, he *IS* half-owner of the car *even if he not on the title*!
IANAL, but this seems to me that 4th amendment applies in this case -- specifically due to CO-ownership.
If she can take half, then he (implicitly) owns the other half... Something does not smell right here...
It keeps track of your position to two meters, and is recorded by the phone companies - the same ones given Telecom Immunity. The only difference is it's not real time, but the fact is, most people's movements are already being recorded.
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 difference except it costs much less and is more discreet.
There, fixed that for ya.
I know, who cares about spelling? Complaining about orthography is commonly regarded as politically incorrect. Yada yada yada.
So, if you want to shorten difference to diff, I guess you're just lazy, so, whatever...
But the fact that nobody on this thread so far (at least as far as I can see with my threshold set at -1) has managed to spell discreet correctly... that bothers me a bit. Seriously, look it up. There is a difference between discrete and discreet.
Damn, English isn't even my first language, and it hurts even me to see it butchered on Slashdot all the time!
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.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
..to be able to know when the odd deer is going to be there jumping out in the road, or someone's dog, or cow that busted out of the fence, or some lumber or a ladder across the road that someone dropped off their truck and didn't see fall out, or fallen tree limbs or big rocks off the adjacent hill and a lot of etc. Or my fav I hit while on a motorcycle, a lot of cow crap on top of acorns. Like ball bearings on slick ice.
Just because your machine can do it, and you can do it on a closed track, does not mean it is safe to do double the speed limit on random roads, especially rural roads. A lot of times it isn't safe to *do* the speed limit if the road is the least bit twisty and has blind turns in it without a lot of visual notice. The hospitals and cemeteries are filled up with evel kniebel wannabes treating public roads like race tracks. Ya, it's fun, and possible..sometimes. Sometimes it just ain't. And unless you are psychic enough to win Randi's prize, you never know when it is or isn't.
This is one that no spell checker will catch-- well, at least until we get context-sensitive languages in computation:
Discrete: Distinct, consisting of separate things; not continuous (discrete mathematics deals primarily with integers or rationals (?)* as opposed to real numbers; compare y = Fibonacci(x) to y = x^2).
Discreet: Prudent, modest, unobtrusive. Think stealth or camouflage, and you have the general idea.
* Depends on whether rationals are countable; too lazy and tired to do the proof either way.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
I see your point in the whole no reasonable expectation of privacy.. and yes, it makes sense that by its very nature, being in public means you really dont have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Great. Where does anyone get the right to touch my property?
Dosen't this basically mean any property thats in public is free game for whatever we feel like doing to it as long as we dont deface or destroy it?
Hell, why stop at GPS? Ill make a magnetic potato holder and cook my dinner on your tailpipe. Maybe since I can see your door, thats public enough, Ill stick a poster of David Hasselhoff on it.. (although maybe a small one you wont notice).
Point is.. to me it seems more about my rights to my possessions and not so much about following me around in public.
Don't know about the police but Spider-Man has been doing this for years.
Bad analogies guys. For you, a private citizen, following a police officer or other official while in performance of their duties is illegal. Tagging another private citizen's or elected official's car or person with a tracking device is seen as stalking and can at the least end with a restraining order against you. And, lets face it, they are not randomly tagging people's cars in hopes of finding a crime. They are tagging cars of people who are being investigated for crimes that have been committed and/or are continually being committed. Big difference in my opinion.
If I found such a device on my car, I'm not sure whether I'd destroy it, stick it on the next cop car I saw parked in my neighborhood, or drop it in a mailbox to my congressman, postage due.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Your honor, I have no idea what the officer is talking about. I have nothing to hide and so I would not have cared if I was being tracked, but I have no idea about any tracking device. Perhaps the officer is mistaken? The day he says he planted it, there was another car next to me with the same color. Maybe the officer made a mistake?
free gps
I have secretly hidden some mispelled words in this post. Can you find them?
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.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/13/nz_snooping_farce/
When a target in Central Otago found a tracker on his car he tried to sell it through the TradeMe auction site. The plods had the auction pulled.
I think in the end he was charged with theft and most of the details suppressed.
.
You can't begin with the assumption that the GPS was installed without a warrant. It would be even more dangerous to assume that you were being tracked because of some minor traffic offense.
You can be the good citizen who reports the incident to the police - and there it will probably end - or you can do something irretrievably geek and stupid.
That won't play well if you find yourself in a courtroom somewhere down the road.
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?
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
The judicial system is your last defense. When they fail to protect your rights, the time for peaceful reckoning is past.
I like the cut of your jib, sir, but actually, the 2nd amendment is your last defense.
The way I look at this is that the car with the GPS on it is like a...car see? With a device. On it.
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.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
the US is steadily moving towards a police state!
Ever seen Enemy of the Statethe correct response if you find one of these is to drive to Washington D.C and place it on a powerful politican's car. Then call him up and let him know he is being illegally tracked. Watch the fireworks. The police will of course deny it, but then he'll say you're to stupid to keep track of your own equipment and hopefully pass a bill with heavy penalties against this
I like the cut of your jib, sir, but actually, the 2nd amendment is your last defense.
While this is great in theory, I suspect that the police (and/or the government) would be even more unhappy about you exercising your 2nd amendment rights then they would be with you attaching a tracking device to a cop car.
Reality has a liberal bias
The term is called ambulance chasing. And as far as I know it is illegal in most if not all states.
Sorry, I hosed that pretty badly: it shouldn't be legal for anyone to do it without a court order.
When you're let's say "actively" defending your 2nd amendment rights, the government's happiness or approval is no longer of any concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Bedard&oldid=214328637
Suppose you move it from your car to another car, without the police knowing about it.
Now they see "you" going all kinds of suspicious places, because your randomly picked car belongs to a mob wife.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Then really in city and zone where bike / people goes, the speed limit should be 5 to 10 km h-1. Problem solved.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The term is called ambulance chasing.
...and if I'm not a lawyer/doctor hawking my services to accident victims, then no, it's not...
In Texas, "ambulance chasing" seems to be limited to "lawyers and chiropractors"...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
The DEA used this on me in 1991. Back then, only the military and FBI, DEA, ect had stuff like GPS. One of the agents told me that " We had to use it, because you drove so fast that we could not follow you ! " Ha !! Think about this though : They were using technology that would be common in 15 years, which means that they are using stuff now that will be common in 15 years..... I can only imagine what they are using NOW :)
Most police cars have GPS equipped nowadays anyway. The logs are public record.
In my experince, a constant 10 mph difference is not a hazard. It may be annoying to those who want to drive faster, but usually the faster drivers can spot it early on and slow down.
It is far more dangerous if a car suddenly slows down or changes the lane. Especially if the following car is already close.
C - the footgun of programming languages
...the time for peaceful reckoning is past.
There plenty of room for peaceful reckoning. It may not be legal reckoning however.
Example, if I want to prove the importance of privacy to some politician that say you shouldn't care if you have nothing to hide. Publish proof of his/hers internet traffic... We all know there is likely to plenty of things he wants secret in that. Or in this case GPS the car, collect proof and publish where they have been driving. Cheating on your wife/husband may be perfectly legal, but i bet he/she wants to keep it a secret.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
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.)
What if the no expectation of privacy in public argument is wrong? Someone can eavesdrop on my conversation in a mall but what if I whisper in a friends ear? Just because I'm in public I loose my expectation of a private conversation? They can overhear my cell phone conversation while I'm in public but they can't tap my cell call. Why? What if I sneak out of the house dressed in a wig with a fake mustache to hide my identity? I don't have that right? I can't conceal my identity because I'm in public? We had that argument here in Georgia during the Anonymous protest against Scientology. It's illegal to conceal your identity in public in this state and everybody was up in arms over it. What if I'm reading a letter but have my back turned so others can't see? How about clothing? I'm in public so therefore I have no right to cover myself?
It's my opinion just being in public, that fact alone, is not enough to release me of any expectation of privacy. There are times I expect a whole lot of privacy while I'm in public. I believe the whole "while in public" argument is a fallacy. An argument of convenience. Maybe that long established law is wrong.
-[d]-
Either that, or we get rid of warrants altogether and let cops do whatever they want. If we as a society decide that the inconvenience of warrants are an excessive impediment to law enforcement, then we should just remove due process and oversight altogether. Having the need for warrants in place, via the constitution and accepted law, and then ignoring that need, only undermines respect for law and for the police. Either respect freedom, which requires putting cops to some inconvenience, or just defer to cops to do the right thing, and hope for the best.
I [i]knew[/i] the cops were following me and I [i]knew[/i] I could lose them in traffic, etc. You have a right to throw them off and drive as you normally do. The GPS device would disallow this freedom. It takes away the freedom of choice when it comes to avoiding the police. This is like driving down the road and seeing blue lights or a cop just watching traffic and making the decision to turn around because you want to avoid the police for whatever reason. But in the world of the GPS on your car you'd be forced to drive down the road and pass the cop or stop for the checkpoint. The idea is a little rough, but you get the picture. Why should we make their job any easier? All it does is promote lazienss when they should have to [i]prove[/i] I'm guilty. Make them do the leg work and get warrants. As was stated they are rubber stamped for the most part. Hell you can probably get a FISA without issues nowadays that they don't have to worry about the Telcoms getting sued.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
If using a GPS device on a car can prove someone is a serial killer because you follow the car to one of the bodies, then, that's a great thing. But it seems to me that if a cop could go before a judge and say, "hey, we think this guy is a serial killer because of some XYZ reason, and we're going to put a GPS on his car to find a body and prove it", I would think a judge would approve the technique and issue the proper warrant.
This is my sig.
I feel it would be in the police departments best interest to obtain a warrant. Two obvious reasons;
1) Prevent misuse. How long till some officer makes the news because he wanted to see where his/her significant other was spending their time?
2) Prevent the information from being inadmissible. As previously mentioned following someone onto private land or out of one departments jurisdiction gets into the gray areas of law.
Why is it seem so hard for the authorities to obtain warrants now?
First the cars then the kids... I guess the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is truly dead.
"This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause," Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman)
The vehicle is your property (presumably); typically speaking the police need a warrant to search your car, or your property - and they certainly need a warrant to say, put cameras in your house.
IANAL, but I think that there are three major concerns here; damage to your property, self-incrimination and the more nebulously defined set of privacy rights. Note, that while the police can follow you around all day, they can't trespass or otherwise break the law to do so.
[Ego]out
So, in truth, the Constitution actually is a great deal more; it's the channeling of a vast amount of influence along an agreed set of lines. Understanding that fundamental mandate and underpinning of government is important for anyone to navigate it well.
[Ego]out
Heck, one of the west coast states proposed putting them on EVERY car, in order to charge an appropriate amount of road use tax.
Then they wouldn't even need to plant anything - just request the records for the vehicle.
As for 'small enough', I'd suggest 'cheap enough' instead. They're already as small as a cell phone - the battery is one of the bigger components.
I don't read AC A human right
Good luck with that: they're the ones with the tanks.
You're making me think. You won't like me when I'm thinking.
When in public, I do not have a sign with my name and ID numbers on them, they are private.
When in public, nobody knows I have a CHL and I CC.
When in public, nobody knows if I just got laid or not.
When in public, nobody knows what my final destination is.
If the LEO's want to track me let them follow me.
Placing something on my truck means they touched my private property
weather it in a public place or not. That is trespassing. The 4th states they have to have a warrant to do that.
This is an example of abuse of power.
"Seriously, since it's their job to protect us from threats, the authorties require ways of not only stopping threats and crimes, but also, in preventing them whenever possible." Law Enforcement has no duty to protect. Their duty is in the investigation of a crime committed. They have no duty to put their life in danger to save your life. It is your duty to defend yourself and protect yourself.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
RIP, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Can the police put a beeper/tracker in a container which is sold to a suspect? Yes, according to United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) [ http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/276/index.html ] and United States v Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) [ http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/705/index.html ].
Basically, a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements.
they're the ones with the tanks.
Is that why Iraq has been such a cakewalk for us the last few years? Or why Finland was such a cakewalk for the Soviet Union during the Winter War?
Don't underestimate what a handful of well motivated people can achieve with firearms and whatever homemade weapons they can scrape together. Hell, you can disable (destroy in some cases) a tank with Molotov cocktails if nothing else is available.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
at least the rich have an option - Anti-GPS Tracker Device
tcboo
I guess you better borrow car to dump that body!
In the near future,criminals will plant GPS on police vehicles when bombs seem passe'.
This Big Brother shite will eventually come to a head and retaliation is imminent.It will be interesting to see how Socialist tabloids like the Washington Post spin that!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
the parent really meant to say, "Do you feel lucky punk!"
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Kind of reminds me of the "Frank Rule" which is that as a public official you have the right to your opinion. You have the right to not believe in gay rights, or even that homosexuality should be legal. However, you don't have the right to say that in public and expect to not be outed for going home and doing it behind closed doors.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
its called ONSTAR...hello...not to mention the GPS in Cell phones...laptops....etc....
Joe Investor
There doesn't seem to be much discussion of the obvious violation. Yes there are plenty of blatant violations as far as the device tracking the owner onto and around private property but what about the violation of placing the device in the first place. I highly doubt it is legal for anyone, even the police to go around attaching anything to peoples property without the owners permission. Wheel clamps are the only other president for something like this and they require procedures and violation of traffic codes. While not exactly on par, Trespassing, ins one major criminal violation that I can think of, though a moderate search of any states criminal code will probably crop up some law governing the removal, replacement, theft, modifying of property without the owners permission. Michigan for example has a specific penal code 750.539b regarding trespassing for purpose of eavesdropping or surveillance. I'm sure that the police would argue that the law (IE: all laws) does not apply to them, whereas pretty much any citizen with half a brain would yell B.S..
Pretty soon those things are going to be cheap enough that they can attach them to every car, and send out speeding tickets based on the recordings. You'll pick up half a dozen of them every time you wash your car... left their by your boss, insurance company, police, three grocery stores, your doctor, and two nosy neighbors. And they could all track your car by eye if they *wanted to*, so what's the difference?
As an individual, I prefer it that way.
Do you really want a written code that grants explicit rights to people?
Or, would you rather a written code that restricts the government?
Actually, this was the original controversy over the Bill of Rights. The controversy necessitated the inclusion of Amendment #9 ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") and Amendment #10 ("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.").
The Bill of Rights is really a Bill of Protections.
If you view the Bill of Rights as only granting rights, then people only expect 10, as written in those amendments.
Amendments #9 and #10 reverses that perspective - people have 10 protections with (theoretically) an infinite number of rights.
This is not my sig
If anyone with real leadership threw his/her hat in the ring, he/she would be a shoe-in for this election.
No, he'd be crucified by the media and both parties.
Please pay attention and don't spout idiotic nonsense which a bright third grader should be expected to see right through.
If they did it would still be legal. To me that's the problem we're talking about. No warrant, no probably cause is required.
"For you, a private citizen, following a police officer or other official while in performance of their duties is illegal."
False. Interfering with the performance of their duties would certainly be illegal. Observing them in the performance of their duties is legal.
"And, lets face it, they are not randomly tagging people's cars in hopes of finding a crime. They are tagging cars of people who are being investigated for crimes that have been committed and/or are continually being committed."
How do you know? Maybe they are just tagging the cars of people they don't like in hopes of finding evidence of a crime, or even just of something embarrassing so they can harass the person.
As a general rule, if the police want to do anything that would be illegal for a private citizen, they should need a warrant. In this particular case, attaching something to someone elses car without their knowledge sounds illegal to me.
As far as I know, you're entirely wrong. Can you reference such a law from any state at all?
Piece of tinfoil, use it to cover the transmitter.
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
"What would happen to me, as a private citizen, if I did this to a cop?"
They'd beat the shit out of you, then arrest you on trumped-up charges.
The difference between following someone in public and attaching something to their car to follow them is property rights. You don't have the right to so much as touch their car without a warrant obtained with probable cause.
The part that concerns me more than anything is the fact that they don't need a warrant to stalk people. If a private citizen follows other people around in public, it's jail time. The only thing that allows the police to do more than a private citizen can, is that a judge allows it for one specific case at a time. Without a warrant the same laws should apply to a cop as apply to any other citizen.
I missed the part where the police are some kind of super citizen that are beyond the law.
It's called "judicial oversight." It is one of the protections afforded us in our government. These are called "checks and balances."
I was making a practical observation, not a strategic one.
But in interest of informed debate, if it came down to revolution, there are 2,885,948 of them, and approximately 297,000,000 of us. Even disregarding that some portion of the military will not bow to the will of a tyrant and murder their neighbors and countymen, I like those odds.
What? Doesn't include reporters? Oh well, I have read of stories where ordinary citizens were charged with it. But, they were running late and thought it would be a good idea to follow police car, ambulance, fire truck, etc on its way to a emergency until they parted paths.
Er, how do you figure that?
Nah, its already arrived. Just got finished parking, in fact, and is busy ordering everybody out of the car.
.. you could have some real fun. Imagine taking GPS transmitter from car A and car B and putting it in police cars C and D. It will end in a never ending pursuit between the police cars. "Oh no Jim, he's behind us"
Police should not need a warrant to track vehicles with gps tracking devices . This is no different than a police officer following a suspect vehicle around from a patrol vehicle. gps tracking devices are a great tool for law enforcement and eliminate several risk factors.
Work smarter, not harder, with gps tracking