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.
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
Great! When can I install a webcam inside your house and broadcast it on the internet 24/7?
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.
Toss it on the roof of a Penske truck or something! They'll be following it all over the country!
I fucking hate cops. They all believe that if you're in jail that you're guilty, they're only interested in processing cases not justice, and a good majority of cops are just psycho-bullies from grade school who want to shoot a gun.
Mod me down if you want, you'll think differently when you're at the shit end of their crooked stick.
Remember that 55% were dumb enough to reelect bush in 2004 too.
i bet most people wouldnt care if the gps gave them free directions. free gps for everyone!
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.
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.
The police and FBI have a long, sordid history of intimidation, harassment and disruption of dissident groups and activists (up to and including murder). Any state surveillance of people should require a warrant—both to provide some oversight (which isn't much, considering the way some courts like to rubber-stamp these requests) and make a record of the state's activities against its own citizens.
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)
If they attach it to my car without my permission, doesn't it become MINE to do whatever I want with?
Good question! And if it becomes yours then wouldn't they need a warrant to collect it?
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
How do you post at +2 with trolls like that?
They may not dispense justice, but they can arrest and imprison you for days without filing charges. You get to be packed into a room full of real criminals for 72 hours while they figure out if you should even be charged or not.
But I guess since there are no crooked cops this is not a problem.
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.
One phrase: Plausible Deniability
Police: "Did you put the GPS tracker we put on your car on the cross country bus?"
You: "GPS tracker? What's that? I saw something stuck to my car, but I thought it was someone's "hide a key," so I took it off and put it on the curb so the person who owns it could come find it." Like I said, I didn't know what it was and I didn't put it there, so I took it off. It wasn't mine. I don't know what happened to it.
In short, they may put it on my car, but I am under moral or legal obligation to practice "ordinary care." I can't take it and sell it as if it belongs to me, but I certainly don't have to protect it in any way.
There are a few interesting points in your post: It all hinges on the "reasonable expectation of privacy".
If I'm walking down a public road, and I look around and don't see anyone nearby, do I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
Is there legal distinction between short term privacy and long term privacy? e.g. Is my expectation that people will not follow me around for any significant period of time "reasonable" under the US constitution?
If a police officer is patrolling in a marked police car, do they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or would it be ok to tag that police car with a GPS tracker and display the location real time in a Google Maps mashup? Is there some other law that would prevent this apart from the constitution?
If the above is ok, what about if the police office is parked behind some bushes/a billboard in a "Dukes of Hazard" style speed trap. Does that officer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
What about if said officer is patrolling in an unmarked car (but one which was ID'd as a police car earlier), do they now have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
I'm guessing that most of these questions haven't been answered by US courts. I'd be particularly interested if there is a distinction between the expectation of privacy for police officers and the expectation of privacy for the general public.
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.
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)
of course, increased speed only makes sense with a sensible amount of visibility, even on mountain tracks that typically have no traffic or random bits on the road, it makes no sense at all to go faster unless you have at least 3 seconds viewing distance ahead of you, or rather enough time to slow down enough to avoid any obstacle you may see.
I just assumed other people did the same, but then again if they did we wouldn't have half the number of speed related crashes we do now I guess.
ChrisMP1 is correct. Being seen in public is not the same as being tracked, electronically or otherwise.
From what I gather, your legal brief justifies stalking in public.
When you're let's say "actively" defending your 2nd amendment rights, the government's happiness or approval is no longer of any concern.
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
Well, I find that speed limits are WAY too high on many roads with blind corners.. and WAY too low on well maintained divided lane highways with infinite visibility, high fences, raised roadways in a dry climate.
The pace of traffic on I-70 between Colorado and Kansas (for example) is about 90 miles per hour. 100 isn't uncommon. To be honest, 120 in a good car is pretty safe. The road is raised, 4 lane, divided, in perfect shape with a pretty normal day having 10 miles of visibility, totally dry with a hot road surface and bright sunshine. The speed limit is 85mph which is OK, but perhaps a little on the low side, seeing that you'll get run over doing that speed.
On a similar road in Iowa, the speed limit is 65 and you WILL get a ticket for doing 70. Just a political jurisdiction change, no difference in road conditions except a slightly higher chance of rain.
Of course, there are death traps in Connecticut where no sane person would go over 50 (and i'm the guy who thinks 110 is fine in Kansas) but the speed limit is 60.
It really depends on what road you're on.
Doing 60 on the death trap in CT will get you a nod and a smile. Doing 110 on Kansas will get you a week in the pokey.
Which is Evil Keneval?
hmmm