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
They're doing it without a warrant.
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!
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.
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.
The article on one page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081203275_pf.html
Even without a warrant I've said it before... The Fourth doesn't cover spying. Anything that is not intrusive goes. I'm sure I'll get a lot of shit for saying that but go back and read the Fourth and you'll understand. The whole point of the Fourth is not to encourage criminals to keep secrets... its to stop police from interrupting law-abiding citizens' lives.
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=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Innocent until proven guilty.
The cops don't get to assume guilt and violate anyones 4th amendment rights based on a hunch. That's what warrants are for. They have to present probable cause, based upon sound information and reasoning, satisfactory to a court, prior to violating someone's rights.
Have gnu, will travel.
It is quite clear that this tracking indeed is search for which a warrant is required under the constitution. This is a type search which was not envisioned at the time the founders wrote the constitution and far more more dangerous and frightening than they likely imagined. They are spinning in their graves for certain. We are seeing grave risks to the very threat to our freedom by tyranny, worse than what the founders of the US had feared. The way everything people can do can be monitored tracked and then data mined would have shocked and deeply disturbed them if they were alive to see this. We should be very concerned about these dangerous trends.
As I understand it, GM has been installing On-Star in all their verticals for some time. On-Star has GPS capabilities and also transmits audio. Since no one forces one to use the technology (one could cut the wires etc.) I don't think a warrant would be required in those cases.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
one could cut the wires etc.
I'm interested if anybody has information on how to do this. Actually, I'd rather co-opt their CDMA hands-free speakerphone for my own use, but I don't know how to get an ESN off it or implement dialing. Bluetooth FTW.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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
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.
It's true that GPS devices are radio receivers, not transmitters. But receivers emit signals too, and these are detectable. In countries where you have to pay license fees to operate a TV or radio, they send out detector vans to nab scoflaws. I also recall reading in Spycatcher that MI-5 used them to detect secret shortwave receivers; don't recall how they distinguished KGB agents listening for instructions from Moscow Center from innocent Lawrence Welk fans.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The current argument are on the exact meanings we can infer from "secure" and "searches."
Remember the root of secret is the same root of secure and have a common etymology. What is a "search?"
The 4th amendment isn't about protecting guilty, but preventing over-reaching governments creating a prosecution from innocuous facts.
Remember this quote when considering the motivation of the 4th amendment:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.â
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)
It is a proud declaration that even the most innocent have something very real to fear from any police or enforcement organization and the government.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
When you're let's say "actively" defending your 2nd amendment rights, the government's happiness or approval is no longer of any concern.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a car?
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.
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
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