GPS Tracking Without a Warrant Declared Legal

jnaujok writes "The Ninth Circuit court has declared that attaching a GPS tracker to your car, as it sits in your driveway, or by extension on a public street, and then using it to monitor every one of your movements, is totally legal, and can be performed by the police without needing a warrant. So, if you live in the Western United States, big brother has arrived."

Comments

slashdot won't care

[Anonymous Coward]

we hardly ever leave our mom's basements anyways

Heh

[Captain Splendid]

inb4 inevitable Obama bashing even though any current administration/court system would do the same damn thing.

Quick question for the Americans here: How does it feel to have "won" the cold war only to become your ex-enemy? Really, the irony just doesn't get any better than that.

Re:Heh

[dfenstrate]

And yet a Reagan-appointed judge was the lone dissent in this case, and the originating state, Oregon, isn't exactly known as a Republican stronghold.

Perhaps you and your conservative-bashing responders hold some ideas that aren't quite true.

Re:Why should I worry?

[Sarten-X]

This is the WORST possible argument one can give regarding the erosion of our rights.

Not at all. It's a valid opinion. In my own opinion, the worst argument for eroding rights is "Think of the children!"

It is never acceptable to give away our rights...regardless of whether we ever perceive we may need them.

What about my right to murder someone who looks at me funny? Should I have a right to torture you until you work for me? All but the most basic civilizations are based on the careful limiting of what people can do. If everyone respects those limits, the society runs smoothly.

SHould I take away your right to free speech, because you don't speak about controversial topics? How about taking away your right to the free pratice of your religion? How about taking away your right to be secure in person & property...the government doesn't want my stuff, why should I care if they take away Joe's house?

Yes, you should outlaw yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Yes, you should take away the right for someone to murder others in the name of religion. Yes, you should place limits on the amount of hazardous materials a person can gather, or the amount of stuff they can take from others without paying, or the ability to have certain devices capable of quickly causing widespread harm.

For the love of god people...this shit is important to everyone. I can't believe anyone would say "Who cares?" when it comes to our rights & freedoms.

And I can't believe someone would be so insanely trusting of humans.

Here's a thought for you: The police can already do this. They can follow you by car, bike, helicopter, or on foot. They can check every license plate in the city. They don't need a warrant unless they start entering the conceptual ground of "search and seizure". The problem is that costs a lot of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, like looking for people who are actually committing real crimes. Personally, I'm glad that technology can make our police more effective, instead of just finding new ways for us to kill each other.

What essential right is actually being given up here? Where in the constitution does it require that police already know your actions before they can investigate them? All societies apart from absolute anarchy exchange liberty for security. The key aspect is whether what's lost is actually worth anything beyond just being an academic "liberty".

Re:Why should I worry?

[FCAdcock]

But what happens when someone decides to pass a law making knives illegal. Or making brown hair illegal (It's happened before...) How about a law stating that associating with known terrorists is illegal? Then giving him the time may result in jail. Probably not a conviction, but you'd miss work for a few days and probably lose your job. Are you willing to go through all of that just to protect yourself from other people who might "associate" with terrorists?

That Crazy Liberal 9th Circuit!

[billstewart]

First it's this, and next thing you know they'll be mandating gay marriage or something.

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

* The Constitution (Article IV, Section 2) and Fugitive Slave Acts granted government the power to return people to slavery
* Dred Scott was freed by the Circuit Court, only to be returned to slavery by the Supreme Court.
* During Reconstitution, the North basically told the South what they had to do, mandating that the South pass segregation laws similar to the ones already existing in the North, particularly in the Northeast, Indiana and Wisconsin (yeah, that doesn't get taught much in history classes today). They also declared that the southern states no longer had the right to representation in Congress.
* Plessy v Furgenson upheld racial segregation with "separate but equal".

Now, if you consider the Declaration of Independence and the arguments within it to be the foundation of our beliefs, with the original Articles of Confederation and later Constitution being an implementation of those beliefs, you can see that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they have inherent inalienable rights, including the right to be free and determine their own lives, and that they have the right and duty to throw off the chains of despotism, you'll see that government has NO power to enslave you to itself or to someone else. Government allowed, even supported, slavery, black codes and segregation, so naturally it would take a further act of government, or the overthrow of the government, to remove those injustices.

Your argument that only more government can end injustice ignores the very fact that those injustices were created, sanctioned and supported by the government. Deny the government those powers, that is, rescind the government's unjust assumption power, and it can no longer do those things.

Now, as for private business discriminating, the government has no business interfering in that business' operations. Any business which is willing to discriminate is ensuring that it will run at a suboptimal efficiency, allowing competitors to either take business (they serve blacks and whites) or hire more suitable candidates (a minority's abilities blow away his peers, but since the discriminator won't hire him, he loses productivity). Let the market punish them naturally, they'll find themselves out of business quickly enough, especially when tough times hit, and that will force them to re-evaluate their opinions. On the other hand, forcing them to meet hiring quotas (stated or not) or to serve people they don't wish to serve only generates MORE animosity, furthering the divide between people, preventing people from being forced to reconsider their views. I think anyone willing to discriminate is an idiot, but I'd rather they openly be an idiot so that they and others can learn from their mistake, rather than to brood a contempt that runs deep under the surface, which will only get worse, not better.

After Brown v BOE, Zora Neale Hurston remarked unethusiastically that it was "a court order for somebody to associate me with who does not wish me near them" and that the court's basis, that all-black schools were inherently inferior to other schools, and that blacks could only succeed with the help of whites was "insulting rather than honoring."

So, as you advocate the "success" of bigger government, remember, what the government gives, the government can also take away... and that's the difference between the core foundations of America and Europe, Locke and Hobbes, whether you believe you derive your own rights by your mere existence, or whether you believe rights derive from and are granted by the government.