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

Sauce for the goose

[Locke2005]

So then, it must also be legal for me to put one of these devices on my wife's car, or on the local squad cars, without their knowledge? Why do different rules apply to government employees than apply to the rest of us?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[mbrod]

That's what I was thinking. What if someone puts these devices on all cop cars and creates an app to publish where they are all at real time? Bet they wouldn't like that, but would it be legal?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[meerling]

Considering the way some of them spaz out when they get photographed in a public place, they'd go totally ballistic. But it would be a great way to identify where the speed traps are.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[commodore64_love]

Time for a Constitutional Amendment.....

No. I take that back.

Where in the Constitution was the central EU government ever given permission to tracking the People's movements (whether walking, horseback riding, or in a car)? I can not find it. The US Court has made a poor decision, because they ignored Our Rights in amendments 9 and 10. If such a power exist, it has been reserved to the Member States (or the people).

Re:Sauce for the goose

[redelm]

No, they don't! The "police" have no special powers other than exactly what statutes give them under special circumstances (arrest, crime in progress, etc). Since I do not know of any statute granting GPS powers, the only way the police can do this legally is because everyone can.

This is an important distinction between the American & British (&other systems): In the US, the government derives its' powers by delegation from The People. If The People do not have a power, they cannot delegate it. Under the UK (&other) systems, the Sovereign holds all powers which S/He graciously grants to the people,
starting with Magna Carta. The Sovereign still holds other power unavailable to individuals.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[VEGETA_GT]

My question is, if I find a device on one of my motorcycles or car, is it legal for me to remove said strange device. One of those times I like being in Canada

Re:Sauce for the goose

[ElectricTurtle]

I think somebody should put GPS transmitters on the Ninth Circuit justices' cars immediately, and register wheremyjudgesat.com.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Whorhay]

Actually I'd think it a great time to sanitize the vehicle incase you were doing something naughty. Then call in the local news media and bomb squad. Nothing like advertising what the police are doing with the publics time and money and making them use up more of it sending out the bomb squad to remove their device.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Anon-Admin]

You are looking at this wrong, here in the USA the laws do not tell us what we can do, they tell us what we can not do.

So, if it is not considered a violation of the 5th amendment and there is no law saying "You can not attach GPS devices to police cars" or "You can not monitor police" or any variation there of, then it is legal.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Captain Splendid]

^^This. If the police department starts becoming responsible for a bunch of overblown bomb hoaxes a la Boston, this idea will go down faster than a lead balloon.,

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this is different in different countries, but many times police authority is simply an extension to self-defense laws and such. Which is to say, you have just as much right to tazer someone as the police does and the same basic principle determines whether it's legal or not.
This is basically the reason for warrants and such. They extend the legal authority of a court or attorney to the police, because the police as such should not have greater rights than the civilians.

But I don't really have a clue as to how this works in the US.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[publiclurker]

Attaching it to a city bus would be better, you could probably just stick it under a seat. Then, if you feel like having fun, call the transit authorities and say you saw a funny looking device on one of their vehicles.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[whoever57]

Then call in the local news media and bomb squad.

Do you know how many bombs are defused? By a "controlled explosion". As soon as the bomb squad realise what they are dealing with, what is the likelihood of a "controlled explosion" being used on your car?

Alternate suggestion: attach the GPS unit to another vehicle. A bus? Your neighbor's car?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[greenbird]

making them use up more of it sending out the bomb squad to remove their device.

Nah. They'd just prosecute you for calling in a false report, interfering with an investigation and obstruction of justice then send you a bill for any costs associated with their response.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[ElectricTurtle]

There are a lot of self-defense cases that argue against the supposed monopoly on legitimate force. What government possesses is not different from its constituents, which is the ability to use force in response to harms. The difference is that the government can respond with a degree of force to harms which are not physical (such as financial, etc.), but this is because that right has been delegated by a consensus of the governed. No group can ethically exercise a power which any individual therein does not originally possess.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[BSDimwit]

Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Privileges are granted.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[buybuydandavis]

Recall the recent story about a school district where no one was found criminally liable for tapping the cameras of student laptops while they were at home. I think there was something like 50k images taken. You think maybe some of those were of minors partially clothed, or entirely nude? Masturbating? Having sex?

Would anyone but the government get away with wiretapping, video surveillance, and kiddie porn?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Zerth]

My question is, if I find a device on one of my motorcycles or car, is it legal for me to remove said strange device.

And can I sell it?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[eth1]

No, no, if you're going to put GPS trackers on officials' vehicles, you don't want to just publish the coordinates of everywhere they go. That would very quickly lead to the discovery and removal of said device.

Wait till they go somewhere questionable, then "coincidentally" show up with a camera and publish pics instead. The tracker will survive longer, and the evidence will be much harder to refute. :)

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Peach Rings]

It's probably best to just drop it in a river or off a pier or something then. Those things can't be cheap.

(That is, if you can even get it off your car.. it's probably attached with strong magnets. I wouldn't even know what to look for, even if I jacked up my car every day and looked around with a flashlight.)

Re:Sauce for the goose

[commodore64_love]

Rights come from ownership of self.

While a government can trample that ownership and turn you into a puppet for its control, it can only do so by force (weapons) and in violation of Natural Law and basic instincts. And in some cases those governments will be held accountable for that trampling (Nuremberg and Tokio Trials).

Re:Sauce for the goose

[shoehornjob]

If I didn't think I'd get Rodney King'd I'd like to try it. Fuck tha POlice. The line between legal and illegal where it pertains to information gathering and tracking is getting thinner in this country. We are giving up our rights without a fight and no one seems to care.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[idontgno]

Where do you live, that cats are ferromagnetic?

Now, steel rabbits and lobsters, I could see.

(Yeah, warning, link is a Flash animation, yadda, yadda. If you're a Flash hatah, google "Lobster Magnet" on youtube HTML5 or whatever you use.)

Re:Sauce for the goose

[DragonWriter]

The "police" have no special powers other than exactly what statutes give them under special circumstances (arrest, crime in progress, etc). Since I do not know of any statute granting GPS powers, the only way the police can do this legally is because everyone can.

This is an important distinction between the American & British (&other systems): In the US, the government derives its' powers by delegation from The People.

The fact that government powers, in theory, derive from popular consent does not mean that the powers of government do not include the power to exclude individuals from exercise of the powers granted to government.

You seem to confusing a whole bunch of different concepts here:
1. The idea of popular soveriegnty, which is indeed a norm that the governments, state and federal, are based on;
2. The idea of government limited to expressly delegated powers, which the US federal Constitution embraces (via the 9th and 10th Amendments, for instance), but State Constitutions often do not,
3. The idea that government agents, outside of expressly delegated powers, have only the privileges of private individuals, which is a corollary to #2 and generally is applicable only to the extent that #2 is.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[locallyunscene]

Interestingly enough, Massachusetts was one of the places that ruled GPS tracking requires a warrant. It's like Mass and Cali are reversing in terms of sanity.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Beardo the Bearded]

Cops are lazy.

They put the speed traps in high-revenue spots over and over again. There's a pattern. There are GPS units that list all the known speed traps and warn you as you approach. There's no radar to jam, no lasers to thwart, just the position of known speed traps.

Er, sorry, what I meant to say was that since the police would only enforce the speed limits in areas that are particularly dangerous to speed in, it warns you to slow down as you approach a hazardous area.

Also, the GPS tracker would have to chirp to send out your data. It would probably be of VHF since that's unregulated (148 - 152 MHz is a good one) so all you'd have to do is check for broadcasts of that frequency. GPS refreshes at 1Hz, so that's probably what they would chirp at unless they're using burst downloads.

FYI, the range on GPS / VHF transmissions in urban environmentsis very short. It gets unreliable after a few hundred meters and it completely thwarted by brick.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Beardo the Bearded]

It would cost about $300 for the tracker. The receiver would be about $1000. I used to work at a place that tracked animals via GPS / VHF collars for wildlife researchers. There were a few cases where the animal would look, shall we say, rather humanoid, but in all of those cases that was a willing animal.

Anyway, that $300 would get you a GPS unit with antenna, a processor board with memory, and a VHF transmitter that sends out the location. They'd be able to read that location on the receiver. The battery would be a Lithium cell and would run for up to a year. It would be potted for weather proofing. If they had reusable batteries, then you'd be able to use the units pretty much indefinitely.

It could also be set up to record your location throughout the day at intervals no finer than 1/second. (Civilian GPS refreshes that fast, and there's no way they could get their hands on milspec.) It could easily save up the data and broadcast it at a set time (like 3am when you're asleep or 4pm when you're at work) and the receiver would get all the locations you've been in the last day. It only takes about 8 bytes to store a GPS location, so an 8Mbit Flash module is enough to store a year's worth of locations. This would all be on a board roughly 1" x 1.5" x 0.5", plus battery and antenna.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[icebike]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has also ruled that a warrant is required. Reported here on /. less than 20 days ago.

This decision is bound for the SCOTUS because you can not have different laws in one part of the country as compared to another part due to the Equal Protection Clause.

The Ninth is the most over-ruled circuit in the entire country. Stay tuned.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

Also attaching it to a judges car gets you nothing. Find a congress critter or one of their family.... Want something cleared up do it right... There is a reason for example gov agencies and people are not allowed to get other peoples reading lists and movie rentals...

Re:Sauce for the goose

[ScrewMaster]

My question is, if I find a device on one of my motorcycles or car, is it legal for me to remove said strange device.

And can I sell it?

Probably not, and since it's not your property they'd probably get pissed if you sold it. Me, I think I'd just wrap the thing in a coil of heavy copper wire and discharge a hefty capacitor bank through it. Then I'd record the cop retrieving it and post the video on Youtube. Maybe some of officer so-and-so's neighbors might have something to say about it.

Does anyone else find the thought of ordinary cops skulking around after dark, attaching things to private vehicles just because they feel like it, more than a little disturbing? What the hell were these judges thinking? Or, more likely, smoking? Personally, I find it irritating when cops are sneaky: frankly, it's not what I pay them for. Worse yet, given the complete lack of oversight involved now, you can't tell me that these guys aren't going to be tracking their girlfriends, ex-wives, annoying neighbors and anyone else they want to get dirt on.

Truly stupid decision.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Surt]

Lots of people care, but we long ago passed the point on the slippery slope where it will cost you your and your family's life to protest, but have not yet reached the point on the slope where it becomes likely to cost their lives NOT to protest.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[turkeyfish]

They can legally do it because the court says its legal. What part of the US judicial system don't you understand?

Thanks for all the platitudes, but the history of justice in the US is actually rather different from that you learned in grade school. You might want to brush up on an infamous character in the US southwest, Judge Roy Bean. His was a racket that enriched him at the expense of justice, all the while being perfectly legal. Keep in mind the tooth fairy is not actually real.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[youngone]

That happened in NZ last year. The guy involved wound up in court arguing that the device belonged to him, as the Police had left it on his car. He won too.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Chris Burke]

The Ninth is the most over-ruled circuit in the entire country. Stay tuned.

By quantity, not ratio. It's by far the busiest circuit in the country. Most cases that go to SCOTUS are overturned (which makes sense as the Court would only see the case if there was some issue with the lower court's decision or a need to resolve it with other decisions), the 9th is overruled roughly as much as any other, e.g. in 2007 it was overruled 19/22 times, while the next busiest district was overruled 4/5 times.

So, I wouldn't bet on the results of the inevitable SCOTUS case based solely on the 9th's largely mythical "most overturned" status.

I'd like to bet on the results on the basis that it's fucking obviously a 4th Amendment violation. But if that reasoning worked, they wouldn't have ruled that way to begin with. :P

Re:Sauce for the goose

[kheldan]

I don't know about you, but if I found one on one of my vehicles, I'd just attach it to someone else's vehicle and say nothing.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Qzukk]

if you try to disable, remove, or relocate the device.

What device?

You have some kind of paperwork showing you put some sort of device on my car, I dunno, like a warrant or something? No? Well, then I guess you must have my car confused with someone else's because there was never any sort of device on my car.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[kungfugleek]

You are not allowed to track government vehicles. A relative of mine is looking at a prison sentence because he hid a GPS device in his wife's car (he suspected her of cheating). His wife is a civilian who works at an air force base. When she went through the gates they detected it somehow and, well, he got in trouble. Granted, the law might be different for police vehicles, but I really doubt it.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[ScrewMaster]

No one can still claim something as theirs after attaching it to your vehicle.

Sure they can, and believe me, they will. And if we bitch too loudly, they'll just make it a felony to even touch the damn things.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[canadian_right]

The USA constitution basically says that all your rights are due you simply being a person, and the constitution limits the power of government to prevent it from abusing your rights. The government does NOT give you rights, your are "born" with rights.

I'm not sure what "privileges" you are talking about, but generally the law does not grant privileges, but restricts your actions, eg drinking age, drivers license, or grants entitlements, eg public roads, police, schools, medical care, etc...

Re:Sauce for the goose

[dmgxmichael]

Heh heh, yup. Congress and Obama needs to dissolve that particular court - bunch of clowns.

Justices sit for life yes - the life of their job. Congress can dissolve the 9th circuit and replace it with a new court - this is a rarely used but effective check on judicial over reaching by the other two branches (the president must sign the act dissolving the court into law)

Re:Sauce for the goose

[GameboyRMH]

I guess cops sneaking around at night and sticking things to your vehicle looks creepy, but they can already get your location history from your cell provider. If I wanted to keep my physical location info private, turning off my cell radio would be a good first step.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[demonlapin]

Funny, the last time the cops pulled my wife over (for not having a seatbelt on as she turned off our home street) and she realized that she didn't have our current insurance card, I tried to come by and offer it to them. They didn't know the law (it makes it quite clear that the driver is NOT required to have the proof of insurance on their person, only to be insured, and that the police are required to make some attempt to verify the insured status if feasible), and told me that I would be arrested if I didn't vacate the scene immediately "for interfering with police business". And that it would be her fault if they shot me on a suburban street at 5:00 on Saturday afternoon. If that's not making up the law as you go, what is? Mind you, I'm 35, flabby, white, and drive a very boring, very new car. Any cop who thinks I'm a threat when I step out of a car with both hands visible and an insurance card in my hand waving hello is in need of a return to the academy.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[demonlapin]

Funnily enough, cops have no actual duty to prevent crime, only to investigate it after the fact. 99 times out of 100, when I see a police car in the area around my neighborhood it's running a speed trap, not patrolling the neighborhood.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[sumdumass]

Also, the GPS tracker would have to chirp to send out your data. It would probably be of VHF since that's unregulated (148 - 152 MHz is a good one) so all you'd have to do is check for broadcasts of that frequency. GPS refreshes at 1Hz, so that's probably what they would chirp at unless they're using burst downloads.

FYI, the range on GPS / VHF transmissions in urban environmentsis very short. It gets unreliable after a few hundred meters and it completely thwarted by brick.

Most GPS trackers I have dealt with use SMS or text message sent to a server by signals over regular cellular carriers. They can be programmed to send every minute or ten minutes of longer.

http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/gps-car-tracking-vehicle-logging.html

There are some that send via satellite too. Those are generally reserved for large item tracking (like shipping containers or heavy equipment and can be activated remotely as well as penetrate large walls and buildings. I can't find my reference link to it right now, but the UN has even approved a couple of these for international tracking of UN equipment and shipments.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[dryeo]

Wrong, in UK style systems it is Parliament that is supreme, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_supremacy . Meaning they can write any law they like including a law that fires the Monarch. (James II as an example)
And as the House of Commons usually has all the power and is elected by the people it would not be incorrect to say that the government derives its power from the people.
This is modified in places like Canada by a Constitution containing a Bill of Rights (Charter of Freedoms in Canada's case)

Re:Sauce for the goose

[BlueStrat]

Citation, I don't believe that's presently the case. Not that it means anything given how much activism has been going on with the SCOTUS lately. Ever since W started packing it with underqualified loonies.

You'd better check your history. FDR was ready to increase the number of SC Justices (as he decided an attempt to dissolve/reform the SC might get him impeached) so he could pack the court in order to pass sections of the New Deal that the SC originally rejected which frustrated his plans. He eventually got the SC to go along. I think it was Social Security, maybe? Don't remember off the top of my head. Judicial activism has historically been a favorite tool of Progressives in implementing new policies, laws, and "positive rights" suddenly discovered in a document that's existed for over two centuries without anyone finding any such "rights" previously.

That's what the name "Progressive" means; to "progress" past the Constitution. Unfortunately, once it's deemed OK for the government to ignore any part of the Constitution for even a "good" reason, the areas ignored experience "creep" such that eventually the government operates further and further outside of the Constitution with impunity, becoming a de facto totalitarian government. Many are now of the opinion we are already experiencing a "soft tyranny" which is growing by leaps and bounds.

Strat

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Nursie]

Yeah, carry on dreaming.

There would be a few nuts holding out but you know as well as I do that the population would just roll over, especially if the words safety, pedophile or terrorist were used.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[thijsh]

Insightful argument, it almost makes me hope that it *will* go that far so people will be forced to protest... problem is it will probably reach that state at different times for different people so the rest won't care enough to help the others in their protest.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[GooberToo]

If this is any example, they are not ignored. Its just more likely you'll be threatened, arrested, and/or have the shit beat out of you for simply asking about a complaint form.

I forget which video its on but they have a lengthy segment of undercover police simply walking into a station and asking if there is a complaint form. They are all seriously harassed and intimidated. The undercover person usually attempts to retreat at this point. And when they fail to identify themselves or reveal the nature of their intended complaint, they frequently get stalked, threatened, and arrested.

Scary shit and hard to believe you're in the US. And according to the video producers, that series of videos constitutes a tiny portion of the video they had at the time. And since those videos have been released, they have said their repository of like videos have exploded.

Reasonable expectation of privacy

[zero_out]

Where I grew up, a person's driveway is most definitely within the domain of "reasonable expectation of privacy." And it's backed up with "git offa ma propertie! "

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy

[gurps_npc]

I agree with you and the dissenting Judge Kozinski (Regan appointee). Judge Kozinski said that the court was prejudiced against poor people, taking away their rights simply beause they could not afford a garage He was right, your driveway is your property, people have an expectation of privacy on it.

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy

[daniel_newby]

No, you have zero expectation of privacy in your driveway. What you have is an expectation of non-trespass and non-vandalism.

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy

[Vancorps]

You could very easily argue that installing gear without your knowledge to your car while in your driveway would be considered vandalism. I'm just uncertain why they can't get a warrant to do it. There seems to be a war on oversight for the last decade and realistically even longer. When it become bad to have to justify your actions? In the case of FISA you don't even have to justify it before you do it.

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy

[bkpark]

So, in cities where public nudity is a crime (likely a misdemeanor), do you have a legal right to be stark naked in your driveway?

There are ... degrees of privacy/private control. Driveway is your private property in the sense that you have right to decide who can be on it. But if you haven't erected a fence, you have no right to tell people whether they can *look at* your driveway (and things on it).

GPS tracking, aside from all the other complicating factors, is not too different than people (or police) looking at your car (or driveway).

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy

[bwayne314]

so if i have "no trespassing" "beware of pit-bull" and "trespassers will be shot" signs posted all over my 4-acre property, and a plain-clothes cop comes along to stick one of these things on my car at night, is it my fault if he gets unrecognizably mauled by three pit-bulls and/or shot from my porch?

Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy

[couchslug]

This is why it should be legal everywhere to use armed force to protect one's property. A home should be a castle, and the best way to deal with those who would storm that castle is to kill them,

Unless you advocate protecting your rights with violence if necessary, you don't advocate protecting your rights.

Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[gurps_npc]

Other District Courts of appeals have ruled it illegal. Right now, it is illegal in Washington DC, but legal in California. Time for Kagan to show us what she's made of.

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[Sprouticus]

Why do Republicans equate limited government with civil rights. Arguably the largest civil rights movements in the last century (sufferage, civil rights movement, gay rights, creation vs evolution in schoold, brown vs board of educaiton, etc) have ALL come to fruition from larger government involvement, not less.

The question is not whether Kagan wants bigger government, but whether she puts the needs of law enforcement/government above the individual. Im guessing from her time at harvard that she will lean to the individual.
 

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[DragonWriter]

Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the ones you want on this kind of a case.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, while they are big, at least in words, on narrowly construing the federal Constitution, are quite apt to find outs for pro-law-enforcement authoritarianism even where the federal government is involved (Scalia perhaps somewhat less so than the others), and all of them are even more likely to read broadly the police powers of the States (or, as they would put it, to read narrowly the federal Constitutional limits on the police powers of the States.)

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[ceejayoz]

Scalia and Thomas voted to uphold sodomy laws. They're quite happy to be authoritarian when they feel like it.

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[mjhacker]

Ah, libertarians, the very definition of misplaced idealism. Always insistent that the invisible hand of the free market can solve everything and makes everything better. Even though limited federal involvement (herp derp don't want to violate states' rights) made pretty much every single civil issue WORSE in this country. Remember slavery? Or segregation? Or how about all those southern states that wanna teach kids that the world isn't billions of years old?

Don't you have a Ron Paul convention to go to or something?

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[epyT-R]

If you look more closely at those groups today, you'll see that none of them are about civil rights. Maybe they were at one point, I don't know as I wasn't there, but I'm talking about now. They're about amassing voter blocks and power structures. what's the difference between the KKK and the NAACP these days? not much once all the pomp and circumstance the latter has gained from its heyday is stripped away. One has gained political acceptance and the other has not. Neither want equality. sure, they throw the term around but it's newspeak definition. they want dominance and special status. This message appeals to those who have been or just feel disenfranchised, so they join. Others, who are not in the demographic, but hear the message, may feel a form of survivor-guilt, so they support the movement too, and the monster grows.

the real proof is in the actions of those groups who have already achieved their stated goals (legal equality in some context) but do not disband. Instead they keep the fires burning just enough to maintain their political relevance. I have nothing against non-whites, gays, or women, but I do have a big problem with the way PACs like the NAACP, the womens' groups, and more recently, even the gay activist groups are abusing these people for political power. It's great that NARAL fights for abortion rights, but yet it has no problem with supporting the demonization of males. It's great that the NAACP supports the building of schools in poor non-white communities, but then why does it rail against any attempt for white people to support their poor? When that happens, they break out the racism plackards. ..but who cares when it allows a 2 minute press conference about abortion or gay marriage to trigger mass vote herding? that's a gravy train that's too good for the democrats to pass up I guess. the irony is that it's the government which limits these two examples in the first place. So, in the name of freedom, the curtain of government is expanded, and the next time some PAC claims victim status over some issue, even more peoples' rights can be trampled when the rope around the edges is pulled tight. this has been the cycle for the last 30 years at least.

Im guessing from her time at harvard that she will lean to the individual.

..not if the current democratic party is any indication of what happens to all those anti-establishment, pro-people types once they graduate and have 30-40 years to simmer in their own juices. they become jaded, then hardened, then desperate. Once that happens, they dont care anymore who they have to trample to achieve their goals. thus they become what it was they started out to fight in the first place. perhaps this is why the activist groups mentioned above have become what they are now.

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[isaac]

I'm not sure I follow. Sufferage didn't necessarily mean more or less government. Nor did the civil rights movement. Nor gay rights. Creation vs evolution did not, as there wasn't even a Department of Education until the 70's. Vis-a-vi Brown.

Don't be obtuse. Forbidding private business owners from discriminating based on race, color, religion, or national origin (and enforcing this prohibition) was an expansion of government powers. A valid one, in my view.

-I

Re:Needs a Supreme Court ruling

[DavidTC]

American revolution, was a rebellion against a distant Big Government limiting people's freedom (in particular, freedom to do spend their money as they wish, without being subject to unjust taxation).

BZZZT, Wrong, thank you for playing, please exit the country in an orderly manner.

The American revolution was over the English people living in America being denied the civil rights they were granted under various English laws and traditions.

It wasn't 'No taxation without representation.', it was 'No taxation without representation'.

I don't know why idiots try to make it about taxes (Oh, right, they're idiots. I mean libertarians.). The damn Declaration of Independence explains why the US revolted. There's a damn list of reasons, right there, literally the third thing in the first official document ever of this country.(1) Getting it wrong should make you automatically discounted from being listened to in a political argument.

I will, as I am nice, count and summarize the reasons given. Feel free to go read it.

Lack of representation, 7
Lack for following laws, 8
Refusing to pass needed laws, 2
Stupid laws, 1
His military and waging war against us, 8
Cutting off trade, 1
Taxes, 1

Yeah, boy, that war sure was about taxes, wasn't it. There are twice as many complaints not passing laws as there are about taxes. That's right, the Declaration of Independence has as the second and third grievances, 'Hey, we need some sort of functioning system of laws over here, and neither you nor your governors seem to actually want to set them up. You aren't restricting us enough, we're breaking free to restrict ourselves more, because laws are needed things.'!

Put that in your damn stupid 'taxes are anti-freedom, the war was about taxes' pipe and smoke it. The revolutionary war was not only not about taxes, it wasn't about 'freedom' either. It was about rights.

The vast majority of the complaints are about a) the king not following the law WRT to representation in parliament of English citizens(8), b) the king not following other laws that apply to English citizens, like trial by jury and whatnot(7), or c) the fact England already appeared to be operating in a state of war towards the American colonies anyway(9).

Incidentally, as the Wikipedia article hilariously points out, the settlements in the US actually predates the 'Glorious Revolution', which is where it was established once and for all that the English monarchy must defer to parliament and do not have absolute power, so it's possibly that Americans were technically wrong about supposing to have 'the Rights of Englishmen'. The English kings had, by the American revolution, agreed at swordpoint at least twice that they didn't have absolute power, and signed documents to that end, but that happened after the colonies were founded, and no one actually ever stated if the colonies were included or if they got their own parliament or what. But the revolution was indisputably about those rights, regardless if the rights were 'supposed' to exist for 'Englishmen' living in America.

1) First person to argue that the Declaration isn't part of 'this country' get punched in the head twice, once for missing the point and again for being wrong.

Power from the people

[wiredlogic]

Since police powers are an extension of the rights every citizen possesses it will naturally be legal for anyone to do this without permission.

Re:Power from the people

[easterberry]

Wait, you can detain and arrest people in the States as a citizen? And enter people's homes (with your bosses permission)? And tase people who get unruly?

Re:Power from the people

[wiredlogic]

More or less yes. You have to have justifiable cause and the details may vary by state but every citizen can make an arrest for a crime or even a planned crime. This is how police officers get their arresting power.

There was a case a few years ago of an immigrant police officer who was found out not to have valid citizenship and that invalidated all of his arrests. He had been brought in illegally as a child and never became naturalized. The interesting twist is that he had been an MP in the US military for which you do not need to be a citizen to serve.

Re:Power from the people

[brainboyz]

If you can articulate valid reason, you may detain and transport criminals to the police station and/or jail. The problem is you personally take 100% responsibility for doing so and if found in the wrong, you are 100% liable for wrongful arrest, kidnapping, unlawful detainment, etc.

In an emergency or witnessing a felony in progress (again, can articulate valid reason/concern), you can enter the property of someone else w/o a warrant.

If someone is in the middle of a felony, you may taze them in most states.

The difference between you and a police officer? A sworn officer has protections bestowed by the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction has trained them and decided to take on the liability of the officer, in most cases, by authorizing them to act on behalf of the jurisdiction and people within. If you don't mind taking on personal responsibility and liability for everything, you are well within your rights to do most things the cops do EXCEPT break laws in non-emergency situations (since sworn officers are specifically exempt from some laws such as speeding).

Re:Power from the people

[The Moof]

Actually, that's the messed up part. From the judge's ruling:

The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes.

So only if you're rich enough to have that security booth and gated community/property, you have that right to security.

Re:Power from the people

[Quothz]

My memory from law class is rusty and it was Canadian law class but Citizen's Arrest is just the right to detain someone you witness in the act of committing a felony for the shortest amount of time possible until you can get an officer of the law there. It's not the actual right to arrest someone.

Au contraire, like: In the US, private citizens who are not law enforcement officers generally have no right to detain another citizen, only to arrest. TSA officers and other rent-a-cop types have a little more leeway on detention. Remember, to "detain" someone is to briefly stop that person for the purpose of asking questions under the implication that they are required to remain, although they may simply walk away. To "arrest" a person is to stop that person from leaving, and walking away becomes resistance.

When a cop asks you where you're going at 3 a.m., you're being detained, and you need only stop long enough to ask if you're free to go to ensure that you aren't under arrest. When a cop pulls you over for speeding, you're being briefly arrested.

There are special laws that may require you to remain in certain general vicinities at times (the scene of an accident or crime, for example), and courts may compel a person to be somewhere without arrest, but whenever one citizen prevents another from going somewhere else, it's an arrest.

Why I despair

[DoofusOfDeath]

What really bothers me about stories like this is that the general public seems to not care.

I'm sure it's awful to live in a country where protesting the government will get you arrested or worse.

But it's a different kind of awful to have friends and neighbors who just can't be bothered to stick up for the civil rights of their fellow citizens.

Re:Why I despair

[gad_zuki!]

I think people care, but people are also aware that the only ruling that matters will be SCOTUS. Currently, this is a hot issue in various courts and they all rule differently. SCOTUS will make the call that defines this issue.

Re:Why I despair

[Red Flayer]

But it's a different kind of awful to have friends and neighbors who just can't be bothered to stick up for the civil rights of their fellow citizens.

The problem is, that's not how they see it -- you're not asking them to stick up for the civil rights of their fellow citizens, you're asking them to stick up for the civil rights of criminals. In today's culture, suspicion == guilt.

Re:Why I despair

[gorzek]

Even in the comments to this article, at least one person echoed the common sentiment, "I don't do anything illegal so I have nothing to worry about."

People seem oblivious to the fact that, if these sorts of encroachments are tolerated, authorities will only seek more and more power--until something you do every day actually is illegal, and we'll have the monitoring infrastructure to back it up and enforce it.

Re:Why I despair

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Hell, you dont even need suspicion...

Everyone is automatically assumed guilty. This is a direct violation of the principles of America.

The law is engineered to get you... no matter WHAT the truth is. Prosecution want you in jail, no matter what. They do not care if you're innocent. They just want to win, and be right in their own mind.... despite truth.

Just look at how we argue politics today. We just scream points at each other. No one listens. Each side is out to win, and they dont want to hear truth. They want to WIN. THAT is how the law works...

They want a win.... not justice, truth, or to uphold the constitution.

Re:Why I despair

[rothic]

In today's culture, suspicion == guilt.

And in yesterday's culture, and in every culture that ever came before or that will ever come after.

Re:Heh

[NiceGeek]

What would Obama have to do with this anyway? This is the result of a case from 2007.

The Ninth Circuit

[jgtg32a]

I've been sitting here for 5 min trying to come up with a snarky comment, but the shear stupidity of this has rubbed off on me and I've got nothing.

So Then...

[brainboyz]

I can walk through the parking lot at the police station and attach GPS transmitters to all the squad cars and publish that information to the internet because they have no expectation of privacy, right?

Re:So Then...

[butterflysrage]

no no no, those are govt property... attach it to their personal veheicles.

It's like 4square for life

[ZuchinniOne]

Woo Hoo ... now I can finally keep track of which Strip Clubs to go to when I want to have a word with my Congressman.

Why should I worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't think that the police or CIA or FBI or Illuminati have any interest in me. I am a law abiding citizen, and as far as I am concerned this is not news.

Re:Why should I worry?

[Cwix]

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Re:Why should I worry?

[Samalie]

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

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

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.

Re:Why should I worry?

[ScrewMaster]

Be careful what you say, we are GPS tracking you.

GPS tracking our online activities? What does that mean, Google Plus Slashdot?

Re:Why should I worry?

[BlackSnake112]

How far till we are 'chipped' at birth?

It is somewhat unnerving when evil things mentioned in books and old TV shows become reality.

Re:Why should I worry?

[The Moof]

I am a law abiding citizen

Until they decide you aren't.

Re:Why should I worry?

[LurkerXXX]

It's hard to guess that it's sarchasm when there are so many morons out there who actually believe that. Just witness the vast numbers of "take away all my rights, just protect me from the terrorists" right wing idiots out there.

Re:Why should I worry?

[erroneus]

I don't think it will be illegal to detect or remove them or to destroy them.

There have been cases in the past where rights of ownership and possession become issues. So, if you happen to have a radio transmitter detector, or some other sort of detection device to determine that you have been bugged, you are pretty much free to remove it, sell it on ebay, whatever you like. SMART criminals (I know, there are way few of those) will know to check for them... but will probably also keep their vehicles secure.

People really don't know what is going on here and more significantly, don't WANT to know. Too often we use words like "conspiracy theory" to mean "obsessive and/or paranoid nutbag." And every time we hear something scary like this about our government, most people simply don't want to believe it and label anyone who speaks of it as a "conspiracy theorist." The psychology is the same for anyone who speaks for the truth about the holocaust. (The very fact that I said the word already has more than 50% of the people here ready to mod me down. I don't care, you are only showing who and what you really are by making presumptions without hearing what anyone has to say.)

We have "blank check laws" being passed without the people voting for them knowing what they really are. We have unconstitutional money seizure laws. We have secret rules and laws just for the DHL. (I know that's a fact because there was and still is a lot that TSA screeners cannot say or advise the public about... and I was actually a screener for a while) We have erosions and in some cases complete disregard for the constitution that was designed SPECIFICALLY to protect the people from "government." A constitution only works when the government follows it.

Re:Why should I worry?

[The_Wilschon]

Not likely. With the number of little-known and little-enforced laws on the books, pretty much everyone is guilty of plenty of things.

Re:Why should I worry?

[scottrocket]

"You bought a car, so we're tracking you"

My vehicle's OnStar already tracks me, I suspect they still listen in as I talk, possibly read metadata from any burned mp3 cd I might pop in, and then report back to the RIAA or the Club of Rome. Then again, I think everyone's out to get me.

Re:Why should I worry?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If I found one, I wouldn't say anything, just swap with another similar car in a parking garage one day.

Re:Why should I worry?

[interkin3tic]

It's hard to guess that it's sarchasm when there are so many morons out there who actually believe that.

Relatively few morons who actually believe that are on slashdot. If someone is saying that here, it's safe to assume they're either joking or are trolling.

Just witness the vast numbers of "take away all my rights, just protect me from the terrorists" right wing idiots out there.

I'm far left wing, but I have to say, it's unfair to pin that on right wingers. That's the "idiot of any political leaning" response, not right wing.

The right wing response is more along the lines of "Kill them all, let God sort them out." Which, I'll admit, after terrorist attacks I very briefly see where they're coming from before my brain starts working again. But anyway, their response is not what you described.

Re:Why should I worry?

[FCAdcock]

Apparently that's the same thing Martin Niemöller thought right up until the point Hitler sent him to the camps. We have become so used to the government or other people doing everything for us in this country that now when we wish someone would stand up against the government's injustices we don't even think of doing it ourselves. It may be safer to allow others to fight our battles for us, but it's not healthy to rely on that.

Re:Why should I worry?

[guanxi]

Why was the parent modded up? It's clever rhetoric, but it's obviously absurd. It might even be a troll (but people get more and more serious with their absurdity these days, so you never know).

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. ...

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.

Your argument is that murder and torture are "rights" that were taken away? And because there are some legal restrictions on behavior, we have no rights at all? Obviously you are joking. I hope it's a joke. It's as absurd as claiming absolute rights.

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?

In the Fourth Amendment, where it says 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.. So yes, police need probable cause before they search your person, house, paper, and effects. For some reason the founding fathers didn't explicitly specify automobiles.

If my Fourth Amendment rights apply only in my house, they're almost useless, a mere technicality. I have to leave my house to live my life. Everything I do and own is at some point external to my house (e.g., books I read, phone calls I make, visitors, etc.), except for the things I build from scratch from the dirt under the basement and never take outside, and the thoughts in my head. Is that all that's protected?

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".

Here's the new issue and challenging part. We can't ignore the effect of technology. For example, the right to bear arms was established before there technology advanced and we created missiles; the technology changed things. The legality of police following someone was established before advances in information technology; that changes things too. We can't pretend that the old law applies just as before.

Using IT, the state could track record all movements of all citizens outside their homes, and even record them on video, monitor their heart rate, record their speech, etc (not now, but it's not far off). Many think that that would be a great invasion of privacy, create the tools of oppression (imagine McCarthy, Nixon, or J Edgar Hoover with that information), and effectively eliminate most of the rights in the Fourth Amendment.

So we need to find a new balance, but I think the general principle is that, however we interpret those rights in the era of information technology, the Fourth Amendment wasn't written in jest.

Re:Why should I worry?

[RobertM1968]

How far till we are 'chipped' at birth?

It is somewhat unnerving when evil things mentioned in books and old TV shows become reality.

Get with the times! First it was pets, then it was humans. For now, it's not mandatory, but rich parents can indeed chip their kids "at birth" (sometime afterwards, but close enough) - or each other, or themselves or whatever. There was a company trying to pass a law making it legal for companies to be able to require their employees to be chipped (RFID supposedly, but nearly as bad).

Search Google for human GPS chip if you don't believe me.

Here's a few to get you started:

(2003) GPS Implant Makes Debut
Chip Implants Already Here

There was an article on /. a while back, and there are links you will find in your Google search to larger publications.

Re:Why should I worry?

[ATMAvatar]

If an individual were to follow me around all day tracking my movements, we could call it stalking. If the police do so by attaching a device to my car, it is called justice?

Re:Why should I worry?

[AlamedaStone]

"You bought a car, so we're tracking you"

My vehicle's OnStar already tracks me, I suspect they still listen in as I talk, possibly read metadata from any burned mp3 cd I might pop in, and then report back to the RIAA or the Club of Rome. Then again, I think everyone's out to get me.

We're not out to get you, we just like your taste in music.

Re:Why should I worry?

[werewolf1031]

I am a law abiding citizen

Until they decide you aren't.

Quite probably the most insightful thing anybody will post in this entire thread, because it is the whole point. Frightening how many people just don't (or refuse to) understand this, and are perfectly willing to let every little freedom slip away one at a time because "that doesn't affect me right now".

You may be the favored demographic today, but as political leaders change, and, more importantly, laws change, you may find a bulls-eye on your back tomorrow when someone in power doesn't like something you say or do that was, yesterday, considered perfectly harmless.

Re:Why should I worry?

[Mr. Freeman]

Except that removing the device would be interfering with law enforcement and therefore obstructing justice. Regardless, once anyone destroys one of these devices, they'll quickly pass a law making the destruction or removal of the device illegal.

As for the constitution. It's not a matter of "the constitution only works when the government follows it". It's a matter of "the constitution only works when the people FORCE the government to follow it". Yes, FORCE the government to follow it. Force, as in armed rebellion.

Re:Why should I worry?

[WNight]

What's wrong with this country is that there are far too many people who think that the world's out to get them, so they'll burn bridges as fast as they can.

No, the world is setup so that they can get anyone at any time. Almost everything is illegal, or "appears" enough so to arrest someone if interpreted that way by someone looking for an excuse to harass or arrest you. The system doesn't give a shit about you, live or die - the rules are just grease to allow you to be dealt with expediently. It'd be easy to think it's out to get you specifically until you noticed the same things happening to your neighbors.

The usual police tactic is to escalate a situation as much as possible and try to arrest the suspect for anything. I've had police bully and outright threaten me - with financial ruin, inability to use public services, prison, and violence during the arrest that they told me they'd blame me for. Before you say I instigated it, I've seen the same behavior (usually without the violent threats - most people are smaller than me) directed at a wide range of non-threatening people, friends and strangers. Some instances from police in the same city have ended in their murder of a civilian for which they weren't even reprimanded.

Had it only happened to me I'd assume it was me but I see the same happening every time I see the police stopping someone. And not just street-kids or anything, even respectable university professors are afraid of the police. Instead of the agency protecting people it instead seeks out charges it can inflict on people who weren't causing any harm. Like any surly, entitled, union employees they work to rule, arresting their quota, be it in speeders, skate-boarders, innocent bystanders, or maybe a real dangerous criminal every now and then.

How about instead of wasting the police's already-tiny budget on drudgery, we do something to let them be more effective so less mistakes are made in the first place?

How about authoritarian apologists like you shut your ignorant mouths?

No asshole, it's not their budget. It's my fucking money and I don't want your or their fucking excuses on how any kind of oversight is going to cost too much. If they can't provide good service we should fire them and hire someone who will.

Land of the free?

[santax]

I guess that is free as in beer? Having said that, here in the Netherlands it isn't much better. At least you guys are allowed to insult politicians.

New market for GPS Jammers?

[Whorhay]

I can understand why this decision turned out the way it did. Placing a tracking device on your vehicle is about the same as following you around with an unmarked vehicle. It's much harder to detect of course and so you might think you are unobserved when that's not true.

Anyways I can see this possibly creating a small market for GPS jamming devices. The legality of such devices of course would be questionable if not outright illegal.

Re:New market for GPS Jammers?

[Sprouticus]

You missed the finer points. Like the fact that they tresspassed on him driveway to plant the device...

Personally if driveways are public space, then I want to go setup a cookout on the driveway of one of these judges...

Re:New market for GPS Jammers?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I can understand why this decision turned out the way it did. Placing a tracking device on your vehicle is about the same as following you around with an unmarked vehicle.

The primary difference being that it can be conducted en masse - i.e. its possible to track thousands of vehicles without committing any significant manpower. I have a similar problem with ANPR - one unattended machine can do what would otherwise take thousands of officers to do.

The cliched response to both of these examples is "you have no expectation of privacy in public" - but that is a legal principle formulated in a simpler time before automation (especially automation on the back-end) was even conceivable. I think a principle more suited to the current situation (which will only become more extreme as the automation on the back-end becomes more and more capable) is that if surveillance requires resources not normally available to the average citizen then it requires a warrant. I think a principle along those lines more closely matches how the average joe sees the world, which is pretty much the definition of "reasonable."

As the purpose of a warrant is to maintain oversight to prevent abuse, it makes even more sense because more power always equals more temptation for abuse so being able to do something that a normal person can't reasonably do is practically by definition more opportunity for abuse.

Re:Heh

[Captain Splendid]

Clearly, you've missed the whole "Liberal Fascism" meme that's been positively sweeping the country. Lucky bastard.

Liberal/Conservative bias

[MobyDisk]

The article actually covers the facts fairly well, but it would be much better if the writer didn't label every quote "conservative" or "liberal" with a seemingly naive understanding of the meaning of those terms. For example, when one judge points out that not enough poor people become judges, so they are underrepresented, he is labeled a "raging liberal." This comes from the oversimplified stereotype that liberals love the poor and conservatives hate them. I would expect this from radio or TV pundits, but not from Time magazine.

Just build yourself on of these

[scharkalvin]

http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/

Then they won't see ya!

Only if they can do it with out getting shot

[Anon-Admin]

In Texas I can use deadly force to protect myself, my Property, and others.

If I see a person, in my drive way, F**King with my Car or Truck, I will shoot them.

So, They have the right to put it there and I have the right to shoot them to protect my property. Sounds fair.

The real question comes in not the legality of the placement but in the legality of trespassing to place it, and if your car is in a locked garage can they break in to place it?

Re:Only if they can do it with out getting shot

[blair1q]

You might want to reread that self-defense clause again.

You can use deadly force to protect people and property from imminent danger. Someone poking a hand under your bumper is not that.

And there's generally going to be no way you'll prove self-defense against a cop, since you have to presume a cop is assaulting you legally unless you know specifically otherwise. you might have a chance if he's assaulting you without telling you he's a cop, but that won't work if he's under cover, since "I didn't know he was a cop" is the whole point of that. And killing a cop isn't just murder or manslaughter, it's a cop-killing, and for that you get special treatment.

Re:Only if they can do it with out getting shot

[blair1q]

No. You could not easily argue it is. You could easily imagine the words that you would say before the judge told you to shut up and let your lawyer enter your guilty plea, but that's not easily arguing it.

Fear of a bomb requires seeing something that looks like a bomb. Seeing something small and indistinct is not that, and not seeing what's in his hand is especially not that.

You'd be closer if you saw his body armor and said it looked like a bomb-belt. Though that probably works better in Baghdad.

What you shouldn't do is shoot first because there's no deadly force in play. You have a gun, his is not visible, you are in control and have all the opportunity to ascertain his identity and motives. If he's a cop he's going to be withdrawing or cooperating, and attempting to identify himself. If you act first, that's just going to be adjudicated as murder. You are in a position to react before he can create any danger for you, and if he does you'll have plenty of opportunity to shoot him then, and you'll likely get to use the self-defense defense.

cops get away with 'furtive moves' defense all the time. we can use it too!

Cops get away with a lot because they tend to know what they're talking about in evidentiary proceedings, even when they're quoting apocryphal Hunter S. Thompson stories.

Re:Only if they can do it with out getting shot

[blair1q]

How did you manage that? Shut your eyes and hit the "Submit" button after hitting the "Preview" button?

Countermeasures

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Okay, so, as a citizen of California, I have a question for the Slashdot techies out there. These GPS trackers that can be tacked onto my vehicle. How large are they? What do they resemble? Do they give off any transmission signal/EM radiation of some sort. I am personally appalled by this particular ruling, but if that's how things are going to be, then let the arms race begin. I want to know what, exactly, these GPS trackers do. Do they transmit your location data back to the GPS sat system? Or do they transmit to some kind of local receiver? Do we know that frequency they transmit on?

If the police and government are going to take active duty to track all citizens, without the burden of providing a reasonable level of suspect, then I say we, as citizens fight back for our rights. If the local police want to track our vehicles, what kind of devices can we hack together to detect these nasty little tracker chips? There has to be some way to build a receiver similar to whatever the police use to detect the GPS data, attach it to a small wand or golf club or something, and wave it around our car every time we get in it to make sure the trackers are not installed. So, GPS nerds out there, how's about we start putting together a How-To to homebrew a GPS tracker detector? Then, if we find a tracker attached to our vehicle, we can simply pull it off and duct tape it to the local stray cat.

Re:Countermeasures

[topham]

The trend is towards cellular phone style devices; GSM or CDMA radios with GPS unit. No keypad or screen required so they can be quite small. Battery life is an issue, however they go to sleep of they aren't moving so they only need to work for the duration of a trip.

Re:Countermeasures

[v1]

Then, if we find a tracker attached to our vehicle,

is it ours? What's the law regarding when someone abandons their possessions on your property?

If I found one of these on my vehicle, then I can take possession of it? Didn't someone recently get into the press for finding such a device and ebaying it? iirc the police or whoever contacted ebay and got the auction taken down. I didn't see what happened after that.

Re:Countermeasures

[Sprouticus]

here is a quick reply from google. Im sure the police/fed models cost 10x as much and have less range :)

http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/gps-car-tracking-vehicle-logging.html

Re:Countermeasures

[Platypii]

And that defeatist attitude is one of the main reasons that they can get away with this kind of crap. On behalf of everyone who gives a shit... FUCK YOU!

Re:Countermeasures

[DoofusOfDeath]

And that defeatist attitude is one of the main reasons that they can get away with this kind of crap.

How do you distinguish "defeatist" from "realistic"? I'd say it's based on the probability that enough people feel the same way but are just being silent about it, right?

In my experience, the people I talk to about this just aren't interested enough to participate in effecting change. So I reckon I'm being realistic.

On behalf of everyone who gives a shit... FUCK YOU!

Oh, I'm sorry, is this Abuse? I was here for an Argument.

Re:Countermeasures

[BJ_Covert_Action]

They're organized and have guns. Citizens are generally not organized, even when they have guns. I'm afraid the math doesn't work in your favor.

Ah, except we aren't in the stage that requires guns yet are we? Right now we're in the same cat and mouse stage that we play on the freeways every day. Police started fining for speed limits. Citizens started hiring lawyers. Police started using radar guns. Citizens started making radar detectors. Police set up speed traps. Citizens marked said speed traps on Google maps and GPS units to inform people. Police organize using CV radios. Citizens install CV radios in their cars. Since we aren't at the Mad Max stage of society yet, all those big guns that police are driving around with in their cars are useless in the ongoing battle between liberty and the law on the freeways.

Similarly, we are not at the stage yet where citizen armies need to organize and wage all out war on the police with regards to invasion of privacy. Right now, we get to play cat and mouse with technology. So the police want to use their better funding and organized networks to track us and invade our privacy? Fine, we take it to the courts. That doesn't work? Fine, we take it to the streets. They have funding and radios. We have access to every bit of tribal knowledge that every citizen has (regarding technology) and access to the internet. You say the math doesn't work in my favor. I disagree. I think armies of engineers, hackers, scientists, idealists, artists, and makers organizing cleverly across the internet can trump a few understaffed and underfunded state police departments any day. So they have paid R&D to make their jobs easier? We have hobbyists and folks with a chip on their shoulder that will R&D citizen technology for no reason other than ego. I say we are more than a match.

You can call me idealistic, or unrealistic, but I think you would be selling me short. I have watched open source operating systems go toe-to-toe with established organized corporations. I have watched open source microcontrollers go toe-to-toe with embedded systems technology in everything from robots to Segways. I have watched open-source data crunching projects fold proteins and discover pulsars. I have watched bloggers turn out stories that big media outlets have missed. I have watched citizens battle HOA's and states in court based on knowledge of the law they could gain from the internet. I have watched peer-to-peer networks topple an entire wing of the media industry.

You think the math is not on our side? We are citizens of one of the brightest, strongest, most diverse countries in the world. Freedom is our heritage. Strength is our creed. Justice is our birthright. It is here, on the internet, through collaboration and instant communication that we citizens have been fighting a turf war for liberty for over three decades now, and I've seen us win battles even when the losers want to cry foul and say we didn't play fair. I have seen an entire generation of kids brought up on the notion that knowledge wants to be free and any entity infringing on that notion is evil whether it be government, corporate, or private citizen. You don't think we are organized? Go look at make.com sometime. Go look at ifixit.com. Go look at any website that organizes the entire sum of human knowledge on a particular subject and pits it against those who would deprive us of resources.

The cops have guns and radios. We have the minds, hearts, hands, backs, and ideals of every loony, hero, genius, crackpot, and madman out there. We are the citizens of the United States of America. If the government really wants to start an arms race with its citizens, you can be damned sure it's going to regret it.

Yet another reason

[iceaxe]

Yet another reason to take the bus or train.

Before this ruling...

[cvtan]

an aluminum foil hat was enough. This guy is way ahead of the curve: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01407/foil-car_1407008i.jpg

TFA kind of sucks

[metrometro]

Can anyone link me to the actual decision, particularly the apparently barnburning dissent? Why why why can't mainstream media link to primary documents occasionally?

Re:TFA kind of sucks

[BobMcD]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000010204

Yes, and...

[Cosgrach]

If I find such a device on my car, I will either: 1. Smash it into little tiny bits. 2. Attach it to another car at random. 3. Call the bomb squad an tell them that there is something suspicious on my car that I did not put there. 4. Ignore it. 5. Ebay, baby! Track that mother fuckers!

Cool!

[jenningsthecat]

If I find one of these on my car, it's mine! I can take a hammer to it; or better yet, I can stick it onto a taxicab and laugh out loud while I'm imagining the police scratching their heads and muttering "What the fuck?".

Is this different from just following somebody?

[cshamis]

Aside from using a technological tracker, this doesn't seem like it's any more an infringement of privacy than simply having the police follow you everywhere you go. Which they also do not need a warrant to do. Now, to attach a tracker to a car sitting in a driveway would be trespassing... unless the car was parked on a public street, or inside a garage.

Re:Is this different from just following somebody?

[rotide]

What if I have a lot of property? Or I go onto private land? They can't follow you there without a warrant. But this fun little device can go where ever you can. Now that they are allowed to bug your car to collect one type of data, when are they going to add more functionality? Say, sound recording, miniature camera? And hey, since its legal to attach some things to your car now, can I stick on whatever I please now too? Hey, you love my political party now, enjoy my sticker. Wait, I don't like the color car you have, let me stick on some some of this liquid that hardens after a while to change that (paint). Maybe this isn't as slippery a slope as I'm imagining, but it's already gone to far as it is!

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn Obama lag!

Criminalize it and only criminals will have it.

[HeckRuler]

This has already been circumvented.
So the cops are going after lay citizens and stupid crooks, a fair number of which really do deserve to be caught.

Re:Criminalize it and only criminals will have it.

[st0rmshad0w]

Some of us still know how to read a map....

Overlooking something

[kurokame]

There's an important distinction here which isn't mentioned above.

From the look of it, they didn't declare that it's explicitly allowed by law, they only declared that it's not prohibited by law under the fourth amendment. IANAL, but that sounds like we're in a much better situation in terms of fighting this than we could be.

This is why GPS jammers have cig lighter plugins

[seifried]

This is why most small GPS and cell phone jammers come with cigarette lighter plugins, so they can live in your car. If you want to take a private trip (and not have access to your own GPS or cell phone of course) you may want to invest in one of these (easier than crawling under your car and inspecting it every time you want to go do something. Or so I read in a magazine. http://www.dealextreme.com/search.dx/search.portable%20jammer.

Re:Heh

[stonewallred]

Anyone with a lick of sense knows that lag in WoW is caused by Cheney contacting his dark slave Satan for his weekly updates via the web. Seems old Cheney is too cheap to buy a T1 line to hell.

Re:Heh

[davmoo]

What irony? I've long feared my own government far more than any foreign government or terrorist organization, and I'm just an average American and don't even wear a tin-foil hat. And please be sure and notice that after the Bush administration rushed to take away more of my rights with the Patriot Act the Obama administration has done nothing to remove those restrictions. So it makes no difference which party is actually in office...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

what IS the right, exactly?

[TheGratefulNet]

to attach device? or to ensure the device is not removed?

you have to believe they'll fully cover themselves, here. its probably not just the right to attach but also the right you have to inspect your car and remove unauthorized items from it!

this is fraught with problems. how am I to know that this is a cop-box (as I call it) and not some terr-a-wrist(tm) box? any box that I did not put on my car is a 'trouble box' and should be removed. I have no idea what the heck its doing. could even be a bomb! why would I even be expected to tolerate such a thing?

what if my car has some wireless gear on it (say something that goes from trunk to hood and I didn't want to run cables so I did a wireless link) and suppose their transmitter interferes with my units operation? that's willful interference! suppose it fucked with a safety or security system I installed?

only an idiot would allow such a law!

yes, yes, I know. I fully know who buys and pays for our laws these days.

Re:New dog, Old trick

[hibiki_r]

It's not a problem, in the same way that it's not a problem to have cameras recording everything that goes on within the sight of a public street at all times, easy to search in a database. How is it different than having a cop walking around the city taking notes?

The difference is price and magnitude. The cost of tailing someone, and the risks of detection, prevent a police department from doing so indiscriminately. When you make it cheap and easy, you increase the use of that practice by orders of magnitude. With such an increase in capabilities, a similar increase in oversight is needed.

Re:Heh

[PachmanP]

it's just another troll that wants to blame Obama for everything, even the BP gulf mess and probably even lag when playing WoW.

Well my lag has increased since he took office. If he's not responsible, why won't he just come out and deny it? I'm not saying he did it, but I'd like for him to just shut down any suspicion.

Do such devices exist

[turkeyfish]

Do devices exist that would permit someone to detect if a GPS has been added to a vehicle, items of clothing, luggage, packpack, etc.? Seems as if the police have created a new market here.

  I've heard of wives and husbands placing such devices with loggers on each other's cars to try to catch instances of infidelity and in cases where corporations are spying on one another, but clearly serious freedoms, lives and property are at stake if the government or anyone else readily begin to monitor people's location in real time with GPS, as such an ability would make it easy for criminals to break in to a home, if they new the owners were not there.

George Carlin said it best...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. "I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shit like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww fuck, here we go again...here we go again.

The God excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, "It came from God." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. Personally folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would've given you the right for some food every day, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. GOD would've been looking out for ya. You know that.

He wouldn't have been worried making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend's parents.

But let's say it's true. Let's say that God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights?

The Bill of Rights of this country has 10 stipulations. OK...10 rights. And apparently God was doing sloppy work that week, because we've had to ammend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So God forgot a couple of things, like...SLAVERY. Just fuckin' slipped his mind.

But let's say...let's say God gave us the original 10. He gave the british 13. The british Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29, the Belgians have 25, the Sweedish have only 6, and some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a fuckin' god damn god given deal is that!?...NO RIGHTS AT ALL!? Why would God give different people in different countries a different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning . Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words...business as usual in America.

Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942 and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

Yeup, sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a fuck about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. it simply doesn't give a fuck about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible.

Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."

- George Carlin

OR... Just watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E :)

They can track your private property but not you?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Let me get this straight....

They can put a GPS device on your car, but what about your body? Both are private are they not? Why is a car which is private property, any different than your personal body.

Shouldnt the cops have the right to now put a GPS on your body when you have done nothing illegal?

If they're going to violate private property, it might as well include ALL of your private property.... your body, your car, your house, your phone, your children, your dog.

Buy your guns folks, while you still can. This country is going to shit.

Re:So what?

[st0rmshad0w]

And SOOOOO much easier to beat. Stop at an intersection and have drivers switch cars.

You'd think the stupid police would realize they are supposed to be tracking THE SUSPECT, not the vehicle.

Why Privacy?

[Aragorn DeLunar]

Because a government that can search any person at any time can incriminate anyone it wants.

"During a routine anti-terrorism sweep, civil liberties activist John Doe was found to be in possession of methamphetamine, child pornography, concealed weapons, and pirated ABBA songs. He was immediately taken into custody and is being held at an undisclosed location for the public's safety..."

Right now we have an important check in the form of a search warrant. Before searching me, a law enforcement agent must demonstrate to a judge probable cause that I have committed, or will commit, a crime. It's not perfect, and there are notable loopholes, but at least there is some documentation and accountability.

Re:Heh

[Wyatt Earp]

No I've not.

So where are the GULAG for political prisoners in Arizona?

http://maps.google.com/

Point them out.

Where is the law making agitation or propaganda or circulating materials or literature that defamed the state and social system a crime in Arizona?

Where is Arizona's internal passport system?

google.com or bing.com, I want some links.

address/phone

[theNAM666]

Honorable [sec] Alex Kozinski
125 S Grand Ave,
Pasadena, CA 91105.

"Unpublished 626-229-1300. 626) 229-1300
(626) 229-7150

http://maps.google.cz/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Alex+Kozinski%22+pasadena+ca&fb=1&gl=cz&hq=%22Alex+Kozinski%22&hnear=Pasadena,+CA,+USA&cid=0,0,1064814430869621964&ei=otx1TLOvDYmlOO7p4ZYG&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQnwIwAA

Re: Because law isn't based on who you trust?

[falconwolf]

You know your government has tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and is on its way to warships with laser cannons right?

And those tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and other weapons are manned by citizens. I used to be one. While we were joking about it a number of us, including me, argued we'd frag someone giving us a bad order. While I'm no longer in the Army my nephew is in the Marines and I could see him doing it.

Heck even the Chinese had difficulty having it's army fire on civilians during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Commanders for the local army units refused to order soldiers to fire on civilians. Protesters were even cheered on by the police. Communist party bosses were scared the local military units were going to revolt so Beijing called in units from other parts of China. Even then there were reports of sporadic gunfire and interfactional fighting among PLA units.

It's not as easy to get a nation's military to fire on its own citizens as you seem to think. Heck in the Israeli military there are even refuseniks who refuse to take part in the occupation.

Falcon

Re: Because law isn't based on who you trust?

[sjames]

How's that working out for them in Iraq?

Imagine how much worse it would go if the people manning those weapons realized it could be family members and friends they're shooting at.

It still takes boots on the ground with rifles to actually control an area.

Re:New dog, Old trick

[turkeyfish]

Why would you feel comfortable living in a society where the police watch everyone 24/7, particularly when the potential for corruption is so large?

Once this is in place its only a short step to using that data for corporations or governments to decide that some people aren't doing/going what/where they want them to do/go. Suddenly, your life becomes a constant challenge to follow the same pattern day in day out so as not to run afoul of the authorities. Yes, I want the police to have the tools they need to catch criminals, but society must be attentive enough to draw careful limits on such activities, lest it slip into an opportunity for abuse or worse a police state. You say its only a difference of price and magnitude. While that may be true, with both society becomes qualitatively as well as quantitatively different. Once we go down that road, there's a good change that we won't be coming back.