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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re:So Then...

[butterflysrage]

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

Just build yourself on of these

[scharkalvin]

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

Then they won't see ya!

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.

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!

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: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: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: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: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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: 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