Slashdot Mirror


College Student Finds GPS On Car, FBI Retrieves It

mngdih writes with this excerpt from Wired: "A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online. The post prompted wide speculation about whether the device was real, whether the young Arab-American was being targeted in a terrorism investigation and what the authorities would do. It took just 48 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted their expensive device back ... His discovery comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals saying it's legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect's car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway. ... 'We have all the information we needed,' they told him. 'You don't need to call your lawyer. Don't worry, you're boring.'"

851 comments

  1. Finders Keepers? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about a bit of "finders keepers" and disassemble and report of the technology. Followed up by a "Does it Blend" episode !

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Finders Keepers? by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the FBI throws you in jail for destruction of government property, obstruction, and any other charges they decide to toss your way (rightfully or not)? Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it?

    2. Re:Finders Keepers? by dougmc · · Score: 1

      The technology is pretty mundane. Here, you can buy one for $100 --

      http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.25332

      (I imagine the FBI's version would be fancier, might include some velcro, a 12v power input (or a much bigger battery) and maybe an external antenna, but the gist is the same.)

      Usually the FBI hides things like this pretty well. I wonder if he had a reason to go looking for it?

    3. Re:Finders Keepers? by Forge · · Score: 1

      The technology can't be all that interesting considering that the device in the picture is bigger than my "TomTom". And my commercial GPS had to make additional room for a touch screen and battery. Why wasn't the FBI device seriously tiny?

      Unless it's like those giant pieces of Armor some ancient army discarded to intimidate the enemy? I.e. This was a not so subtle hint that: "We are watching you so you better not try any $#!!7"

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    4. Re:Finders Keepers? by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... and how about they kiss his ass, seeing as they left their property inside his for surveillance?

      He's got every right (IMO) to do what he damn well pleased with it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, dumbass.

    6. Re:Finders Keepers? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well they told him "It's federal property. It's an expensive piece, and we need it right now. [...] We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate." If you want to pick a fight with these thugs then call the ACLU - trying to piss them off might not be such a great idea.

    7. Re:Finders Keepers? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... and you can make one for between $30 to $50.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Finders Keepers? by powerlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but how does he know that it is actually theirs?

      Perhaps they are just trying to get their hands on other people's property.

      Are they prepared to provide a receipt for returning the item, or some proof of ownership that he can retain a copy of to protect himself from liability.

      -- Menachem

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    9. Re:Finders Keepers? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Extended battery, extended storage, -large- antenna (hard to pick up a GPS with all that aluminum around you otherwise), as well as toughening. Try using your tomtom without a clear view to the sky - it doesn't work very well!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Finders Keepers? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Does your TomTom TRANSMIT any data? Long range? That takes a whole lot more battery power and a lot more size. GPS location works by passively receiving signals. GPS trackers add transmitting location to that.

    11. Re:Finders Keepers? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that we've gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "don't throw me in jail because it will make me uncomfortable".

      As to your last question. YES IT IS WORTH IT. Liberty is always worth the penalty for it, the other option is to acquiesce to slavery. This is no different. Tyranny must be fought with everything we have, because the other options aren't pretty.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Finders Keepers? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Usually the FBI hides things like this pretty well. I wonder if he had a reason to go looking for it?

      RTFA...

      Afifi ... took his car to a local garage for an oil change. When a mechanic at Ali’s Auto Care raised his Ford Lincoln LS on hydraulic lifts, Afifi saw a wire sticking out near the right rear wheel and exhaust.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    13. Re:Finders Keepers? by Whyte+Panther · · Score: 1

      If you read TFA, you will notice that he didn't find it himself. His mechanic did during a routine oil change. And only because he noticed an extra loose wire.

    14. Re:Finders Keepers? by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Interesting

          How about a theft of government equipment charge, followed by a tampering with evidence charge?

          The report on the technology would be pretty boring. Oversized antenna? Check. Battery pack? Check. COTS tracking hardware and software? Check.

          I know I've had law enforcement follow me, and eavesdrop on my phone calls occasionally. Well, not randomly occasionally. They were following particular, perfectly legal, events.

          They've never told me that I was boring. Judging by the fact I was never taken in for further questioning or charges, they discovered my day to day life is ... well ... boring. :)

          Yup, he went to work. Yup, he went home. Yup, he called a few friends, all of whom were just as boring. Oh listen! He's joking about how boring his calls are, and how he feels sorry for us listening to the conversation. Oh it's friday, he went to a bar with his girlfriend. Yup, he drank a little. Nope, he didn't contact anyone nefarious. Yup, he went home.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    15. Re:Finders Keepers? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Wow. They did a great hiding job then...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    16. Re:Finders Keepers? by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

      If I'd found it I'd have had the bomb squad out..

    17. Re:Finders Keepers? by adolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Recall the recent "found" iPhone 4 debacle:

      The finder of a thing usually seems to have to make a reasonable attempt at finding the owner of an item (and "reasonable" varies quite a lot from place to place), and if it is unclaimed after 30 days, then they are entitled to keep it.

      Generally speaking, YMMV, IANAL, so on, so forth.

      But since the FBI asked for their widget back within 30 days, I guess that it's theirs to recover.

      (Whether or not I think this is morally right is a different discussion entirely. Personally, I'd like to think that if I find a tracking widget on my car, that it's henceforth mine. However...)

    18. Re:Finders Keepers? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      It's an older model. In TFA, they mention newer models that they wire up to the car battery and forgo the need for their own. No battery = much smaller

    19. Re:Finders Keepers? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did. The wire was the antenna, and antennae have the peculiar tendency to not work when they’re hidden really well inside metal structures. He said he’d have never found it if it wasn’t for the antenna sticking out.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    20. Re:Finders Keepers? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's interesting is that they said newer models are placed in the engine compartment. It would seem wise to bug your own engine compartment so you know when the hood has been raised.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    21. Re:Finders Keepers? by ZosX · · Score: 1

      If you'd RTFA you would learn that his mechanic had found it and that they typically hide it a lot better than they did.

    22. Re:Finders Keepers? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Recall the recent "found" iPhone 4 debacle:

      You mean the one that was sold while the buyer was fully aware that it was stolen property? Not the same thing as a flier stuck in your front door. It was left there by someone intentionally and you don't know if they are good or bad people.

    23. Re:Finders Keepers? by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not that I disagree with you, but there is a pretty wide gap between saying something like this on the Internet and actually following through with it in the real world.

      There's obviously no way for me to know your level of life-experience but if a person is not normally subjected to direct pain and suffering or is blissfully unaware of it the amount of effort required to force them into acquiescence is minimal. Withstanding that kind of pressure isn't as simple as you make it sound.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    24. Re:Finders Keepers? by Geeky · · Score: 1

      So he just says he knows nothing about it. Maybe it fell off. How plausible that it is depends where it was and how it was attached.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    25. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "trying to piss them off might not be such a great idea."

      You Sir/Madam is living in a police state. That sort of logic does not belong in a free society.

    26. Re:Finders Keepers? by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Informative

      My guess is they likely go in from underneath, not through the hood. It's quicker, doesn't involve having to open the door, actually go inside the car (where someone is much more likely to notice that something has been tampered with), etc.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    27. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is nothing to do with lost property. The FBI intentionally placed the device on someone else's property.

    28. Re:Finders Keepers? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I don't know, when the government gives me stuff I generally feel free to do whatever I please with it.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    29. Re:Finders Keepers? by smallmj · · Score: 1

      So what happens when the penalty for liberty is the loss of said liberty. Then you become slaves to the idea of liberty without experiencing any of that liberty. You fight tyranny with everything you have, thus becoming tyrants. That ain't pretty either.

      --
      ------- Mark
    30. Re:Finders Keepers? by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      actually, I would define subversive activities such as putting a GPS device in someone's car to track them without their consent as terrorism.

    31. Re:Finders Keepers? by falsified · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is NOT a good analogy. The iPhone was found in a bar, and the jackass that "found" it knew whose it was and made no attempt to give it back. This device was intentionally left attached to the car, with the hope that it would never be found. Basically, the two situations are opposites of each other.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    32. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well didn't they design jail to be full of gangs and rape on purpose as a huge deterrent for doing anything that an authority might not like?

    33. Re:Finders Keepers? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      If you're not in a detention cell of some sort (or dead/soon to be dead) when you're yelling "LIBERTY OR DEATH!!!!" to the masses, you're doing it rather hypocritically and it becomes little more than a cliche.

      It's easy to tell someone else that paradise and the 72 virgins is totally worth it when you're not the one about to blow himself up.

      It's easy to be the internet revolutionary that screams down with the gubment from the safety of the local starbucks.

      The Founding Fathers got the right to the "or death" part since that was a real consequence for them. Other uses just become hyperbolic statements that serve no purpose other than partisan politics and subverting any sort of rational discourse.

      This sort of warrantless intrusion is wrong. Forming the red-neck militia and stocking up on canned bacon isn't the way to go about changing it. We have laws. We have law makers. Getting one to change the other is the way. Oh, you can't get rid of your local politician because everyone else votes for him? Well, that doesn't give you the right skip the democratic process just because you don't like the results. "It's not tyranny when I do it" just doesn't cut it.

    34. Re:Finders Keepers? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about the FBI throws you in jail for destruction of government property

      You do not have a duty to look after property that someone attaches to you by stealth.

      Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it?

      If I am blameless, and the authorities are abusing their power, then emphatically YES. Someone has to keep them honest.

    35. Re:Finders Keepers? by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      but the tracking widget isn't "Lost" it's deliberately placed into your custody (whether you know or not). So, and I'm very pro law enforcement, I believe you can do whatever you want with it without being liable. I have not read any laws to back that up but the general rule that law enforcement uses is, if it's abandoned, we can search it. So if the Law abandons it then I believe anyone else can do what they will with it.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    36. Re:Finders Keepers? by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      "trying to piss them off might not be such a great idea."
      You Sir/Madam is living in a police state. That sort of logic does not belong in a free society.

      Absolutely... as a matter of fact, if the new style of these devices are being wired into MY automobiles battery and not being powered by their own battery then the legal right for their placement upon a vehicle in a public place needs reviewed. Also, if I found one of these on my vehicle I would go to my neighbors and ask if one of their kids put it in, and if none of them claimed it then the device would promptly be smashed into pieces. Since no one else would have any sort of public expectation to have put such a device there and it would thus be unclaimed.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    37. Re:Finders Keepers? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Here, you can buy one for $100...

      A quick google search gives $826. It's not exactly the sort of thing you can get from Radio Shack, but whatever works, I guess...

    38. Re:Finders Keepers? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Liberty is always worth the penalty for it"

      How many westerners do you know that at the same time (A) hold to that principle and (B) actually carry it in practice?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    39. Re:Finders Keepers? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Why? Are the hoods of modern American cars still not secured?

      In all [European, Asian] car brands [that I've ever come across], you need to operate a lever inside the car in order to pop the hood an inch or so; only then can you fully de-latch the hood from outside and really open it.

      I used to wonder about how, in the movies, they always ripped out the glow plug wires or whatever, until I started taking an interest in classic cars -- and discovered the discussions on how to install locks on the hood of your car.

    40. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it was "given" to him by attaching it to his property - eBay FTW! Starting bid $100, no reserve.

    41. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not very plausible at all, since his friends posted pictures of the device online.

    42. Re:Finders Keepers? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If he didn't ask for it then doesn't that mean it's an unsolicited good and he's an involuntary baillie? He might owe a minimal duty of care, if anything.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:Finders Keepers? by Cemu · · Score: 1

      For anyone to open a compartment of your locked vehicle without your permission should constitute breaking and entering. IANAL but placing one on the outside of your vehicle without a warrant is dramatically different than getting under the hood and making modifications (wiring and/or panels for hiding) without a warrant.

    44. Re:Finders Keepers? by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Not that I disagree with you, but there is a pretty wide gap between saying something like this on the Internet and actually following through with it in the real world.

      .

      The fact that there is such a wide gap there is a large problem with our country right now. It used to be that words MEANT something real. Now it's just spouting off on a semi-anonymous website where you don't have to have any balls to go with your bark. And then you can go back to doing whatever the government tells you and giving them 30% or more of every single paycheck without any resistance at all.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    45. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My response to finding such a thing is obvious to me: Transplant said device onto a random stranger's car in a parking lot. For bonus points, attach to a police car.

    46. Re:Finders Keepers? by mldi · · Score: 1

      "trying to piss them off might not be such a great idea."

      You Sir/Madam is living in a police state. That sort of logic does not belong in a free society.

      Amen to that. There's zero reason we should be in fear of our law enforcement. Will they harass me? Will they beat me claiming I resisted arrest? Will they make up some other bullshit charges? Give me a break. This is pathetic.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    47. Re:Finders Keepers? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      At the very least I'd contact a lawyer. Both in case of potential prosecution (they must have suspected him of something or they wouldn't have placed an expensive piece of hardware on his car, no matter what they say), and to find out what my rights are in regards to keeping the device as a souvenir.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    48. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

      All laws about this aren't the same. There are three different kinds of laws on this topic.

      There's the 'forgot to pick up' law, where you accidentally put something somewhere and forget to get it, like setting your wallet down in a checkout line.

      And there's the 'dropped' law, where you did not know it left your possession.

      These are, believe it or not, often covered under different state laws.

      For example, the rule with the first is often if you find something you think someone has accidentally left, you should keep it there, at least for some specified time. If a customer walks out of a restaurant without their purse, the restaurant should hold their purse for them.

      Whereas with the second, if you find a wallet in the middle of the sidewalk, or even if you find one in the middle of the hall in the exact same restaurant, you're supposed to turn it in to the police. 'The Place' gets things left behind, where people can go back and get them, the police get things that just fell there, where people possibly have no idea where they are.

      Generally. Of course, laws vary by state, but I thought it would be worth mentioning that even truly 'lost' items get treated differently depending on how they got lost.

      And neither of those cover deliberately leaving something somewhere on someone else's property. If such a law exists, it's a different law. As far as I know, you don't have any obligation to take care of people's property and make sure they can find their stuff when they do that, like you do when they accidentally give you possession. OTOH, you can't deliberately break their stuff either.

      I still think the best bet is to take the thing apart and claim you thought it was part of the car. (Or, rather, plead the fifth and have your lawyer point out they haven't proven you knew it wasn't part of the car.)

      OTOH, if you really wanted to screw with the 'lost property' stuff, you put your car inside a giant metal box and hide it in a warehouse somewhere. You have not damaged their tracker at all.

      And by them attaching the tracker, they've just admitted that they're recording the location of your car. So there's no way in hell they can force you to reveal the location of your car, because, duh, that's testifying against yourself. (Think about it for a second. If the FBI is collecting 'the location of the car', then 'the location of the car' is clearly being used as evidence in an investigation, presumably against you, so if you're forced to tell them 'the location of the car'...)

      Now, a court could demand you turn it over, or be in contempt, but they're actually have to go through the court to do that. And you're still have a pretty interesting argument, namely, that you're not willing to remove something they attached to your car, as you have no experience in that sort of thing and they've threatened to sue you if you damage it .(And you still can't be forced to tell them where the car is.) So, while you'd like for them to get their tracker back, there appears to be no way to actually accomplish that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    49. Re:Finders Keepers? by krazytekn0 · · Score: 1

      Plus going into the passenger compartment (even far enough to grab the hood latch) requires probable cause and in many cases, a warrant. Which simply placing the device on the car does not. So if they already have enough probable cause to enter the car, they probably won't need the tracer.

      --
      Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
    50. Re:Finders Keepers? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Does your TomTom TRANSMIT any data? Long range? "

      Yep. I use it to phone to Australia.

    51. Re:Finders Keepers? by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      In the article, he brought it in for an oil change and the mechanic/technician found it because a wire was sticking out where it shouldn't have been.

      --
      Dan
    52. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should stamp "Property of FBI" on it so we know where it came from. Spy tech can be bought in stores or online. What if I assume it was some crazy ex-girlfriend?

    53. Re:Finders Keepers? by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

      That would be difficult on most recent cars. They generally have a plastic floor under the engine bay to reduce drag and increase fuel economy. They'd have to remove it to place in in the engine bay from underneath. Most have some kind of oil change "hatch" that's easier to remove than taking off the entire cover, but it still is likely to be faster to just get into the passenger compartment and pop the hood.

    54. Re:Finders Keepers? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      My gut reaction is that this is entirely different from the iPhone 4 debacle. But thinking about it for a second, there's definitely overlap, and in that overlap zone, the "reasonable effort" thing definitely applies. If I was over at a friend's house and $500 cash fell out of my pocket, I'd certainly hope that my friends would have the integrity to call recent visitors rather than say, "finder's keepers". Find a GPS that doesn't belong to you on your car? Report it to the police. Photograph it, blog about it, get yourself a frickin' lawyer, but report it and allow the gov't to publicly take it back.

      The problem with the gov't taking the low road (warrantless surveillance via GPS) is that it encourages the populace to follow suit and devolve to childish behavior. I think you're totally right that, in these situations, unless you're willing to commit to being a revolutionary--which may be right in some situations, but certainly not all--the best path is to take the high road.

      But again, I think it's a great idea to be very public about stuff like that. Like Obama said, the best disinfectant is sunlight.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    55. Re:Finders Keepers? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I'd have said, "I have the device locked up in a safe place. I'll be happy to give it to you, but of course I'll need some documentation showing it is yours. I'll take a written request for it as sufficient proof -- you're a cop after all, so I can trust you. Naturally, I'll require a receipt. I don't want to be held responsible if you lose it again."

      The device is useless to this guy. What he needs is proof this really happened.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    56. Re:Finders Keepers? by Geeky · · Score: 1

      Not very plausible at all, since his friends posted pictures of the device online.

      Well, sure, now. But he could have just ditched it somewhere and not posted the images (although if it was actually found by a mechanic working on his car, I suppose that doesn't really work either).

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    57. Re:Finders Keepers? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      Recall the recent "found" iPhone 4 debacle:

      The finder of a thing usually seems to have to make a reasonable attempt at finding the owner of an item (and "reasonable" varies quite a lot from place to place), and if it is unclaimed after 30 days, then they are entitled to keep it.

      Then again, if it's an unmarked black box, how are you supposed to know who it belongs to? I'd be tempted to stick it to the underside of a garbage truck. Either they raid a landfill, or some poor agent gets to crawl under a few garbage trucks looking for their expensive doohickey.

    58. Re:Finders Keepers? by lavagolemking · · Score: 1
      From the original article

      they told him. "You don’t need to call your lawyer. Don’t worry, you’re boring."

      There is probably a very good reason they said that. They know what they're doing is wrong, they got caught red-handed, they wanted the device back so it couldn't be used against them in court, and they ultimately don't want to be held accountable for a violation of his constitutional rights, in the unlikely event they still exist. Yasir Afifi should definitely press charges, just so this ruling gets reversed, and it looks like the ACLU is already interested in the case.

    59. Re:Finders Keepers? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your in college and find a strange device attached to your car.
      I don't know about you but I would have taken it apart to see what it was. I would have figured it was some joke a friend had made.
      If it wasn't marked as federal property how should I know?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    60. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ali's Auto Care? Clearly a terrorist front.

    61. Re:Finders Keepers? by cmiller173 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1776: "Then it's agreed, gentlemen, in order to secure our rights as a free people, we will risk embarrassment, imprisonment, expropriation, bankruptcy, bodily harm, exile and hanging." 2010: "Of course I'll waive my rights. I don't want to miss my connecting flight."

    62. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about finding a "lost" item. This is about finding a "placed" item.

      If you place an item on my property, I will not consider it "lost", and will make no effort to "return" it.

    63. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true up to a point but what about when you're not just sacrificing yourself? Aside from the emotional impact, you may have people relying on you for some kind of support, be it financial or otherwise. I would think that even people who are willing to sacrifice their own freedom to make a point might have serious issues about hurting their family in pursuit of that goal.

      Equally well, if it's part of a fight for liberty he needs a support network in place to help ensure his sacrifice is worth something - if you get yourself locked up and there's no publicity or big legal fight because you didn't have the resources does it do any good at all?

    64. Re:Finders Keepers? by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Especially if you have a family you are taking care of. You have that extra drive to make sure your daughter will grow up in a free country, but that's tempered by the knowledge that certain acts of civil disobedience (or extrapolating to an illegally oppressive government - those may be acts of constitutional obedience) may place you in custody/court for a sufficient amount of time to lose your job. That could result in failure to pay mortgage, inability to obtain another job within your career, etc...

      I like to think that my daughter will still think of me as her hero and role model when she grows up, and I know my wife would support me (we'd probably be in trouble together actually) if it were one of the Big freedom issues. So what do you do when it's things like back scatter screening on a field-trip to the courthouse or driving through a DUI checkpoint in the coldest form of sobriety?

      This is the insidious danger inherent in the erosion of freedom: not enough to die for, not even enough to make you homeless or hungry or inconvenienced over, but enough, over time, to leave you with a shallow shadow of what our ancestors died for.

    65. Re:Finders Keepers? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      All things considered, if that's the publicly available consumer model, the FBI most likely has one that is smaller and stronger. How about a good old spoonful of paranoia? Perhaps Afifi found the device that he was meant to find?




      Oh wait, 24 isn't on any more, I guess Jack Bauer isn't tracking him...

    66. Re:Finders Keepers? by domatic · · Score: 1

      "A friend of mine knew his phone was being tapped so he ended every phone conversation with 'Fuck Hoover!'."

      - George Carlin.

    67. Re:Finders Keepers? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      They work like you say but I wouldn't call that "secure".
      Easy to tell you are from the EU. Glow plug wires? Spark plug wires most likely if the show was from the US. Diesel cars are few and far between here.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    68. Re:Finders Keepers? by Duradin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1776: "We lack representation in government and have no other recourse."
      2010: "We are the government and have recourse to change laws."

    69. Re:Finders Keepers? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      What he should have done is call in the local bomb squad and had them destroy it.

    70. Re:Finders Keepers? by udoschuermann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the device has a label on it that says "U.S. Government Property. Return to blah blah..." then yes, you'd likely be liable for damaging or losing it, and would certainly have to hand it over when they come to retrieve it.

      On the other hand, if I found and threw away or disassembled into uselessness some unlabeled thing on my car, I'd be damned if I accepted their claim that I damaged something that wasn't mine. How was I supposed to know? It's my flippin' car, I have the right to turn every gram of it into a fine powder if I felt so inclined.

      --
      --Udo.
    71. Re:Finders Keepers? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it says 'property of the FBI' on it? If not, he should have destroyed it before they came for it. I doubt there are many judges who would punish a kid for destroying a device that some unknown entity intentionally left on his property...but once he knows it's an FBI device, that gets a bit more tricky. I personally think he should still be able to do what he wants with it, it seems exceedingly strange for the FBI to expect to get their spying devices back in such cases (besides, how can they be sure he didn't tamper with it?)

    72. Re:Finders Keepers? by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you could sue the FBI for stealing the stored electricity generated by the alternator from running the engine on fuel - all of which you had to pay for. It's probably a small expense, but if it shorts out your battery or alternator due to extra resistive load (or bad wiring, etc...) then you're not looking at trivial damages and would have a clear case. But even if it is trivial - it is still theft. Look at punitive damages in RIAA cases ;) (Yes I know that electricity isn't covered under IP law... so don't take that last bit too seriously).

    73. Re:Finders Keepers? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Larry Flint

    74. Re:Finders Keepers? by jgostling · · Score: 1

      Sue them back for emotional distress. You found a tracking device in your car and have been scared as shit that some terrorist is after you. Play their own playbook against them!

      Cheers!

    75. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it was labeled with a property sticker or else he would have known immediately it was the FBI tracking him... I would have asked for proof that it was FBI property first (e.g. can you tell me it's serial number?)

    76. Re:Finders Keepers? by dogzilla · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes it is.

      --
      The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to it's pig latin heritage!
    77. Re:Finders Keepers? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      No, modern American jails are designed to be savage to turn prisoners even more savage so they stay in, fattening the wallets of the prison industrial complex.

    78. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Found" and being put on your property are 2 different things.

      I would charge them a storage fee of $10,000 / day. They are free to claim their possession which they put on my private property when their bill is settled.

    79. Re:Finders Keepers? by spleen_blender · · Score: 1

      No No NO. Terrorism has a specific meaning. The use of fear to achieve political objectives. Your definition does nothing but spread the purview of The War On Terror(TM) as does any misuse of the word "terrorism."

    80. Re:Finders Keepers? by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      I think I would have wrapped it in something to prevent transmission until unwrapped - and then mailed it off to the ACLU (or similar) and asked them if they would be able to help me find the owner of the unidentified equipment. That would be a good way to genuinely attempt to reconcile the equipment to its owner in probably the most offensive manner possible. "I would love to give your expensive device back, but not knowing who it belonged to when I found it in a location where it must have been placed accidentally because I can't imagine any probable cause - I sent it to some experts. Being experts I'm sure they will contact you."

      Seems like a nice bow-shot to speed you on your way to the supreme court.

      IINAL

      IINARAIR - I am not always realistic about inalienable rights

    81. Re:Finders Keepers? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate."

      That's a classic lie from the cops. They are going to make it as difficult as they can whether you cooperate or not. The more information you give them, the more difficult they can make it. Whether it's county sheriff or the FBI, nothing should pass your lips besides "I'm sorry, I can't do anything until I talk to my lawyer." Don't hand them the device, don't even confirm or deny that you know it exists.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    82. Re:Finders Keepers? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It’s not always a lie. It’s their job, it’s a shitty job, and plenty of the time, they really, really don’t care about some petty noise complaint they received from your obnoxious neighbour. However they’re also usually egomaniacs who will make life miserable for you if you try to hold them to the law. Sure, the law says they’re not allowed to enter your house without a warrant, but it also says they can imprison you for up to however many hours without charging you with anything...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    83. Re:Finders Keepers? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I think Return to Tweeg is the more appropriate cultural reference here.

    84. Re:Finders Keepers? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      I'd simply tell the shop after looking at it for a while that it looks like road debris to me and ask if they could dispose of it for me. or simply dumpster it at a local walmart.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    85. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prosecutors will "construct" an argument to make your actions or lack of actions criminal. Those who make the rules (lawyers) win.

    86. Re:Finders Keepers? by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Forming the red-neck militia and stocking up on canned bacon isn't the way to go about changing it. We have laws. We have law makers. Getting one to change the other is the way. Oh, you can't get rid of your local politician because everyone else votes for him? Well, that doesn't give you the right skip the democratic process just because you don't like the results. "It's not tyranny when I do it" just doesn't cut it.

      Um, you do know how the United States became an independent country, no? I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether the founding fathers should have fought it out in Parliament instead of on the battlefield the Revolutionary War, but their choice WAS the foundation of the country.

      An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:

      ...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    87. Re:Finders Keepers? by Defenestrar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      See - that's the problem in 2010. People think the government has power. The truth is that people have power which they permit the government to use:

      Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

    88. Re:Finders Keepers? by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      I would have placed it in the care of my lawyer as soon as it was identified. Either that, or called the police from the mechanic requesting them to send in the bomb squad to dispose of this device I found attached to my car.

    89. Re:Finders Keepers? by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      He could have told the mechanic to keep it for spare parts...

    90. Re:Finders Keepers? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Not to mention... How much does your car cost?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    91. Re:Finders Keepers? by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was some form of stimulus...

    92. Re:Finders Keepers? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well, you live here. You may remember this from Slashdot, too. You shouldn't have to live in fear of your law enforcement. Do you?

    93. Re:Finders Keepers? by dr2chase · · Score: 1
      And there's the obvious right answer, there. He should have taken pictures, then wrapped it in a heavy layer of aluminum foil, and delivered it to his lawyer.

      THEN, posted about it on the internet.

    94. Re:Finders Keepers? by berzerke · · Score: 1

      ...He's got every right (IMO) to do what he damn well pleased with it.

      Having a right and the ability to enforce said right are two very different things. Kinda like the line from the Crow: ...you've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it...

      In this case, he won't win this fight. The best course of action at the point the FBI showed up is to hand it over.

    95. Re:Finders Keepers? by roju · · Score: 1

      All things considered, if that's the publicly available consumer model, the FBI most likely has one that is vastly more expensive.

      FTFY.

    96. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you meant
      1776: "We lack representation in government and have no other recourse."
      2010: "We lack representation in government and have no other recourse."

    97. Re:Finders Keepers? by Palpatine_li · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that opening the hood might be finally considered breach of privacy...

    98. Re:Finders Keepers? by Duradin · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a colony America did not have representation in Parliament. They tried to get representation before the war, but Britain wouldn't give in to one of their colonies.

      Believe it or not, political means were tried before military means.

    99. Re:Finders Keepers? by kidcharles · · Score: 1

      How about the impact of the added weight on your fuel economy?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    100. Re:Finders Keepers? by kurokame · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1776: "The government is across an ocean."
      2010: "The government habitually plays big brother (and just did)."

    101. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I blame the lack of public hangings for our current lack of backbone.

      /some have more backbone than others... just under what circumstances will it be shown?

    102. Re:Finders Keepers? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      ah George. How we loved thee.

          His quote, as recorded on the SCOTUS decision on FCC vs All Citizens of the United States:

          "A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead."

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    103. Re:Finders Keepers? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      All laws about this aren't the same. There are three different kinds of laws on this topic.

      OTOH, if you really wanted to screw with the 'lost property' stuff, you put your car inside a giant metal box and hide it in a warehouse somewhere. You have not damaged their tracker at all....

      Wouldn't they just go to the last place they had a signal, notice this big metal box big enough for a car and figure it out?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    104. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to be part of this uncivilized institution, how do I make myself not part of the government?

    105. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you put your car inside a giant metal box and hide it in a warehouse somewhere."

      obstruction?

      Of course, using any/all legal means available to you does not mean that they wouldn't make your life a living hell. In fact, it may guarantee it.

    106. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I found it, I would either take it apart, or go to the nearest truck stop, find a truck way out of state, and attach it to the trailer. Actually more fun would be to attach it to a package, air mail to an Iraqi nuclear plant in the middle east. But alas, I would likely go to the mountains with a fishing rod, find a high cliff with an outcropping 300 feet below, let it down slowly with the fishing line, then cut the line when its all nice and safe.

    107. Re:Finders Keepers? by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I probably meant to say spark plugs anyway, didn't intend to be Diesel-specific.

      So by "work like you say", you mean that modern American cars *do* use a secondary lock and interior lever? That's comforting.

      Whether or not it's absolutely break-in-proof is arguable, but it certainly does promote the act in point (placing a device within the engine compartment) from a "plant" to a real "break-in" into the car proper, assuming that lever can't be operated from outside (underneath?) the car. *That* was the point I was trying to make, but obviously didn't state outright.

    108. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I would imagine that a foil-wrapped box of electronics being sent through the mail might draw the attention of the FBI anyway, even if Ted Kaczynski is in jail right now.

    109. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom isn't Free

    110. Re:Finders Keepers? by Derosian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must be someone with a huge amount of capital and/or someone who runs a large corporation if you feel you actually have recourse to change laws.

    111. Re:Finders Keepers? by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the point that the FBI is secretly attaching tracking devices to your car, being 'legally right' is moot. They are already carrying out secret operations against you. Your better bet is to just let as many people know what is going on as possible, so when you disappear, there is some hope that you will be found.

    112. Re:Finders Keepers? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Yeah, call the ACLU and the Libertarian party.

      When I asked about this in the last few articles about GPS tracking, inquiring "What do you do if you, a perfectly innocent individual, find one of these on your car?" and the replies I got were all like "Hey, if you find one of these on your car, it's basically because you're a terrible person, and you're probably only concerned about running for the border. And they'll put one on next time that's harder to find."

      You guys all still feel the same way about this stuff, hmm?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    113. Re:Finders Keepers? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's pretty funny. It's not like our Government would ever pass legislation that was opposed by a majority of the population.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    114. Re:Finders Keepers? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      And the fear of being tracked harassed etc to achieve there political objective is different how? The divide between the police and the terrorists gets thinner and thinner as our rights erode. Politicians have figured out fear gets them elected and push the law enforcement to induce a state of fear. As a judge has ruled that this is legal our politicians should be drafting legislation to deal with that oversight and the president should have directed all federal law enforcement to not use these methods in the meantime.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    115. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just mailing it to your friend in China or your ex-Marine buddy who is an ex-pat in the Republic of the Philippines? Toss it in a dumpster and let them dig it out of the city dump. So many more interesting scenarios.

    116. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does your TomTom TRANSMIT any data? Long range? "

      Yep. I use it to phone to Australia.

      Then either you live in Australia, or you're just connecting to a nearby cell tower.

    117. Re:Finders Keepers? by ftobin · · Score: 1

      As to your last question. YES IT IS WORTH IT. Liberty is always worth the penalty for it, the other option is to acquiesce to slavery. This is no different. Tyranny must be fought with everything we have, because the other options aren't pretty.

      The liberty is worth it in if the penalty is paid by the aggregate. Prisoner's Dilemma.

    118. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More flavor if he'd stuck it on an interstate bus.

    119. Re:Finders Keepers? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      He's got every right (IMO) to do what he damn well pleased with it.

      Yeah, and I have every right to put my 7 year old in a T-Shirt that says "Islam is of the Devil" and send him to school. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

    120. Re:Finders Keepers? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There's a reason why the 1st amendment comes before the 2nd.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    121. Re:Finders Keepers? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Unsolicited items sent to you in the mail are yours, free of charge. I believe that's a federal law.

      So, if the FBI is delivering something to your vehicle... I'd be very tempted to remove it and re-gift it to a random semi-truck, but that would probably make me "more interesting" to them, which is probably a bad idea.

    122. Re:Finders Keepers? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Trap a coyote, attach it, and let it go?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    123. Re:Finders Keepers? by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      That is exactly what I would do if I found under my car some strange wires attached to a box that shouldn't be there. Call the bomb squad, and let the agencies sort it out among themselves.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    124. Re:Finders Keepers? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      1776: "We lack representation in government and have no other recourse."
      2010: "We are the government and have recourse to change laws."

      Are you writing this from the perspective of a lobbyist?

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    125. Re:Finders Keepers? by Coppit · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with you, but there is a pretty wide gap between saying something like this on the Internet and actually following through with it in the real world.

      I'm sure "give me liberty or give me death" was just as rarely followed through on then as today. I would like to think that there are a rare few today, as before, that would follow through. The OP may or may not be one of those few. That does not detract from his point.

    126. Re:Finders Keepers? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      And by them attaching the tracker, they've just admitted that they're recording the location of your car. So there's no way in hell they can force you to reveal the location of your car, because, duh, that's testifying against yourself. (Think about it for a second. If the FBI is collecting 'the location of the car', then 'the location of the car' is clearly being used as evidence in an investigation, presumably against you, so if you're forced to tell them 'the location of the car'...)

      That's a wonderfully rational and logical point. Unfortunately our Justice system doesn't take kindly to logic and rational thought. Clearly anyone making that argument is seditious and needs to be tracked to protect national security.

    127. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you are in an accident and said device gets damaged or thrown from the vehicle?

    128. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1776: the government was only "across an ocean" when that would be disadvantageous to a colonist with a grievance. But the government was very much right there, in person, if it didn't like you. Refer to the list of grievances in the declaration of independence for details, and the constitution for the results.

      (It used to be that if they didn't like you, they could station troops in your house, at your expense. Who would then rough you up and damage the place. You don't like it? Well, the lawsuit trial has to happen in London. They "found" something illegal in your house? You go to prison, unless you want to appeal it... in London.)

    129. Re:Finders Keepers? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      I would imagine it's possibly covered under laws similar to those governing engagement rings in broken engagements.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    130. Re:Finders Keepers? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I think he would not be legally bound to give it back. If someone sends you stuff in the mail that you didn't order, you don't have to pay for it and you can keep it. The same should apply; if I find a stereo in by back yard, it's mine unless someone comes forward and proves that it was stolen from their house and the burglary was reported to the police.

      If a stranger puts expensive electronics in or on MY car, especially if they tresspass on my property to put it there, it's going on ebay. If they want it back they can pay me for it.

    131. Re:Finders Keepers? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Personally, instead of trying to be clever, I'd drop it conveniently on the tracks at a railroad crossing, momentarily after the flashers start, assuming it isn't too large. Or some other "sane for a car to have passed, dangerous for small electronics" locations. It fell off, after all. You need to attach your surveillance electronics better.

    132. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to watch that Teardown episode on the EETimes.

    133. Re:Finders Keepers? by Demonantis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Call the police. Seriously. You don't know what the thing is why the fuck would you drive around in the car once you know it is there. You don't have to fiddle with the courts where no one hears your story instead journalists will start asking the questions that the FBI won't like hearing the answers to.

    134. Re:Finders Keepers? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      You're being misleading. You're trying to imply that people are against government-run health care. However, that very page says (with a citation):

      a CNN poll of 1,030 adult Americans found that 59% opposed the legislation while 39% supported it. Further breakdown showed that 43% opposed the bill because it was too liberal, 13% opposed it because it was not liberal enough, and the remaining 39% supported the bill.

      So the 13% who opposed it because it was not liberal enough *are actually for government run healthcare*.

      (BTW, I'm against the bill, and Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc... I still want people to be truthful regardless of whether they're on the same side of the debate as I am or not.)

    135. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck em, dismantle the device on camera. Take high resolution images of the boards, if there's a jtag get into the thing and try and get a firmware dump. Call the manufacturer and tell them the truth "You have one of XYZ unit and you're trying to download the current firmware to make sure the device is operating per the specifications of the engagement." Once you've got as much information as possible, post it on as many ad based video platforms as possible (don't forget if the site's in hindu, the play button still works in any language ;) Sponsor it with ads and return the individual components in individually marked anti-static bags. (desaughter as much as you can if you're into that, but don't damage anything.)

    136. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would file production on them. They would be producing pretty much their entire setup. Then they would be hoping I bless it because what I didn't, they couldn't keep anymore. :(

      Depending on what it was I might it quite simple to basically not just prosecute real bad guys direct because of all the real evidence of all these kinds of financial crimes and so on, thus that I would seem them do their duty, then I would scrape them off all the innocent people and make them apologize and depending upon how badly they mangled the Constitution, publicly prosecute them.

    137. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPhone was found in a bar, and the jackass that "found" it knew whose it was and made no attempt to give it back.

      Actually, he called Apple multiple times to tell them he had their iPhone, and they didn't believe him / refused to escalate the issue to people who might know about it.

    138. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom isn't Free

      Nope. It costs $1.05.

    139. Re:Finders Keepers? by chasman · · Score: 1

      So how do you know it belongs to the FBI when you destroy it, and it's not from a stalker ex-girlfriend? Does it have an FBI logo on it?
      Please.

    140. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if it's a standard shipping container. Those are easy to move, and a car will fit inside.

    141. Re:Finders Keepers? by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      But this wasn't lost. They knew exactly where it was. Instead, I would treat this as a gift. They were very aware of placing the item within your property. I mean, if they don't know where they placed their GPS transceiver then something is seriously wrong (and funny).

    142. Re:Finders Keepers? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      In this case, he won't win this fight. The best course of action at the point the FBI showed up is to hand it over.

      Agreed. Although, I would have made an effort to record the meeting with the FBI - just to counter the "we can't talk about it" angle.

      The lawyer would have been nice too. (I see someone beat me to the "ask for a receipt" joke.)

    143. Re:Finders Keepers? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The following post is obviously a work of speculative fiction and utter falsehood.

      There is another option, but it involves a bit of self-sacrifice Joe Stack-style. A hypothetical protagonist might:

      Remove device, attach to IED, place at remote location with appropriate redundant triggers that can't be disarmed, and wait for it to be (boom) retrieved. He might wear a second IED for when collected by the state that has written him off in the first place.

      When the law stops protecting you, and you don't mind the cost (negating the legal deterrence model), you are free to do anything you have the power to do in reprisal. Anything...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    144. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      It is not placed "in your custody" any more than somebody losing their iPhone in a bar placed their iPhone in the "custody" of the bar owner. The bar owner didn't know that somebody left it there, it is not his responsibility to keep it safe and secure - until such time as he becomes aware of, and takes possession of, the lost / unclaimed property.

      Under California Law, if you find lost / unclaimed property, you are obligated to keep it safe & secure, and make a legitimate attempt to find the owner - regardless of where you found it. If you cannot find the owner, or do not want to take responsibility for keeping it safe & secure until the proper owner is found, you are legally obligated to turn it over to the police.

      If, after they (the police) search for an owner, they don't find one, they may then put the item up for auction, to recover the costs of storing & trying to find the owner.

      As with the iPhone case, there is no such thing as "Finders Keepers" under the law. Any attempt to justify selling, destroying, or 'losing' a found item is on shaky legal ground, and will probably put you in hot water, legally speaking.

    145. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 4, Interesting

      being 'legally right' is moot. They are already carrying out secret operations against you.

      I think you mean "They are already carrying out completely legal operations against you, using the legitimate and constitutional authority granted to them by a court of law," right?

      You may not LIKE the authority they're given, but as the law stands today, they absolutely have every right to do it, and it *is* legal for them to do it. If you don't LIKE it, you should vote for legislative candidates who will promise to do something about the issue that concerns you. Or, become a candidate yourself, and educate your fellow citizens about the abuses of power you will correct when you're a representative or senator.

    146. Re:Finders Keepers? by adolf · · Score: 1

      No, and a flier stuck in the front door isn't the same thing, either. But that doesn't matter.

      The reference I made to the iPhone 4 was only to remind folks here, in this context that is Slashdot, about the fact that one's responsibilities regarding lost and found property have already been fully argued and debated ad nausea.

      It was not an attempt to draw an analogy.

    147. Re:Finders Keepers? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You have to be kidding me. His motive was materialistic: he fought for his way of earning money.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    148. Re:Finders Keepers? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      I'd be tempted to stick it to the underside of a garbage truck. Either they raid a landfill, or some poor agent gets to crawl under a few garbage trucks looking for their expensive doohickey.

      Drop it into your trash can and leave your car sitting at home until the trash is collected. Then, drive away to wherever it is you need to be (work, school, etc.).

      By the time the authorities figure out that your car movements don't match the GPS unit movements, the unit might be in a landfill three states away.

      If they ever find the unit, then just say "I found that in my driveway...I think I ran over it with my car, 'cause it was pretty beat up. I didn't know what it was, so I just tossed it in the trash." At that point, you know from their questions that it was a device that had been attached to your car, so it's unlikely they'll attach another one and ask you to make sure it stays on.

    149. Re:Finders Keepers? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      This is NOT a good analogy. The iPhone was found in a bar, and the jackass that "found" it knew whose it was and made no attempt to give it back. This device was intentionally left attached to the car, with the hope that it would never be found. Basically, the two situations are opposites of each other.

      What the fuck? The "jackass" who found it made multiple calls to apple, trying to return it. No one in customer service believed him (which makes some sense - they don't know jack about secret stuff like that), and after they continually refused to listen to him, he contacted gizmodo.

      Don't call random people a jackass just because you don't know how to read. That kind of shit pisses me off.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    150. Re:Finders Keepers? by falsified · · Score: 1
      No.

      "Suspect Brian Hogan, the affidavit says, knew very well that the phone belonged to Apple engineer Robert "Gray" Powell, and that he, Hogan, was deliberately trying to sell someone else's property rather than return it. "Sucks for him," Hogan allegedly said to his roommate.

      The affidavit also claims the editors of Gizmodo, who bought the phone from Hogan for somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000, also knew they were on the wrong side of local laws that forbid the purchase of such items, which the law treats as stolen. Gizmodo allegedly withheld part of its payment until July, to see if the phone was indeed Apple's new model.

      There are delicious moments of humanity in the story. Hogan claimed he gained possession of the phone when a drunk bar patron helpfully but mistakenly handed it to him. Powell thinks the phone may have fallen out of his backpack onto the floor of the bar as he sat talking with his uncle.

      Hogan's female roommate -- not his girlfriend -- called Apple after Hogan connected the iPhone to her computer, because she feared Apple would track her computer over the Internet. Steve Jobs personally emailed Gizmodo editor Brian Lam and asked him to return the phone."

      http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/14/iphone-search-warrant/

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    151. Re:Finders Keepers? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Amazed you're the only person to suggest this.

      Then again, I spent several years of my life checking the car for bombs before getting in - and had people nearby die because they didn't..

    152. Re:Finders Keepers? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Or I'm someone who can vote.

    153. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People think the government has power. The truth is that people have power which they permit the government to use:

      Dude, do you seriously BELIEVE that the government has no power? Of course they do. Maybe it SHOULDN'T be that way, and maybe what power they do have SHOULD be controlled by The People(tm), but let's be honest, you're confusing your idea of what reality SHOULD be like with what it actually IS like.

      Of course if you said that this is an unfortunate situation and that we should do something about it, I'd agree. And of course the only way to do something about it is to actually stand up to abuses of power. But if you really believe that the government doesn't have any power over you, you're being intentionally blind.

    154. Re:Finders Keepers? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      really?

      what about the fact that the guy thought it might have been a freakin bomb, or that they interrogated him as soon as they got the device back, or the threats if he didn't give the device back? You think the comments made didn't qualify as intimidation? Might want to RTFA.

      just because something's currently legal doesn't mean it wouldn't qualify as terorrism.

      this has nothing to do with the war on terror crap.

    155. Re:Finders Keepers? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      See - that's the problem in 2010. People think the government has power. The truth is that people have power which they permit the government to use:

      All the power that a blind man has picking color. People are fed all sorts of bullshit from the media run by big business, fake grass root movements, government smokescreens and extreme hostility that makes you think the choice is between Stalin and Genghis Khan or staying at home.

      Try making some noise about the power they have, that you will be their anti-corporatist alternative and it'll be drowned out by a huge roar as they accuse you of being an anti-capitalist, anti-freedom commie-loving terrorist - if they're kind. There will be a circle jerk of bullshit, one piece will back up another but people won't realize it goes in circles and this is all solid good reporting. It's not very subtle but it works, people get their vote but you undermine its function instead.

      Just like "fair use" was technically not touched by the DMCA. (1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.) You just make it pretty much impossible to not violate the DMCA in order to exercise that fair use. Your vote is much the same.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    156. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      There are no laws covering that at all. Engagement rings are gifts, and no one is under any obligation to give them back whatsoever.

      Giving back the ring if the woman breaks it off is just a societal convention.

      Of course, the courts would probably consider deliberately lying, from the start, about an intent to marry someone to gain a ring as fraud, but that's not what people normally mean by 'broken engagement'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    157. Re:Finders Keepers? by msslc3 · · Score: 1

      So there's no way in hell they can force you to reveal the location of your car, because, duh, that's testifying against yourself. (Think about it for a second. If the FBI is collecting 'the location of the car', then 'the location of the car' is clearly being used as evidence in an investigation, presumably against you, so if you're forced to tell them 'the location of the car'...)

      Why is the location of your car evidence of a crime? The FBI may want to know where your car is at all times so they can arrest you if they find other evidence of a crime. Under ordinary circumstances, I do not think you have the right to refuse to obey a court order to disclose the location of your car. Whether this applies to a question by a FBI agent is a different question.

    158. Re:Finders Keepers? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It’s not evidence of a crime, per se, but it’s still evidence to be used in an investigation against you and you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. It’s like a password: if they want it, it’s presumably because it will be used against you, and they can’t force you to give it up. At least, in the USA you can’t.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    159. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, keep telling yourself that. While you are at it, go try to implement some real change by getting on the ballot for any meaningful law-making position. Good luck with that.

    160. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Obamacare being passed despite beingly clearly Unconstitutional and roughly 3/4s of the country opposing it at the time it was forced through?

      For a long time now, the federal government has been usurping power from the states and the people. I can give you an itemized list, but we'd be here all month.

    161. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that not constitute a threat? Blackmail possibly? The FBI is saying that something which is legally clearly not theirs (they intentionally placed it in someone elses property to invade their privacy) and if he does not return what is no longer theirs, they are basically threatening to ignore the obligations of their investigation of this individual to make things unnecessarily and disproportionately difficult for.

      I'm having difficulty explaining it - but essentially they are saying they are not going to make it hard on him to fly or to not be harassed by police because he Deserves that for having done something wrong, they are saying they will do all that unless he does something for them which he has no legal requirement to perform. Ah! It would be extortion right?

    162. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Because "legal" and "secret" are mutually exclusive words.... oh wait.. GP is correct. It matters not at all that what they do is legal. If it is secret and legal, you're boned. If it is secret and illegal, you're boned. Notice that that the commonality is the fact that it is secret. Not the legality.

      Transparency of government. Change I can believe in..

    163. Re:Finders Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      He's got every right (IMO) to do what he damn well pleased with it.

      He does not have the might, and therefore he does not have (any) right(s) either.

      Welcome to the real world, where your Constitution is just goddamn piece of paper.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    164. Re:Finders Keepers? by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      Voting is essentially modern day "bread and circuses".

    165. Re:Finders Keepers? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, except in Minnesota:

      http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30198.html

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    166. Re:Finders Keepers? by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Recidivism rates show just how worthless our penal system is in terms of rehabilitation. That, or you have to believe people are just "born bad" and once they go astray they can't (or shouldn't) be helped.

      It doesn't help that we jail boatloads of people who "commit" victimless, non-violent crimes--more than any country in the world.

    167. Re:Finders Keepers? by codecore · · Score: 1

      What GPS device? Agent Smith, where did you see it last? You know, when I lose something, I retrace my steps. I often find my keys under my dirty clothes, or a newspaper. Did you look under your dirty clothes? Perhaps you left it on another car. There are a lot of cars that look like my car.

    168. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would define a representative of a powerful organization telling you "We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate" as terrorism.

    169. Re:Finders Keepers? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So what you do is get all the photos you want, then take it to the local cops. Like any other found property. Let the FBI explain it to your state government.

    170. Re:Finders Keepers? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      And by "Minnesota", I mean "Montana" :)

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    171. Re:Finders Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is not placed "in your custody" any more than somebody losing their iPhone in a bar placed their iPhone in the "custody" of the bar owner.

      They didn't "lose" it, they deliberately attached it to a bar counter. The bar has no more moral obligation to keep it around than it would have a piece of bubblegum or any other crap attached to the counter.

      Really, if I found a surveillance device in my car, it would be tragically "lost" on a highway somewhere and run over by a truck, after a thorough analysis of course.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    172. Re:Finders Keepers? by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 0

      It's actually kind of primitive. The big part is just a mag lite body holding the batteries with a modified cap to wire to the transmitter with the magnets zip-tied to the body.

    173. Re:Finders Keepers? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Yep. Just yesterday, I came home and found a new phonebook near my front door. I figured somebody must have lost it, so I turned it in to the police.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    174. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Really, if I found a surveillance device in my car, it would be tragically "lost" on a highway somewhere and run over by a truck, after a thorough analysis of course.

      I say again:

      "As with the iPhone case, there is no such thing as "Finders Keepers" under the law. Any attempt to justify selling, destroying, or 'losing' a found item is on shaky legal ground, and will probably put you in hot water, legally speaking."

      Sure, you CAN do whatever you want with the item. The *ability* to do whatever you wish with/to the device does not, however, absolve you of the legal (at least civil, and perhaps criminal) consequences of your actions.

      A piece of detritus stuck to your car - gum, a stick, a flyer from the carwash up the street - does not have a value that would cause the law to take an interest - I believe in California, an item must be of a value greater than $100 to be considered a found item and be subject to the full extent of the laws. An iPhone prototype, and a GPS tracking device, both exceed those values to reasonable person casually examining the device.

      Furthermore, a piece of detritus stuck to your car is also likely either not an item of property "belonging to" another person, or it got stuck to your car after it was expressly abandoned by the person who owned it. Neither of these is true of a GPS tracking device. As I said in another post, the *intent* of attaching the device to your car matters a great deal. The intent was never to abandon or "gift" it, it was to track your movement as part of a police investigation.

    175. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      First, go understand the difference that intent makes.

      *THEN* you may try to be a clever /. lawyer type.

    176. Re:Finders Keepers? by zelbinion · · Score: 4, Funny

      Better yet, park your car outside a government building and then call the police saying there is a suspicious device attached to your car. Hey, you did the right, thing, right? How can they fault you? You didn't put it there, don't know what it is or what it does, so you called the police. I mean really, the thing looks like a transmitter attached to a pipe bomb, what would you think? The resulting traffic jam and media coverage of shutting down part of town while the city's bomb squad recovers an FBI tracking device (or, possibly blows up your car just to be safe) would be pretty embarrassing for the FBI. Would kinda suck to loose the car though.

    177. Re:Finders Keepers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought it was to remind Slashdot that irrelevant things will be brought up ad nauseum. The tracker wasn't "lost." It was deliberately placed on someone else's property. If it was "abandoned" then it belongs to the person who finds it, not the FBI. If it is not "abandoned" then the FBI committed trespass (though not illegally, since they apparently have no laws apply to them while they are investigating everyone on the planet). Such things are unrelated to when someone comes into the possession of something they know the other person wants back and never intentionally gave away or left. The iPhone incident is as related to this as the question of what you should do with wedding presents after an annulment.

    178. Re:Finders Keepers? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Modern American cars work just like modern European cars: A 1995 Pontiac has the same hood (bonnet?) opening procedure as a 1995 BMW. Pull a lever/handle inside, hood pops up a bit, and then go outside and fool around trying to find the rest of the mechanism, move another lever, and it's open.

      I don't know when this development occurred, as my 1979 Pontiac has a much different procedure: Go to front of car, reach underneath the bumper, pull handle, hood pops up a bit, and pull again to fully release. It works fine, but is not in any way secure...

    179. Re:Finders Keepers? by Kvasio · · Score: 3, Funny

      why not attach it to meteorological balloon?
      That should alert agents instantly ....
      ("wow, this guy drove up to 100,000 feet! amazing what those SUVs could do")

    180. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now, that you've sent this comment with your login (not as AC), FBI will gladly use this knowledge of your fears to scare you this way.

    181. Re:Finders Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "They are already carrying out completely legal operations against you, using the legitimate and constitutional authority granted to them by a court of law," right?

      Yup. And when attaching trackers to someone's car becomes legal, it's your cue to go "oh shit". It's also your cure to throw the damn thing off on a highway or other densely trafficked area where it's likely to be run over by a truck and play dumb when they ask you about it.

      Seriously, if I found a black box on my car I'd analyze it, assume it was planted by some hostile party, and destroy it in a manner I considered most damaging for my newfound enemies.

      You may not LIKE the authority they're given, but as the law stands today, they absolutely have every right to do it, and it *is* legal for them to do it.

      See, the thing is, court decisions - even those of the supreme court - aren't the law. The Constitution is the law, as are all of the secondary laws, as long as they don't contradict the Constitution. And attaching tracking devides to people's cars seems to be in direct violation of any reasonable reading of the Fourth Amemdnment.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    182. Re:Finders Keepers? by memnock · · Score: 1

      the article quotes a former FBI agent:

      He said he was certain that agents who installed it would have obtained a 30-day warrant for its use.

      as a former agent, sure he's sure. he needs to make them look good. but there are a few examples of Justice Dept. agents not following the law. it'd be great to know if the agents had or hadn't followed the letter of the law here.

    183. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, legal to place on car. What is the legality of me smashing it to pieces once I find it???

    184. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Yup. And when attaching trackers to someone's car becomes legal, it's your cue to go "oh shit".

      It's been legal for the police to attach a tracker to someone's car for as long as there have been trackers. The question at hand is whether or not the FBI needs to subject itself to judicial oversight by getting a *warrant* (demonstrating probable cause and laying out the exact methods & expected data they will capture) to attach the tracker to your car.

      Nowhere in that chain of oversight are they required to notify you, or ask you for your permission to track your movements, or inform you that they intend to track your movements. So even if they needed a warrant, you would still have no notice that the device was attached unless you found it by chance.

      See, the thing is, court decisions - even those of the supreme court - aren't the law.

      I never said or implied that they were, which is why I said that you should get out there and either become, or support, legislative candidates who will close this loophole. The FBI asserts it has this authority; Someone challenged it in court, and the court agreed with the FBI, that the laws and constitution did NOT conflict with the FBI having this authority. So, the only thing to do is keep appealing all the way to the Supreme Court (and probably hear the same response at every step of the way), or get the legislature to change the law to specifically require warrants when placing a tracking device on someone's car.

      And attaching tracking devides to people's cars seems to be in direct violation of any reasonable reading of the Fourth Amemdnment.

      This is just another form of surveillance, and the prohibition against unreasonable search & seizure does not prohibit other forms of surveillance. It states that a *warrant* is required, and that is the possible constitutional issue at hand - whether or not they can attach the tracker to your car *without a warrant*.

    185. Re:Finders Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The wire was the antenna, and antennae have the peculiar tendency to not work when they're hidden really well inside metal structures.

      Any metal structure is an antennae.

      He said he'd have never found it if it wasn't for the antenna sticking out.

      Good for him. Let's hope the FBi won' try any more East German tactics on him, now that they've caught once.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    186. Re:Finders Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You Sir/Madam is living in a police state. That sort of logic does not belong in a free society.

      He is, it doesn't, and you posted as an anonymous coward for a reason.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    187. Re:Finders Keepers? by tonywong · · Score: 1

      He shoulda attached it to the cars of one of the sitting US Supreme Court Judges and see how fast things got 'straightened out'. Of course getting caught putting a hidden box that looks like a bomb onto one of the Supreme's cars doesn't look so great.

    188. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      I was responding to his assertion that "being legally right is moot", fuckwit. And no, GGP is NOT "correct." The ONLY thing that matters is the legality of the action.

      There is no obligation for the police to inform you that you're under surveillance, nor is there any need for them to run the warrant by you "just to see if it's okay". They can, and regularly DO, keep things "secret" from the people they are investigating and surveilling. If they are doing it and do not have the legal authority to do so, demonstrating that in front of a court is how you get them to stop. If they are doing it, and they do have the legal authority, then you really have no legal leg to stand on to prevent them from surveilling you.

    189. Re:Finders Keepers? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Or just get the hell out of that police state while you still can, which is what any sane man would do in that situation.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    190. Re:Finders Keepers? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that they said newer models are placed in the engine compartment. It would seem wise to bug your own engine compartment so you know when the hood has been raised.

      I call such a device a "Car alarm" - every time I've installed one, I wire it to a hood and trunk switch - not for fear of someone sticking something into either compartment, but to prevent someone from taking stuff out of one of them. Regardless, such method works just as well for the other scenario. :-)

    191. Re:Finders Keepers? by alexo · · Score: 1

      Or I'm someone who can vote.

      [An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]

      "I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

      Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

      "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

      "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

      "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

      "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

      "I did," said ford. "It is."

      "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

      "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

      "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

      "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

      "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

      "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

      "What?"

      "I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

      "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

      Ford shrugged again.

      "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

      [ From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams ]

    192. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Let's be clear here:

      They've always had the right to place a tracker on your car, and place you under surveillance - this is nothing new. The only thing new is that a court has ruled that the police *do not need a warrant* to place the tracker. There are numerous legal opinions and precedents that feed into this decision - I'd strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with them, in fact - but to state that this has turned us into some sort of fascist police state is overdoing it a bit.

      Inflamed rhetoric makes for nice bumper stickers, and it also makes for horrible legal opinions.

    193. Re:Finders Keepers? by EriDay · · Score: 1

      Bottom line: The police don't need a warrant to place one on a car. They just need a warrant to get it back.

    194. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You have no responsibility to care for things that people have deliberately left in your possession without your permission, even if you become aware they've done so.

      Unlike things they've accidentally left in your possession, which you do have some responsibility for, if only to turn over to the police. Or things they left in your possession with your permission, for which you've accepted tacit responsibility for.

      Sadly, the lack of responsibility doesn't let you actively destroy it, which is still vandalism or theft by destruction.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    195. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You don't normally have the right to refuse to disclose the location of your car. For example, if someone shows up with a warrant to search your car, you have to produce your car.

      That is because it's not the location of the car that's evidence, it's the car itself. You aren't testifying against yourself when you disclose the location of your car. You have no fifth amendment right to keeping your car secret...if they've got a warrant, you have to let them search it.

      However, as I pointed out, the FBI is collecting the location, presumably to use against you. That means it is evidence. Not 'the car', but the knowledge of the location is evidence. Otherwise it would be pretty dumb to collect it.

      And that knowledge is in your head. So you can't be compelled to disclose that knowledge.(1)

      Basically, you can be compelled to disclose things that aren't evidence themselves, that just 'unlock' evidence.

      Hence things like password disclosure laws, although those obviously have other problems. And hence jokes like making your password itself be a confession of a crime, and thus you wouldn't have to disclose it. (This wouldn't work. Even if the police lost that case, they'd just have to set up an way for you to decrypt without them knowing the password.)

      The courts can compel people to tell them stuff that can't be evidence of a crime, and the location of a car usually isn't. The key word is usually...if you parked your car out in the woods where you buried the bodies, technically, they can't make you tell where it i, because being parked there will be used against you in court.

      And if you make the argument in court that that is why they're trying to find your car, that the search warrant is merely a way to demand you tell them where the car is...you do not, in fact, have to explain where it is. (Even if your car is parked elsewhere...you obviously don't have to prove or even admit your guilt when you plead the fifth.)

      This argument would usually fail, but in this situation the police themselves have exhibited an amazing amount of interest in the location of your car, at all times, and it's entirely reasonable to assume that will be used as evidence in some criminal case. In other words, a GPS tracker is de facto proof of an otherwise rather hard-to-prove claim, and should logically render you able to plead the fifth on the location.

      And, what's more, the fact they're trying to find it at all times means you have no damn way to actually get the car to them without them tracking the location. I mean, normally, if you argued to the court that they didn't want to search it, they just wanted the location, the court would just make you deliver it yourself. But here you can't without having to reveal the location, which you do not have to do.

      1) Incidentally, if the location of a car starts regularly being 'evidence', then at some point even a warrant won't be enough to make anyone turn over the car, they'll have a valid fifth amendment argument if the location is normally being used against people in court.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    196. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think everyone seems to be missing the obvious option here. Remove the tracker from your car, go to the mall, toss tracker in the first car with an open window that you see. Unless the feds have actual visual surveillance on you, or the device lets them know its been removed, they are gonna waste some time following random person #1 instead of you. Which gives you time to return home to remove all evidence of terrorism/dirty pr0n/illegal downloads, whatever your crime of choice is. You haven't actually damaged their device, so at that point, just play dumb.

    197. Re:Finders Keepers? by sjames · · Score: 1

      1776: Many are in agreement, they must sooner or later set us free. They can't jail us all.

      2010: Fox news will go along with the terrorist story. We'll disappear into Gitmo never to be seen again.

    198. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, passwords are not evidence, and there's no constitutional reason you can't be ordered to turn one over.

      Passwords unlock evidence, but are not themselves evidence, unless your password is 'I killed Jake'. (And if so, the court would just demand that the police set up a computer where you can decrypt the information but don't have to reveal your password.)

      That's not, of course, to say that laws couldn't regulate forced password disclosure, and obviously they need a warrant, but a password, like the location of a car, isn't 'evidence', and if the police have a warrant for the encrypted stuff or the car itself, you'll have to let them access it.

      However, in this specific case, the police are collecting, purposefully, deliberately, continually, expensively, the location of your car at all times, and it's entirely reasonable to argue that, although you're not sure how or what for, clearly the police are intending to use the location as evidence, and hence you plead the fifth in telling them that information.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    199. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      As I mentioned above, you have no responsibility for property deliberately put into your possession. (As opposed to stuff accidentally dropped or left, which you do have a minimum standard.)

      You are not allowed to damage it, as that is vandalism...but I can't think of any reason you wouldn't be allowed to remove it.

      Or even leave it laying around anywhere, as long as you don't leave it somewhere it obviously would get damaged. (Like the middle of the road.) You are not responsible for it. You have neither tacitly taken responsibility for it by agreeing to be left it, nor is it 'lost property'.

      It's just something in your possession, like a couch an ex left at your house. You can't damage it, you can't sell it or give it away, but you don't have to leave it in the damn living room either.

      Of course, the easiest thing to do is just bring it inside. Which is, hilariously, exactly what you're supposed to do if someone forgets something and you end up with it, so you can always claim you thought the FBI set it down (attached to your car?) and then forgot to take it with them when they left. Get a box, label it 'Lost and Found', and stick it in there. When they show up asking where their tracker is, go and check the lost and found, and, hey, there it is...they should be more careful with their stuff. :)

      Oh, and after 30 day or so, check your local laws, you're supposed to turn forgotten property over the police if no one claims it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    200. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's exactly what they want you to keep on believing, mind slave.

    201. Re:Finders Keepers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Terrorism has a specific meaning. The use of fear to achieve political objectives.

      By that meaning, the FBI is a terrorist organization, as is the MPAA, and MADD.

    202. Re:Finders Keepers? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Better yet, park your car outside a government building and then call the police saying there is a suspicious device attached to your car. Hey, you did the right, thing, right? How can they fault you?

      By demonstrating that you did it with the intent to cause the disruption that you describe. Or in other words: if you truly did notice a suspicious device attached to your car, you're not supposed to exploit the possibility that it might be a bomb in order to fuck with people.

    203. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the youngsters among us who may not get the reference they're talking about J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI from its founding in 1935 until his death in 1972.

    204. Re:Finders Keepers? by adolf · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am not fully convinced that leaving the iPhone 4 in the pub was completely accidental.

    205. Re:Finders Keepers? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No. I said what I meant. At the point that they are planting tracking devices on you, they have crossed the line to do whatever they want to you. Whether it is legal, illegal, or illegal and the powers that be are doing it anyway doesn't much matter when they can do whatever they want to you.

    206. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think the same quote from 1776 largely still applies today. Being able to vote for corrupt politicians who in turn always vote for corporate interests hardly counts as being represented.

    207. Re:Finders Keepers? by destiny71 · · Score: 1

      As far as postal service goes, there's laws about items being sent to you unsolicited. Could something like that be applied here?

      Think CueCat. You gave it to me, I'll do with it as I please, and you can't say anything about it.

    208. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then sue the FBI for emotional damages.

    209. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1776: "The government can use guns against us if worst comes to worst. We have access to the same guns, the same technology, the same training, the same kind of men."
      2010: "The government has a metric shit-ton of weapons technology that we do not have, cannot get, and couldn't afford even if we could legally acquire it. It also has a huge hi-tech army that's specifically trained to follow orders and nothing else, and brainwashed into thinking that what the government is doing is always right."

    210. Re:Finders Keepers? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I don't think my insurrance covers the anti-terrorism team blowing my car up based on a tip I gave them

    211. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Well then, you 'meant' something that is completely irrelevant.

      If they have crossed some line by doing this, it is an imaginary one in your head.

      If it is *legal* for them to do this, and you simply don't like it, then you support legislators who will change the law and close that loophole. (Hint: It always *has* been legal for them to 'secretly' place a device on your vehicle to track you. Some places haven't even needed warrants to do so, long before the advent of the recent decision.)

      If it is *illegal* for them to do this, you will be vindicated in a court of law.

      If it is *illegal* and they are still doing it, and no court will stop them, then the rule of law is broken. We have not yet approached this "line" you seem to think they have crossed. They have always been able to attach these devices - the court's ruling simply decided that they don't need a warrant from a judge in order to do so. The act of placing a surveillance device on your vehicle has *always* been secret, warrant or not. They don't ask your permission, they don't give you notification, they are not required to get your consent.

      This is not "doing whatever they want to you," this is "exercising the authorities that courts & legislature have granted to them" in a constitutional and legal manner.

      If they could do 'whatever they wanted' to you, there'd be no need for a tracking device, they'd simply 'disappear' you to the nearest interrogation facility where a confession would be extracted from you via whatever means were necessary. Why bother with all the hassle of tracking you, when hot pliers and ball peen hammers will get you to tell them what you've been up to?

    212. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Please go present that case to a judge. I look forward to seeing this logic torn to shreds by the paralegals in court.

      The police do not need your informed consent to investigate you. They never HAVE. And here's a pro tip: There will NEVER be a requirement for the police to do this.

    213. Re:Finders Keepers? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Lets not forget the other fine points.

          He was head of the FBI for a lot of years (as you said).

          He was a publically known cross dresser.

          He had the FBI keep secret files on Americans who may or may not have been subversive.

          He used and abused his powers in most un-American ways.

          And he was a devout Freemason.

          There's more, but I'll leave it up to everyone else to dig up on their own. ... and the truth is out there. But there's an awful lot of conspiracy crap too.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    214. Re:Finders Keepers? by falsified · · Score: 1

      I'm still not able to find anything that says he made an actual attempt to give it back (everything seems to credit a roommate for calling Apple, not him), but even if he had, the recourse is to call the police, not auction it off. This would be no different than putting it on eBay.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    215. Re:Finders Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "As with the iPhone case, there is no such thing as "Finders Keepers" under the law. Any attempt to justify selling, destroying, or 'losing' a found item is on shaky legal ground, and will probably put you in hot water, legally speaking."

      So if you attach your iPhone to the underside of my car, I'm responsible when it falls off and is broken? Or if, when doing maintenance on my car, I find a piece of equipment that shouldn't be there, I have some kind of duty to store it in case someone comes asking? Or, extrapolating this a little, if I find an electronic device on my lawn, I am obliged to store it rather than just throw it away, because whoever littered might be coming to ask for it?

      This is not about "finder's keepers", this is about my right to dispose of garbage.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    216. Re:Finders Keepers? by megabeck42 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't placing such a device on your car constitute a tresspass to land?

      --
      fnord.
    217. Re:Finders Keepers? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You can pretty much unlatch them all from the outside. Really with good reason. If the cable breaks you do not want to have a way in without cutting the hood off.
      At best it is just to slow them down.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    218. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the FBI throws you in jail for destruction of government property, obstruction, and any other charges they decide to toss your way (rightfully or not)? Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it?

      Seriously? So, because the government oversteps it's constitutional (not legal) boundaries and makes one person's life more difficult, they should acquiesce? I am seriously questioning your patriotism.

    219. Re:Finders Keepers? by BillX · · Score: 1

      Interesting point you bring up - obviously, touching pretty much any exterior-accessible surface of the car is legally clear for these guys; they have to really get in there to jam a GPS up above the tailpipe. Reaching through an open window to pull the hood release would maybe be off-limits, but reaching up underneath the engine compartment and giving the cable it's attached to a little tug...

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    220. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Not if it's in your driveway or on the street, no. People can generally walk around the front of your house.

      Might be interesting to put up a 'No Trespassing in Driveway' sign, though. But can't even try to stop them if you're parked in the street.

      Of course, a better solution is to put the car in a garage.

      As always, the laws are unfairly tilted against the poor.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    221. Re:Finders Keepers? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that there is a difference between “information” and “evidence”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    222. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      So if you attach your iPhone to the underside of my car, I'm responsible when it falls off and is broken?

      No, because: a) you weren't aware of the device being placed; b) I'm not law enforcement with the authority to compel you to do things; c) my iPhone is not government property; and all three of the above presume that d) you have not 'found the device attached, taken it off, deliberately destroyed it, and then claimed that it must have fallen off.'

      Or if, when doing maintenance on my car, I find a piece of equipment that shouldn't be there, I have some kind of duty to store it in case someone comes asking?

      You have two choices if you want to consider the property found: Store it, and make a reasonable effort to find the owner, or turn it in to police and absolve yourself of all responsibility for it. If you fail to find the owner yourself, then you are STILL obligated to turn it in to the police under the law.

      Or, extrapolating this a little, if I find an electronic device on my lawn, I am obliged to store it rather than just throw it away, because whoever littered might be coming to ask for it?

      Yes, actually, if the device is worth more than a set dollar amount (if memory serves, greater than $100 value), you ARE obligated to either hold it and attempt to find the owner, or turn it in to the police. Those are your options, any other option you choose is a violation of the law in California, and you should be prepared for the consequences.

      This is not about "finder's keepers", this is about my right to dispose of garbage.

      Really? Because it sounds a lot like 'finder's keepers' when you state that you get to do whatever you want with an object of value that you find, because finding that object gives you the right to dispose of it as you see fit, including disassembly for 'thorough analysis,' followed by 'losing it' on a highway.

      Unfortunately for you and your point, the law very clearly disagrees with you. Your options, under the law, are to either hold the device and make an attempt to find the rightful owner, and THEN turn it in to police, OR to turn it in to police right away and absolve yourself of all responsibility for the item.

      There is no third option where you get to smash, disassemble, throw away, or otherwise dispose of the item, if you don't want to run afoul of the law. If you don't mind breaking the law, then great - lose it, smash it, disassemble it, throw it in a dumpster, throw it in a lake... just be ready for when the FBI comes around and wants to know what happened to their device.

    223. Re:Finders Keepers? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, I think there's a difference, in the eyes of the court, between words the police intend to use against you, which you don't have to say, and words they don't intend to use against you, which you do have to say, even if telling them helps their case in some other way.

      The most obvious example of this is your name. You have to identify yourself to the police if the laws say so, and no, it's not self incrimination, as they're not asking your name as any sort of 'evidence'. In fact, all the legal challenges to the police demanding that have been about whether or not the police need a warrant....because it's not a fifth amendment issue at all, your name is not incrimination, and thus you can be compelled, by the court at least, to state who you are. (And apparently you can even be compelled by a law, without a warrant, but that's a side issue. If it was self incrimination, you couldn't be compelled at all, even by a court.)

      Don't argue with me, argue with the courts. I don't think you should have to say anything to help the police at all.

      The courts have been somewhat hesitant to make people turn over passwords in the US, but not because of self-incrimination issues, but because of the rather obvious problem that the courts could end up punishing people for not turning over passwords they don't have. However, several courts have, indeed, demanded people turn over passwords and held them in contempt when they didn't.

      I was just pointing out that, if the cops have a GPS tracker on your car, it's pretty strong proof that the location of your car is intended for use against you, and ipso facto you don't have to tell the police or even the courts where it is, even if that means they can't get back their GPS. (I guess they could issue you immunity for the current location of your car, and then force you, which would be pretty hilarious to have to do.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    224. Re:Finders Keepers? by mldi · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do live in fear of law enforcement. My post wasn't saying we don't have reasons to, I was just pointing out how backwards it is that we do and have good reason to. They shouldn't give us reasons to at all, period, unless we're actual bad guys.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    225. Re:Finders Keepers? by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      You must be someone with a huge amount of capital and/or someone who runs a large corporation if you feel you actually have recourse to change laws.

      A huge amount of capital helps chiefly because it lets you convince people to agree with you and act on it. Is your position that I should be able to change laws without anyone else agreeing with my view? 'Cause that seems to be what you're implicitly suggesting and, for what it's worth, that sort of government is called a dictatorship.

      (And, no, politicians can't be "bought" by lobbyists because the politicians are taking bribes for themselves--it's because politicians are taking money that can be used to convince people to re-elect the politician. It's always about convincing other people. Money just helps spread the message.)

    226. Re:Finders Keepers? by Derosian · · Score: 1

      A huge amount of capital helps chiefly because it lets you convince people to agree with you and act on it. Is your position that I should be able to change laws without anyone else agreeing with my view? 'Cause that seems to be what you're implicitly suggesting and, for what it's worth, that sort of government is called a dictatorship.

      Capital allows you to run period, partly because many lower level political jobs don't pay well, partly because it allows you to buy an education which increases your chances of winning elections, and lastly because it allows you a demeanor of success which people see as a winner. You CAN change laws without a majority of people agreeing with your view with capital, you run on a platform, then vote a certain way because a lobbyist told you to. Are you saying our current society is a dictatorship?

      I would like to point out for example the problem between shareholders and a company CEO for publicly traded companies. The CEO is supposed to increase longterm profits for shareholders in order to drive up the price of the stock, but most often he is motivated by self-interest and would like to increase his salary substantially. Many companies try to solve this by using stock options but that only promotes a motivation for temporary increase in stock prices even if it screws the company in the long run. There was a bill in the house recently that allowed shareholders to make a non-binding vote on what they feel the head of the company they have stock in should make, salary wise. That bill was lobbied into extinction. Was that right, should one person be able to lobby out the opinion of hundreds of other individuals in order to get what they want. It almost seems like money and capital has replaced nobility as a caste system.

      I disagree with you. I would not call our current society a dictatorship. I would call it a Corporatocracy. The government created the concept of the Corporation and allowed it to grow in power, and by regulation became enmeshed with the corporations. This has caused many of the problems we have currently. I wouldn't say everything the corporations do is wrong, in fact it seems there are many good facets. Unfortunately the current downside, is that there is a disparity between what the corporations want and what the people want.

    227. Re:Finders Keepers? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      If you understood intent, you wouldn't confuse intentionally placing an item vs misplacing an item.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    228. Re:Finders Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      In what way have I confused the two?

    229. Re:Finders Keepers? by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      dang dude. wait to make me hate this government even more. I didn't think that was even possible. But as a father with a 7month old daughter I guess I would have to choose family time over jail time until she gets old enough to know who are the villains and why.

    230. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the War on Terror is itself terrorism? It's primary purpose is to keep Americans in fear so that the government can achieve political objectives of more power.

    231. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The told him it was federal property two weeks after he found it. I don't know about you, but I'd have destroyed it or tossed it or sold it in far less than two weeks.

    232. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but if you do that you're down a car. And even a cheap car is worth a lot more than even a relatively expensive GPS tracking device. The FBI would probably say, "If you're willing to spend ten times what we spent to very slightly inconvenience us, a) that's extremely suspicious, and b) your next car gets another one. And as a bonus, an agent going around the neighborhood asking about a rapist/terrorist/drug runner/etc who looks like you."

    233. Re:Finders Keepers? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Yep, but first I would park right in the centre of a major city, to maximise the inconvenience and
      publicize what is going on. Closing the commercial centre of a city for a few hours should get some unwanted attention to the agency involved.

    234. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish the reporter had been able to tell us what had happened when Afiffi had asked for proof of ownership as a prerequisite to turning over the device. Perhaps in lieu of paperwork he could have accepted the assurance of some regional department head, in person. ... with 27 8X10 color, glossy pictures, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back, to be used as evidence against us.

    235. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it?

      yes.
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ghandi

    236. Re:Finders Keepers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer just spraying some paint on the underside of the hood that interferes with the transmission of the GPS data. Don't know where I am NOW! Do you? Then run and hide from the FBI and let them me scared @(@I!JOD.

    237. Re:Finders Keepers? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      ... with 27 8X10 color, glossy pictures, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back, to be used as evidence against us.

      Nah, sounds too much like a typical case of American Blind Justice. ;)

      (cue music)

      "You can get anything you want ..."

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    238. Re:Finders Keepers? by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you. I would not call our current society a dictatorship.

      Hey, good job on the troll.

  2. OUCH by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Funny

    When the FBI tells you that you are boring...just WOW!

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:OUCH by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah... makes me doubt the story... i might be reduce to R'ing TFA.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:OUCH by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 2, Funny

      No kidding...especially the same day they raided an auction house to recover the fingerprint card of a guy who has been dead for like 25 years

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    3. Re:OUCH by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know that g-men spend most of their days chasing after bad guys on helicopters and spend their lunch breaks training white-lotus kung-fu with Chuck Norris' beard? ...you don't think they really go through hours of paperwork do you?

    4. Re:OUCH by mngdih · · Score: 1

      Is it not a good thing, though, in respect to what could've happened?

    5. Re:OUCH by durrr · · Score: 1

      It means they actually planted another new and smaller device in a harder to find spot, they then encourage you do that cross contentintal trip to the secret Terrorist sleeper cell hideout in the local mountain range by telling you you're boring and pretending to be wholeheartedly disinterested in you.

    6. Re:OUCH by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah... makes me doubt the story... i might be reduce to R'ing TFA.

      I did that once, Slashdot was never the same again. Please don't make the same mistake, you have your whole life ahead of you still.

    7. Re:OUCH by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      I've watched too much television, I guess, but being told I am boring would not put me off my guard.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    8. Re:OUCH by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Ahh... I saw this on Reddit some days ago.

      A friend of the guy actually asked in Reddit to know what the device (the fact that he didn't asked here in /. shows...)

      And yesterday this news broke.

      And there is an update on the issue now.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:OUCH by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also: Don't believe it. Call the fucking lawyer.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    10. Re:OUCH by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      grandstanding.

      99.9% of us are boring.

      so what? people just want to live their lives. terror is over-rated and over-reported.

      how much is wasted chasing boogeymen? how many of these chases end up bothing innocent people under a dragnet?

      sickening. I hate this aspect of how my country is now acting. its like a child who has not learned from the past and keeps repeating the same 'wolf!' call over and over again.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:OUCH by humphrm · · Score: 1

      Heh, funny but only somewhat related, the children of George Carlin requested his FBI files under the FOIA after he died, and found out that the FBI also thought he (George Carlin) was pretty boring, as far as threats go, too. His kids were actually disappointed!

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    12. Re:OUCH by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I'd hope that the FBI, as an agency, finds me boring.

    13. Re:OUCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the FBI also thought he (George Carlin) was pretty boring

      So they saw his act?

    14. Re:OUCH by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, the FBI itself is by no means boring; it's scary as hell. So is the DEA. When someone scary tells you you're boring, that's not an insult by any means.

    15. Re:OUCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being told you're not worth investigating seems like a good time to up you nefarious activities. Or, maybe they're just telling you that and still watching so you will do something, and they can catch you red-handed. Of course, they may want you to think that so they can kill two birds with one stone -- you'll be paranoid and walk the straight and narrow, and they can spend their time monitoring someone else. Hmm. Decisions, decisions.

    16. Re:OUCH by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, zombies are kinda nasty, y'know. The biggest problem is what he's going to tell the girls at his college now.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:OUCH by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      What? That the kid's mechanic found it? That the FBI can place it without a warrant? Or that the kid waived his Fifth Amendment rights when the agents told him "We'll make this much more difficult if you don't cooperate..."? If anyone else threatens you with legal action if you don't cooperate, it's called extortion (the wording matters)."

    18. Re:OUCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be fed speak for "we effed up, don't call a lawyer or we will crap on your life"

    19. Re:OUCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much is wasted chasing boogeymen?

      Out of your pocket? Several thousand dollars over the last ten years. Over 2 trillion in total.

      The Iraq war alone cost you roughly $3000.

    20. Re:OUCH by mngdih · · Score: 1

      I simply meant that it is a good thing to be called boring by the FBI. Everyone knows we have no rights in the U.S. anymore and if he hadn't been boring, he would've had some big issues.

    21. Re:OUCH by Technician · · Score: 1

      First rule of covert ops.. Never reveal what you know. You may know of all his travels overseas, email, social network contacts, family, criminal record, purchases of fireworks supplies, online sites visited, etc. Officially to you, you are boring.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    22. Re:OUCH by adolf · · Score: 1

      99.9% of us are boring.

      Which means that 0.1% of us aren't boring, right?

      Hah.

      About 0.756% of of the US is already imprisoned.

      Given that, it certainly seems reasonable to me that more than 0.1% of the non-imprisoned population is interesting in some judicial sense.

    23. Re:OUCH by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? They congratulated him on his new job and talked about his friends and relatives.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    24. Re:OUCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much is wasted chasing boogeymen?

      Boogeymen have to be chased these days because sooner or later one of them is going to turn out to be The Boogeyman . And when that happens those responsible for chasing boogeymen are going to be crucified in the press and public opinion because they let The Boogeyman slip past undetected. There will be all sorts of charts and editorials and interactive presentations and powerpoints and tweets from news anchors and armchair quarterbacks and bloggers and demagogues and forum posters all detailing exactly how those responsible for chasing boogeymen screwed the pooch by allowing The Boogeyman to escape (and never mind that all the news anchors and armchair quarterbacks and bloggers and demagogues and forum posters couldn't catch The Boogeyman if he was their conjoined twin.)

    25. Re:OUCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the FBI is saying they are wasting "expensive federal property" on boring people? just WOW!

  3. America by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 5, Funny

    Land of the free*




    * Some conditions apply. See in-country for details. Void where prohibited. No cash value. Offer expires September 11, 2001.

    1. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo

    2. Re:America by emj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Freedom is just a state granted regulated monopoly on your own free will.

    3. Re:America by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      So true.
      The hypocrisy that politician perpetual is really sick.
      But what can you do? The media and politicians are now liking each other's large intestines, not just their butt holes.

      And... oh boy, a story about one of those Palin kids (Politics) on *Entertainment Tonight* (Media)...

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:America by mngdih · · Score: 1

      love it.

    5. Re:America by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And until 51% of the voters in at least 60% of the districts grow a pair and stop voting for fascism, it's not going to happen. I swear, America has become a nation of wusses that vote red whenever somebody suggests that they might possibly at some future time have to worry about dieing.

    6. Re:America by Barny · · Score: 1

      Land of the free

      Oblig: "whoever told you that is your enemy".

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    7. Re:America by Stipe · · Score: 1

      From the fine article:

      > The agents told Afifi they had other agents outside Khaled’s house.
      >
      > “If you want us to call them off and not talk to him we can do that,” Afifi said they told him. “That was weird. [...] I didn’t really believe anything they were saying.”

      So it was worth covertly monitoring Khaled, but OK to mention it to his friend? And then ask if they wanted them to stop?

      Dear FBI, who are presumably listening, neither myself nor any of my friends are terrorists, so you don't need to monitor us or infringe any of our rights. We're boring. Thanks.

    8. Re:America by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Home of the brav-

      Oh hehe! AHAHHAHA! I can't finish the line...

    9. Re:America by osgeek · · Score: 1

      But what can you do?

      Vote against the establishment every chance you get. The only time you leave an incumbent in office is when they're a real trouble-maker for their peers like Kucinich, Ron Paul, or Nader. Lean towards politicians who follow through on decreasing the power of government since power begets corruption and the insidious military-industrial-corporate slime that covers everything around it.

    10. Re:America by DevConcepts · · Score: 1

      To bad I don't have points... would have upped to informative.

    11. Re:America by operagost · · Score: 1

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah it cost a buck-o-five if I remember right.

    13. Re:America by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      wusses that vote red whenever somebody suggests that they might possibly at some future time have to worry about dieing.

      Doesn't even have to be the threat of dying. It can be the mere threat of being made to pay for the excesses of the current generation.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    14. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom exists when there is no government at all; it is not something a government can grant, only something it can recognize.

    15. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And until 51% of the voters ... grow a pair "

      You mean the Women?

    16. Re:America by bonch · · Score: 1

      The Obama Era is going to change everything!*

      * Dramatization. Results may vary.

    17. Re:America by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Right because none of this ever happened with a 'blue' majority... oh wait, yes it did.

    18. Re:America by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      You can only be truly free when you have nothing to lose, nothing! The moment that you form attachments, you can be controlled through them. The more attachments you have, the less free you are. Freedom comes in degrees.

      What's regrettable is the large number of people who actually find freedom offensive. They like to tell others what they can and cannot do, what's right, what's wrong. It ends up with laws that forbid things and people who like to enforce these laws. Thus, freedom goes on a steep decline.

      After a while, the system becomes a self-perpetuating entity and those who are part of it serve that system and the status quo, not the other way around. Add fear into the mix, and people will go to great lengths to ensure the survival of the system, because they've become an intricate part of it. To wit, the various abuses of power we've seen recently, but the years following Sept. 11, 2001 have not been unique. Go back to the early 1950s, to Senator Joseph McCarthy and the atrocities committed due to his fear mongering about communist sympathizers and communist infiltrations. Go back further, to the concentration camps that the United States maintained during WWII for our citizens with Japanese heritage.

      But we're all human and will have fairly predictable responses to base emotions, especially fear.

      And so, especially when threatened, we must guard with all possible diligence the institutional guarantees of our rights and freedoms, and yes our responsibilities, too. The greatest failing in our leadership seems the short-sightedness of the laws they pass: Rarely, it seems, are these laws examined thoroughly for the ways in which they can (and will) be abused. Fearing to appear weak, I suppose, they pass anti-terrorism related laws and regulations in a hurry. We've seen the result of it only too often; and yes, triggering a fear-response in us that caused us to attack our own freedoms (and continue to do so) was the true "success" of the 9-11 attack: We are perpetuating the effect of it willingly, alas.

      The only solution is for us to take a deep breath and stop the madness of distrusting everyone. We cannot expect the paranoid to make the first move, but we can be vocal in our displeasure over laws and regulations that are ineffective, abusive, unjust, and cause more harm than good.

      Go out (literally out, not merely on the 'net) and speak out.

      --
      --Udo.
    19. Re:America by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Freedom must include freedom to be in a government, or any other organization. If freedom only exists when there is no government, we have a paradox. You cannot be free to be in a government if you cannot have a government.

      Secondly, you're only defining personal freedom, not collective freedom or any other kind of freedom. Freedom is not a thing, it is an attribute of a thing. Freedom in the abstract has no meaning, you can only have a freedom of.

      Let us say that you are correct that totally free individuals have no government. Then the government, by definition, has no freedom at all. Nor does any other collective. But if you have a dictatorship (the government has total freedom), then neither individuals nor any other collective has freedom. In a total corporate state, it is the collectives that have freedom, not individuals nor government.

      This leads to something I stated in a discussion a while back: The sum of all freedoms is a constant. The question is only how you divide the freedom up. There will be some optimal balance. I suspect this is going to work out at something like a 40:40:20 divide of freedom between people:collectives:government. Political scientists have tried to define the "perfect" system for millenia and failed, so I doubt I'll succeed any time soon. Equally, I doubt anyone else will, either.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    20. Re:America by theArtificial · · Score: 0, Troll

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

      Remind me how that worked for the Blacks and Natives?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    21. Re:America by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If they wanted that, they wouldn't have installed a republic...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    22. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Look, the greatest American founding fathers - Jefferson, Hamilton - were probably deists. They believe, you know, that God created the world and then allowed us to have free will. And I'm always reminded of the great Nobel laureate writer Isaac Singer's remark to me when I asked him, do you believe in free will, and he said I have no choice." - Michael Krasny

    23. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when the state decides to bring down the monopolistic entities like freedom in this market of will, the other personalities may compete in the market more freely.

    24. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Land of the fee, home of the bravado.

    25. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant post!

  4. they should bug the ground zero mosque site as wel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should bug the ground zero mosque site as well and do a wiring job so it can burn down on command

  5. SCOTUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the hell is SCOTUS on a ruling when you really need them?

    1. Re:SCOTUS by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You'll know where the SCOTUS is you put GPS transmitters on their cars.

  6. Boring = FBI off the hook? by rs1n · · Score: 1

    So now it's ok to be tracked with this sort of device simply because the target is boring? While I can appreciate the increased efforts to deal with terrorism, I can't say I agree with the methods. He should have just destroyed it after posting about it. Since he didn't know what it was, how could he be held legally responsible for destroying the device?

    1. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Now THAT I would love to see make it to court. The anonymous party (FBI) "abandoned" or disposed of the device. There's no way one should know that it should be preserved or even that it's owned by the "good guys."

    2. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by Barny · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or better, call in the police bomb squad because someone has "attached an electronic device to your car", get the government to blow it up for you :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Now THAT I would love to see make it to court. The anonymous party (FBI) "abandoned" or disposed of the device. There's no way one should know that it should be preserved or even that it's owned by the "good guys."

      The FBI was actively tracking the location of the device. So any claim that the device was either lost or abandoned is pure nonsense. "Lost" implies that the owner doesn't know where it is. The FBI knew. "Abandoned" implies that the owner didn't want it anymore. The FBI did want it.

    4. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      From the perspective of the finder, they have NO WAY to know it's not the mafia, their mom, or their evil ex-girlfriend. Destroy it and ask questions later. It's the only way to be safe.

    5. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by Target+Practice · · Score: 1

      "We are arresting you."
      "Why?"
      "You destroyed our tracking device, ergo you knew what it was, and if you weren't up to something, you wouldn't need to hide it."

      So, freedom of speech means I can say this type of thing without getting spooks at my door/under my car, right?

      --
      There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
    6. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Well, in all fairness, nuking it from orbit is really the only way to be safe.

    7. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wheel clamp/Denver boot devices have most likely established the legality of it

    8. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Saw that coming...

    9. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by rthille · · Score: 1

      That, or wrapping it in enough foil or other RF blocker so the signal can't get in or out.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    10. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If they wanted it, they shouldn't have illegally put it on someone's car.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's "be sure" not "be safe". Nuking your own car from orbit.. hm.

    12. Re:Boring = FBI off the hook? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "While I can appreciate the increased efforts to deal with terrorism"

      That's just it: they can label anyone who does something they don't agree with as a terrorist.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  7. Dont' call your lawyer? by chad.koehler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the FBI tells you "Not to worry" and "Don't call your lawyer", do you want to guess who the very next person you should call is?

    Hint:  It's not your mom.

    1. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dad's at work though

    2. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Mazzie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless your mom is your lawyer... and if that is the case, you have bigger problems than the FBI like having to sign a 12 page lease for the basement, and getting sued for leaving the seat up.

      --
      Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
    3. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Funny

      What if she's also your lawyer?

    4. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by batkiwi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Your mom?

    5. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is it Ghostbusters?

    6. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by daid303 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ghostbusters?

    7. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      The ACLU.

    8. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it YOUR mom cuz if it is I can tell her right after she makes me breakfast.

    9. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I should probably call a good friend, go get a drink, and laugh about the whole thing. Paranoia doesn't really help at all. He wasn't arrested, and wasn't even implicated as being a part of anything suspicious. Why waste more time and money complaining because the Federal Bureau of Investigation did some investigation of a federal matter?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      555-2368

    11. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      First and most important thing to remember. Never, under any circumstances, talk to the police before talking to your lawyer. It cannot help you. Ever. Not only that, but you can be as innocent and speak nothing but truth, and they can still hang you on it. If you deny that you committed the crime, you can be charged with lying to federal prosecutors and convicted, even if they don't have the evidence to actually convict you on the original crime (See Martha Stewart). If you want to say something, wait for court (or after the trial is over).

    12. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      If you're already being tracked, it's likely you're being tapped, and the moment you call a lawyer, bam, suddenly you don't exist anymore.
      Don't piss off the government. They're erase you without a second thought.

    13. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      They didn't tell him not to call his lawyer because he isn't in trouble (but he probably isn't). They said that because they don't want to get sued for violation of his civil rights. Some shyster will want the case.

    14. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if your mom is a lawyer than I'm pretty sure that's a conflict of interest but I could be wrong.

      --AC

    15. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Only if your mom was representing the FBI in another case...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    16. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Because you don't know that you're not implicated.

      Remember: They are allowed to lie to you. Just because they told you "everything's OK, don't worry" means absolutely nothing.

    17. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by sakasune · · Score: 1
      The ACLU is already involved. FTA:

      Brian Alseth from the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington state contacted Afifi after seeing pictures of the tracking device posted online and told him the ACLU had been waiting for a case like this to challenge the ruling.

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    18. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by barzok · · Score: 1

      They said that because they don't want to get sued for violation of his civil rights. Some shyster will want the case.

      The ACLU is already involved.

    19. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because he's planning a trip overseas. While he's outside the US he could end up assassinated by the US military or its civilian intelligence agencies. Or they could have their allies (or even their enemies if they pay a bounty) round him up for interrogation by torture, possibly unto death. Or just turn him back over to the US to be held in a military prison (once again suffering torture and/or humiliation) for an indefinite period of time with no legal recourse.

      The truly, truly sad thing is that this isn't some kind of paranoid tin-foil hat delusion. It's a real possibility. It's not that likely, but it's certainly more likely than, for example, an average US citizen being killed in a terrorist attack on US soil.

    20. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's for the CIA or NSA, not the FBI.

    21. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      When the FBI tells you "Not to worry" and "Don't call your lawyer", do you want to guess who the very next person you should call is? Hint: It's not your mom.

      The News Media? My best mate? A hooker?

    22. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact I called your.

    23. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      So what? I would have learned one very important detail: They looked at me.

      There are four possible scenarios here:

      1. I'm doing something wrong, and the government thinks I am. I can expect to be arrested soon.
      2. I'm doing something wrong, but the government doesn't think I am.
      3. I'm doing nothing wrong, but the government thinks I am. I can expect to be arrested or flagged on any of various lists.
      4. I'm doing nothing wrong, and the government thinks I'm fine. I can go about my life as normal.

      Since the government is now aware of my actions, I can assume that they are fully aware of my actions, or at least will continue until they have reasonable confidence in their information.

      The FBI actively investigating means options 2 and 3 are very unlikely, since they require the government having incorrect information.

      The options that are left are 1 and 4, which effectively boil down to "justice is served". This is better than not knowing what the FBI was doing, where option 3 (a blatant injustice) would still be open.

      Maybe the first call should be the FBI, offering authorization to look into anything else they want, just to make sure there's no other mistakes. That would reduce the chance of option 3 even further.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    24. Re:Dont' call your lawyer? by silentphate · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Call your lawyer. Possession is 9 tenths of the law. At least where I live. I have had property disputes with other people, not FBI or Police, but the police did get involved and have told me that even though I had provided proof of ownership and receipt of the said property, since it was in possession of another person it is there right to keep possession of said property. The Item happened to be a laptop computer, which I would consider very similar to the device mentioned in the article.

  8. Wasted opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What a wasted opportunity to attach it to a bus.

    1. Re:Wasted opportunity by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      What a wasted opportunity to attach it to a bus.

      Or to the chief's car

    2. Re:Wasted opportunity by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

      Or mail it to China via Fedex.

    3. Re:Wasted opportunity by chad.koehler · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or mail it to Pakistan via Fedex.

    4. Re:Wasted opportunity by osgeek · · Score: 1

      The GPS would have allowed them to track it down too easily.

      Maybe sending it through UPS to China or Iran would have been interesting.

    5. Re:Wasted opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it a Tea Party bus and we have a deal!

    6. Re:Wasted opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to a sewer rat, raccoon, ..., or a pigeon. how big was it for those that RTA.

    7. Re:Wasted opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to the CIA in Langley. Talk about a jurisdiction mess ;-)

    8. Re:Wasted opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or mail it to Pakistan via Fedex.

      You missed a golden opportunity to suggest UPS and their tagline, "What can Brown do for you?"

    9. Re:Wasted opportunity by Nesman64 · · Score: 1

      The first person that tries this will find out that it actually was a mafia bomb and end up arrested by the FIB for acts of terrorism.

      --
      coffee | nose > keyboard
    10. Re:Wasted opportunity by diskofish · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You've won the funniest post of the day award!

    11. Re:Wasted opportunity by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      Not a good idea at all. He will have a trip to Pakistan in papers from now on.

    12. Re:Wasted opportunity by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      A cruise ship would be funny.

    13. Re:Wasted opportunity by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      If this was New York or Washington, I would say that it would be much more entertaining to attach it to a vehicle with diplomatic plates.

    14. Re:Wasted opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or mail it to FBI headquarters...

  9. posted on reddit by ltcdata · · Score: 1

    I readed about it on reddit about 1 week ago.. that's were the student itself posted the pictures... all the communinty helped and discovered that it was from the FBI... and now i read this... It seems the guy decided to talk to the press,

    1. Re:posted on reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACLU called him up too.

    2. Re:posted on reddit by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Probably a smart move, talk to the press before the FBI goes to court an obtains a gag order. It might not keep him out of court, but at least it gives people the idea that this is happening.

  10. Retribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be no retribution, of course. When has government ever given retribution for their own crimes? This isn't as horrible as the many cases of false imprisonment (or worse) with little to no retribution, but the concept is the same. If you can't understand why, all you have to do is imagine the tracking device being planted by a private citizen, one who holds no more or less power than yourself. Now what makes you think government should be held to a different standard?

    1. Re:Retribution? by silverglade00 · · Score: 1

      Now what makes you think government should be held to a different standard?

      The answer to this lies in the answer to another question: You and what army?

    2. Re:Retribution? by osgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine further if you as a citizen had planted the device on the car of a US Senator. Imagine the trouble you'd be in.

      This kind of invasive aggressive action against citizens who have done nothing (no court order) should not be tolerated.

    3. Re:Retribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean restitution? That would make more sense in the context of what you're saying. You don't really "give retribution".

    4. Re:Retribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (humor) Actually there are probably 16+ of these devices on each senator's car already (/humor)

    5. Re:Retribution? by RCourtney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A serious question to any lawyer-type people out there:

      When I first read about this court ruling I was left wondering how this applies to citizens using these devices on police, government officials, candidates, etc. I had just read a different article about iPhone apps that let people know where speed traps and DUI checkpoints are set up. The cynic in me thought this ruling must mean that citizens can now GPS bug police cars and the whole process of collecting data for speed traps and stuff would be automated instead of world-of-mouth. Is that a logical conclusion? Or are police and government officials somehow different from citizens in this regard?

    6. Re:Retribution? by osgeek · · Score: 1

      I just couldn't ever imagine hypocrisy like that from our government officials... from the protectors of our Constitutional rights. That would just be unpossible!

      As Eminem said to our beloved leaders, "Fuck you with the freest of speech this Divided States of Embarrassment will allow me to have."

    7. Re:Retribution? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Of course they're different. We are policed by them. They are policed by unelected bureaucrats policed by elected officials policed by corporate interests policed by unelected bureaucrats...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    8. Re:Retribution? by rwv · · Score: 1

      a citizen had planted the device on the car of a US Senator

      In the spirit of a more Free and Open Government, I'd like to propose attaching one of these to all vehicles used by our Congress. Then to be transparent broadcast the coordinates to an Internet site where the public can find out where its representatives are. I believe this would demonstrate that America is a safe and secure nation.

    9. Re:Retribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the senator brown?

    10. Re:Retribution? by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    11. Re:Retribution? by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the FBI need to get a warrant to plant the device? They did it as part of their investigation. Now I sure hope they had a solid reason to start in the investigation other than his family history.

  11. Power source. by Timmmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apparently it is powered by batteries, but I always wondered if you could power one by attaching a peltier module to the exhaust...

    1. Re:Power source. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They said that they now use one connected directly to the car battery. While a battery powered one is shady but ruled legal, I'd expect that one drawing off the car's current (or exhaust) would be considered theft by any competent judge.

      As for a peltier version, you'd have to have a pretty large and decent insulator. Otherwise, both sides would be hot. It still might not create enough current on a hot day.

    2. Re:Power source. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      As a side note, imagine the FBI putting up surveillance cameras around your house and then plugging them into your own AC outlets where you have to pay for the current that runs them.

    3. Re:Power source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they would probably hate me, I turn off the circuit breakers when I leave even for a short weekend trip, i was even turning the power to the house off when i left for the daytime

    4. Re:Power source. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It'd be a lot easier just to tap into some live wires under the hood. There are plenty of good places to stash a piece of equipment up there on most cars.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Power source. by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No. It wouldn't be considered theft--or a trespass. That's an easy call.

      It MIGHT be considered a "taking" within 5th Amendment jurisprudence. The 5th Amendment says that you can't take a person's property without just compensation. I'm not going to do the research for a /. posting that even I would urge not to be taken seriously, but the law's not absolutely clear on this.

      If the cops rip your house apart pursuant to a judicially authorized search warrant, that is a legitimate exercise of the police power. The government may do that without compensation (in many jurisdictions) without offending the Constitution, because you are not entitled to just compensation for police power activity (think the destruction of your neighbor's house to save everybody else's house in a big fire). Many jurisdictions offer compensation for this kind of stuff because they dont' want the electorate totally pissed at them. But compensation is optional.

      Now, if the cops have no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion that the target is engaging in criminal activity, has evidence of it, etc., then it may be debatable whether or not the FBI is engaging in a legitimate exercise of the "police power." This might form the basis of a legal "taking" argument because the government isn't exercising the police power--it's just plain taking.

      People who are "taken" from are entitled to sue for just compensation (and if they win they get attorney fees). The FBI didnt' do much damage, but they did assert control over the person's automobile and did take power from that automobile. Even de minimis takings are takings. It could be quite a class action lawsuit (and it may very well turn out to be so).

      No wonder the national deficit is getting insanely huge. Investigations of people like this guy, multiplied over and over, are phenomenally expensive. The United States is chasing its tail and it's pitifully embarrassing.

    6. Re:Power source. by Surt · · Score: 1

      So the judge you would get to call taking electricity from the battery stealing would be more competent than the one who called taking gas through increased weight on the vehicle not stealing?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Power source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could, but Scotty would detect the slight power drain coming from the exhaust vent. Better to use a multi-phasic power source. Those aren't picked up by a standard scan.

    8. Re:Power source. by grub · · Score: 1


      i was even turning the power to the house off when i left for the daytime

      Don't you have a refrigerator and/or freezer? They tend to keep food cooler when they have power.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    9. Re:Power source. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It would certainly be more measurable. And it has the potential to disrupt or damage the other electrical components on the vehicle. If they had a warrant, I'd not be so much concerned with that as I would be how easily that they got a warrant.

    10. Re:Power source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could attach one to the exhaust, but keep in mind the exhaust is going to take at least 5-10 minutes to heat up to a level that will provide sufficient temperature to power the peltier cooler. This would make more sense for a long term solution, but from the FBI's point of view the lost 5 minutes is probably not worth the the cost savings of using a battery powered unit or the time savings from hardwiring the unit to the vehicle's power supply.

    11. Re:Power source. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Kind of over-kill, anyplace the exhaust is "visible" to GPS signals, it's also fairly visible to casual observers. You'd also need a fair bit of airflow over the peltier device to provide a "cold side" for power, and getting GPS receive ICs that operate at 400F would not be cheap.
      I think a button battery could probably provide tracking info every 10 minutes for at least a month.

    12. Re:Power source. by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      Maybe overkill, but all your points are silly:

      1. I have no idea what you mean by the exhaust being "visible" to GPS signals. The receiver the FBI used was under the car right? That obviously worked.
      2. Airflow? True... if only there was some source of airflow under a fast-moving car...
      3. Why on Earth would the GPS receiver need to operate at high temperature? You obviously wouldn't attach that directly to the exhaust; it would be elevated or insulated from it.

      Still, you're right it's probably overkill.

    13. Re:Power source. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I was thinking in terms of an easily planted bug-like device, one lump that you stick on and go. I have a LoJack tracking device installed in my car, it's tapping the battery power and well hidden, it also took the installer over 30 minutes to get it in. (It also uses lower frequency radio than GPS, and, so, can be hidden deeper inside.)

      Airflow - the more visually hidden portions of exhaust pipes that might get a good GPS signal I would think are on top of the pipe, just under the (usually plastic) bumper cover. There's great airflow under the middle of the car, but I'm not sure how well you can lock 4 satellites from that position.

      So, yes, you could stick a peltier power unit on the bottom of the exhaust pipe and run a wire up to a receiver that's far enough away that it won't get fried, but exhaust pipes tend to move a lot relative to the rest of the body, so the wire will need some slack (not to mention unusual heat tolerance in the insulation), and I think a rig like that would be a lot more obvious than something scotch-locked onto a wire somewhere with a pin through body-metal for ground return.

    14. Re:Power source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome no alarm! Where do you live again?

    15. Re:Power source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it is powered by batteries, but I always wondered if you could power one by attaching a peltier module to the exhaust...

      or in this case, "I always wondered if you could power one by attaching it to the mains"

      "what, it broke? I was just trying to recharge it"

    16. Re:Power source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it is powered by batteries, but I always wondered if you could power one by attaching a peltier module to the exhaust...

      Not yet. Peltiers are currently too inefficient, especially when size is important.

  12. What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you just find one of these and don't realize that it belongs to the FBI, and think "doesn't belong" and destory it (or just toss it in a dumpster), are you liable to pay for it when the FBI comes to get it back?

    1. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take a wild guess.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      With your life, Anon. With your life.

    3. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. If I had found such a device (and if I were confident that it was not a bomb), I would simply "drop" my 60-pound hammer on it. Oops.

    4. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      B/C they found the one they wanted him to find...

    5. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article is a good read and a little creepy. We're here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It's federal property. It's an expensive piece, and we need it right now...We.re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate"

      Summary: not illegal/unconstitutional for the government to track your car, probably a crime if you find tracker and do anything with it.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I submitted this a week ago. It's been burned-out on Reddit and the boards, by now.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      They'll probably charge you with destroying government property if you were to mess with the device.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by sa666_666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      We're here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It's federal property. It's an expensive piece, and we need it right now...We.re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate"

      Further proof that most people in law enforcement are egomaniacs on a power trip. They really do love to wield authority. I wonder, were they beaten up when they were young?

    9. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Geek_Cop · · Score: 5, Informative

      You would hope that they would charge you for it, meaning they will just put an entry into the US Treasury to withhold your next 10 tax returns until the unit is paid for. Otherwise they can simply put you on the "No Fly List" ..that is what they mean by "making it difficult for you". They will simply label you a terrorist or send your name to ICE..the world is their oyster, and you are nothing but a pawn. As a (former) cop, I've watched other cops label innocent people as "Scumbags" and their life was hell in this jurisdiction from then on. A cop just has to "say" you did something to cause you irreparable grief. He doesn't have to prove anything until you go to court. I could only imagine an FBI agent and what his ego could do. Anybody in law enforcement, at every level, is an infantile egomaniac.

    10. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by immakiku · · Score: 1

      Well if I found a strange device that looked like that I wouldn't take any chances. I'd probably head straight for the lake and throw it in. All this fear mongering by the media really makes me scared of bombs, see...

    11. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Even more concerning is that if he would actually follow this up with a lawyer, it would just confirm that he is actually an enemy of the state and must be followed.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      The smart thing to do is to place it on another car, preferably a government car.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    13. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add... a CIA government car. The FBI tracking a CIA car would be an interesting one to explain.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    14. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Then you’re liable to get in trouble with the game warden...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Oh boy, you're boring.... Why not accidently "lose" it in a cab?

      --
      bickerdyke
    16. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by v1 · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add... a CIA government car. The FBI tracking a CIA car would be an interesting one to explain.

      Or a powerful politician with something to hide... trick learned from Enemy of the State

      That's about the only way to really give them what they have coming. I'm just dumbfounded that the court of appeals ruled this practice legal in the first place. I'd like to see that dragged to the supreme court for a more public bloodletting.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    17. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think I'd send the device "Next Day UPS Air", addressed to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. You know, make it interesting.

    18. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Geek_Cop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They are usually from lower income backgrounds, with a chip on their shoulder. They love to look at gun magazines and porn, yet they are super religious. Cops take the low pay given to them because the job is fun and they don't normally have the intellectual capacity to do anything but be a cop. It is a tight knit group with much bravado. Don't forget they take every crime you commit, personally.

    19. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1, Troll

      It’s the 9th Circuit Court... nothing that comes out of there could possibly be idiotic enough to surprise me.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    20. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by terraformer · · Score: 1

      If you just find one of these and don't realize that it belongs to the FBI, and think "doesn't belong" and destory it (or just toss it in a dumpster), are you liable to pay for it when the FBI comes to get it back?

      Yes and in some states, they can charge you with the crime of destroying their property.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    21. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a (former) cop .... Anybody in law enforcement, at every level, is an infantile egomaniac.

      If there's one thing I've learned from being a part of large government organizations, it's that any individual can only really speak about himself. Any time you hear a soldier, cop, or politician speak about their field of work, they tell you more about themselves than they do about the organization.

    22. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Or do what they do on tv shows like 24 or Burn Notice - put it on someone ELSE's car!

      Then it's "what device?"

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    23. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hysterical. You even started with: “If there's one thing I've learned from being a part of large government organizations”.

      By your own logic, you told me more about yourself than you did about anyone else working for the government.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    24. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/89q2/fish.443.html There are several versions of that old story online - that was the best I could do with a quick google.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    25. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      If I ever found one of these things on my car (which I probably won't), I'd sell it to the highest bidder on ebay.

      Then I'd go to jail.

      Where I'd write my version of Mein Kampf. And sell it to become a millionaire when I get out. BTW I think it's horrible the US Government was using racial profiling to track this arab student. Apparently it's wrong when the AZ government does it, but it's okay for the US? They should be required to get search warrant FIRST before wire-tapping..... I mean GPS-tapping a car.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by flappinbooger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just read TFA, I think the kid was in a no-win situation and (for him, under those circumstances) did the best thing for his own interests. Not that it's right and not that I fully agree with it, but it's clear to me he would have had quite a hassle had he destroyed or messed with the tracking device.

      Now, if he had an attitude or a temper or a point to prove, and had lots of free lawyer service saved up, he definitely could have played with the fbi guys.

      With his background, obviously he fits a "profile" and is one of many many people being tracked.

      I remember hearing about East Germany during the heyday. I heard that about 50% of the people were in some way affiliated with the government, so basically each person had another person watching them. Everyone was under surveillance by everyone else. Not sure how true that was, but it can't be too far from the truth, lol.

      My point is, the FBI must have an enormous amount of people being watched. How many agents are there who watch all those people? Amazing. And how boring that must be, doing surveillance all day every day. And paperwork after that.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    27. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this you as well? You say they are all infantile egomaniacs so being a former cop you had that same challenge huh? I know plenty of cops that are hard working and the only ego they have is the one to protect people and take a crappy pay check home. I know of one that their spouse was laid off and even with the extra jobs being done on days off barely have enough to pay for their house and meals. I also know a handful that also take in stray animals that they find or rescue because the animal shelters are so packed that the animal would be put down.
       
        I know this is slashdot and all we have a history for people bashing on cops because they don't let them do what they want without taking some form of responsibility for their actions but not every cop out there is an egomaniac. Some of them are hard working people who REALLY do the job for the right reasons and have morals. I can personally speak for a family who was raised by 2 cops and how hard it was at times watching my parents worry about paying bills and medical bills for my brother and I. I have seen people living in house projects not paying rent and other bills driving nicer cars then what my parents had. I also watched as my second job with only 2 years experience in computers allowed me to make 1,000 dollars more then my mom who had 15 years in law enforcement.

    28. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If you're smart/lucky enough not to get shot/killed/arrested while doing so.

      Might be safer to tape a sticker securely on it: "Hi! (big smiley here). Please keep passing this on to someone else, thanks! Details will be at our project website (url)".

      Then pass it to someone that looks friendly (and less likely to just throw it away).

      --
    29. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By any chance is your name Alex? You talk a lot like someone a know (I'm being serious).

    30. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by severoon · · Score: 1

      1. I like civil liberties and the ACLU.

      2. Why do you assume the USG was using racial profiling to track this guy? Just because he's Arabic? So...you just go around assuming that just because someone is Arabic certain things tend to happen to them more than other people even though there's no support for that in the article?

      I think there's a word for people that make such snap judgments based on someone's race. Let me see if I can find it...

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    31. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see that dragged to the supreme court

      He'd most likely lose since he's only a tax-paying citizen and not a large corporation with lots of politicians on its payroll.

    32. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stick it to some cargo truck going cross country or something similar. A railroad carriage would be fine too.

      Even better would be to replicate the device so there are a set of devices claiming to be "it" and send all copies all over the country. Could be a fun game of hide and seek.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    33. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Simple solution:
      Attach the tracking device to the car of one of the judges who said it was OK for the government to spy on people without a warrant. When the FBI notices where the device has gone after the judge has driven to work they will assume "The Terrorist" is attacking the Federal courthouse. Hilarity, embarrassment, and an educational experience for everyone involved should quickly ensue.

    34. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by meerling · · Score: 1

      And he completely ignores the fact that what people like to talk about most is what the other people do that annoys the hell out of them.

    35. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't be. The device should be considered abandoned property. The person gave it up. There is no identification. If they can place a flyer or ticket on my car, and I throw it to the ground and be held for littering, then it's MY property.

      And the threat by the official should be seen as something approaching mafia action. Aren't there laws against illegal threats? Like, at minimum if the property is IN YOUR RESIDENCE, and they have no proof of ownership and it was taken from your car, don't they need a warrant, and the threat of force or other "difficulty" run awry of the right against search and seizure?

      If these people wanted to act this way in a country, go to China and get hired.

    36. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by toleraen · · Score: 1

      I assume you also submitted it with a better headline.

    37. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Unless it's one of their cars. Soon as a judge finds one on his he'll raise a major fuss and declare it illegal. Especially if he found it right after seeing the mistress.

    38. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Geek_Cop · · Score: 1

      There are two requirements you would need for me to even take you seriously to dispute what I've said:

      1) You are or were a cop.

      2) You have an in-depth education about Criminal Justice, Recidivism and Corrections.

    39. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Geek_Cop · · Score: 1

      Nope, not Alex. But I have a brother named Alex!

    40. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      What's your problem with the 9th? Sure, it gets appealed a lot, but hey, it's a fairly large jurisdiction.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    41. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Yes. But I can't see what it was, because Slashdot profile pages are BROKEN!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    42. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how the device is actually attached? I own a 4x4 and it would be quite unfortunate if I chose to drive several miles down a 4x4 only trail and have the thing "accidentally" fall off because I chose to drive over a rock instead of around it....

    43. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by precariousgray · · Score: 3, Funny

      If there's one thing he's learned from being a part of large government organizations, it's that there's one thing he's learned from being a part of large government organizations, which is that there is one thing he's learned from being a part of large government organizations, it being that there is one thing he has learned...

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    44. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Can they prove it was the property of the federal government? Or is he simply supposed to hand this unknown device over to anyone who asks him for it?

    45. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Or a powerful politician with something to hide.

      Are there any of these who don't have something to hide?

    46. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Apparently it's wrong when the AZ government does it,

      Yes, were the AZ government to propose doing it, it would be wrong. Since they haven't, your point is moot.

    47. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      How often its decisions get appealed is irrelevant. Its decisions get overturned a lot, which means that quite often the higher-up court looked at the 9th Circuit’s decision and asked themselves “what the hell were they smoking?”

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    48. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Informative

      No they don't, they get more decisions overturned because the 9th is really big. It isn't really out of line from other circuits.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    49. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like Roe and Brown lost, right?

    50. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      "...We.re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate"

      I wonder if that constitutes a terrorist threat?

      Y'know what? Screw'em. I'd post a tear down, then I'd reassemble it and stick it under a long haul trucker's trailer.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    51. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      They don't have to do anything that drastic. They can lock you up without laying charges and don't have to release you. It happened when the government disabled habeas corpus from being effective.

    52. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Fuck that. Make sure you don't leave any fingerprints on it and play dumb. "No mister big FBI agent, I have no idea how your tracking device wound up attached to the mayor's car."

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    53. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Well I know there's a word for people who can't see the OBVIOUS right in front of their faces. ~50,000 students attend that school and none of them are being tracked, except the Arabic one who has no prior criminal history/evidence of wrong doing.

      Yeah you're right.
      No profiling happening there.
      /end sarcasm

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    54. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No they don't, they get more decisions overturned because the 9th is really big.

      No. They make lots of decisions because the 9th is really big. They get lots of decisions overturned because lots of their decisions were stupid.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    55. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>>>Apparently it's wrong when the AZ government does it, but when the US government racial profiles, that's okay.
      >>
      >>Yes, were the AZ government to propose doing it, it would be wrong. Since they haven't, your point is moot.

      The AZ government IS being accused of racial profiling, even as we speak.
      You been living under your computer desk again?
      Turn-on NBC once in a while. ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    56. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but the SCOTUS generally doesn't care until two districts rule differently, so then somebody's gotta lose.

    57. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by apmonte · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't marked "Property of the FBI" and they wanted it back, I think that I might ask for proof of ownership. Saying that something belongs to you, does not make it so.

    58. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by JAZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Redditors are guessing that it had to do with this post that he made. So slightly more than race, but not by much.

      --


      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
    59. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're kidding, right? Look at this:

      Now let's look at how often the Supreme Court decides that the 9th got it wrong. Last term, the Supreme Court's reversal rate for 9th Circuit cases was 90.5 percent. Yikes—that's huge! But wait, for on-the-merits cases, the Supremes reversed the 3rd and 5th Circuits almost all of the time* last term. Cases from state appellate courts fared no better: They also had a 100 percent reversal rate. Overall, this past term the Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases they considered on their merits. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively. For those years, the 9th was reversed 84 percent and 88.9 percent of the time, or about a case or two more each year than it would have been if it had conformed to the reversal rate of the other circuits. How do one or two cases a year add up to a court run amuck?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    60. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Informative
      The AZ government IS being accused of racial profiling, even as we speak.

      Yes, I know that. An accusation isn't the same as a fact. Do you understand that? Or do you still think the wikileaks creator actually is a pedophile?

      The fact is, if you know what the proposed law said, you know the accusation is false. The new law applied ONLY after two conditions were met: 1) contact made for some other valid, CRIMINAL reason. I.e., not just "cop saw you walking down the street", or "you asked a cop for the time". 2) A reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. I.e., not just "has an accent", or "has a certain coloration." "Profiling" meets neither of those conditions.

      Additionally, the law was simply enforcement of the existing federal law, so if the AZ law was truly "profiling", then the federal law is, as well.

      Maybe you need to come out from under your desk once in a while.

    61. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 1

      mod parent up to +10 something, that was awesome

    62. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Good thing the people who showed up on this guy's doorstep were FBI agents, rather than cops who are usually "from lower income backgrounds, with a chip on their shoulder," then - right?

      Because I'm pretty sure that people meeting the Special Agent requirements are going to make pretty solid money (entry level, agents will average ~60-70k), and also already have at least a 4-year degree, and in many cases, additional professional certifications.

      All of which leads me to suggest that... your broad-brush characterizations of cops is: a) not applicable to FBI agents, and b) therefore irrelevant to this discussion, since it was federal agents from the FBI who showed up at the guy's house to retrieve their device. It wasn't a bunch of local BFE cops showing up going, "Give us the flashy thing or we'll pants you, NERD!"

    63. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by mcornelius · · Score: 1

      As long as you have a deliverable address, you mind sharing it?

    64. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      They only accept the cases that are likely to be reversed. The statistics are skewed anyway in that sense. The bare numbers are more revealing.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    65. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      How do you know it is government property, and not a car bomb planted by some White Supremist / Evangelical / Hindu / Jewish / other muslim hating terrorist?

      If I was in his situation, I would probably report it as a suspected car bomb.

    66. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Well... this one was better, I thought...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    67. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by RapmasterT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I long ago gave up on submitting articles to slashdot. Relevant, timely, and sometimes extremely interesting items were simply ignored in favor of the Slashvertisement of the day. It does make for browsing slashdot to be MUCH faster than it used to be.

    68. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by paiute · · Score: 1

      Unless it's one of their cars. Soon as a judge finds one on his he'll raise a major fuss and declare it illegal. Especially if he found it right after seeing the mistress.

      No, it just means that if he leaves it on while visiting his mistress, the FBI then owns him. No fuss will be raised.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    69. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the world is their oyster, and you are nothing but a prawn

      FTFY

    70. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      You'll know when you're either blown up or sent to jail.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    71. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      He meant USPS, of course... leave it in a package drop box. It’d probably end up lost in mountains of unclaimed mail addressed to Santa Claus and God...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    72. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you just find one of these and don't realize that it belongs to the FBI, and think "doesn't belong" and destory it (or just toss it in a dumpster), are you liable to pay for it when the FBI comes to get it back?

      I don't know what you mean by "liable". It almost sounds like you had some naive notions like "rule of law". The relevant question to ask is: Do you have more power than the FBI? If they decide they want money from you, can you prevent them from taking it?

      Compare with this Slashdot story: might makes right, power is all.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    73. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I think there's a word for people that make such snap judgments based on someone's race. Let me see if I can find it...

      What is it? If you're thinking racism, you're wrong: racism is when you judge the person based on his/her color. Parent wasn't judging him, he was judging the FBI agents.

    74. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a government job, so it's safe to assume GP just sat at his desk farting around all day Literally. And as you know, "he who smelt it, dealt it."

    75. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      I don't know what state you live in, but in NJ it's not "low pay" at all.

    76. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      trackercrossing.com?

    77. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      If there's anything I've ever learned from being part of a large government organization, it's that you learn that being part of a large government organization teaches you that learn what it's like to be part of a large government organization, learning.

      True story.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    78. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Interesting
      ~50,000 students attend that school and none of them are being tracked,

      Are you an official spokesman for the FBI who has firsthand knowledge of this as a fact, or are you making this up as you go along?

      ... except the Arabic one who has no prior criminal history/evidence of wrong doing.

      After reading the Wired article, we learn many things:

      • His father took the family back to Egypt, but he alone returned.
      • He regularly sends money back to people (his brothers) in Egypt.
      • His "friend" allegedly posted something about bombs on a website and was known to be under investigation.
      • He was contacted by the FBI before for questioning.
      • He's on the watch list for flying.
      • His lawyer is a member of CAIR. CAIR:
        • "seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage its social and political activism.", according to wikipedia.
        • was created by "three officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine" (ibid), and we all know that Palestinians have absolutely no axe to grind with the US.
        • In 1998, Omar Ahmad (a joint founder of CAIR) was reported to have said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
      • He's going on "a short business trip" to Dubai in a few weeks.

      Of course, none of that is illegal, but neither is going to a flight school and asking to taught how to fly. The point being, those who claim he was targeted only because he was half-Egytian or that this is based on profiling aren't looking at the entire picture.

      CAIR, in particular, looks a lot like the German-American Bund from pre-WWII days. They claimed to be formed to further German-American relations, but promoted Nazi propaganda and anti-semitism, as well as being a cover for espionage.

      The fact he was knowingly driving with expired plates makes him a valid traffic stop by any policeman he goes by.

    79. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So pointing out the obvious is a crime now?

      He makes a good point, terrorism is not a real threat. Heart disease, cancer, car accidents those are real threats to our way of life.

    80. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Supreme Court often doesn't take cases unless they have a specific intent to overturn the verdict or to reconcile competing precedent in two or more jurisdictions.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    81. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by froggymana · · Score: 1

      How do we know there wasn't a microphone on it to record conversations?

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    82. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by froggymana · · Score: 1

      Osama Bin Laden is dead.

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    83. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't marked "Property of the FBI" and they wanted it back, I think that I might ask for proof of ownership. Saying that something belongs to you, does not make it so.

      Because you want them to "make this much more difficult for you"?

    84. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'd send the device "Next Day UPS Air", addressed to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan Pakistan.

      Fixed that for you

    85. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /"

      Turns out Khalid was right. They read reddit and bugged him.

      Pfft.

    86. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by wshs · · Score: 1

      Isn't the 9th circuit also one of the most overturned in the country? Kinda makes you question the competency of its judges.

    87. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't, they get more decisions overturned because the 9th is really big.

      No. They make lots of decisions because the 9th is really big. They get lots of decisions overturned because lots of their decisions were stupid.

      No, they get decisions overturned at about the same rate as other courts.

      You hear about the decisions being overturned because the television shows you watch, the radio shows you listen to, and the websites you read have all decided that a "wacky 9th circuit liberal activist court gone out of control" is a narrative they wish to maintain.

      You have anecdotal information (particular cases that are overturned) and raw data (the rate that the cases are overturned). That's fine. The problem is that you haven't been given any actual information (a valid comparison between the 9th circuit and other courts). You're a victim of lazy reporting by people who have constructed a narrative to support their view of the world, and who don't know or care what's true.

    88. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I have been following this on reddit and I can't decide between him being a joke poster (like those on yahoo answers) or a complete moron. If you know the cops are after you don't post a question to the reddit equivalent of ask slashdot asking what to do about it. Its a public forum and the police read it too. Obviously if you know the FBI are tracking you and you know a relative of yours has been making public statements about bombs you should keep your head down when you find yourself being tracked.

    89. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by satuon · · Score: 1

      They do identify themselves as FBI agents.

    90. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Draek · · Score: 1

      Small correction: they tell you more about how they view themselves. And I, for one, would easily prefer a cop that feels he's got an undeservedly large level of influence over the lives of others, over some sociopathic jackass that believes he's a hero deserving nothing but gratitude from their fellow men. Far easier to convince the former of his mistakes than the latter, and far less apt to abuse their authority for their own gain.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    91. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by offsides · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would have called 911 and reported a possible bomb placed on my car, and gotten the bomb squad to come out and blow it up. What's the FBI going to do then, charge him with being a responsible citizen? I mean, really - could anyone blame him for doing what the scaremongering overlords have been telling us to do for the past 10 years?

      And, not only would it have gotten rid of the device, but it would have been big news - there's no way the FBI could have kept it quiet(ish) then...

    92. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Just put in in the neighbor's car secretly, and make sure you wipe off your fingerprints.

    93. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I didn't say Arizona was guilty of profiling.

      I said, "Apparently it's wrong when the AZ government does it, but when the US government racial profiles, that's okay." The current US Administration is accusing the AZ government of being racist profilers, and yet this same administration does the same shit itself. Can you say "hypocrite"? I think that word applies.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    94. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing about East Germany during the heyday. I heard that about 50% of the people were in some way affiliated with the government, so basically each person had another person watching them. Everyone was under surveillance by everyone else. Not sure how true that was, but it can't be too far from the truth, lol.

      Probably true. Direct experience, east europe, during comunism there was a saying, "walls have ears".

      --
      :wq!
    95. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      Well if I found a strange device that looked like that I wouldn't take any chances. I'd probably head straight for the lake and throw it in. All this fear mongering by the media really makes me scared of bombs, see...

      Put it under some politicians car, see how they like it.

    96. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by severoon · · Score: 1

      Yea......I was thinking "race profiler," and by extension, "hypocrite." (How'd you miss that?) See the excellent response by Obfuscant above for a compelling presentation of the details of my point.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    97. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by GREY_LENSMAN312 · · Score: 1

      Order a pizza...stick it on the delivery vehicle...the FBI would love to track a network or a sleeper cell. Spread the joy

    98. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) being in the country illegal is a crime, so it would be a valid criminal reason
      2) no one has ever defined what a minimum standard for reasonable suspicion is for such a thing, and having an accent is most assuredly on the list of things leading to reasonable suspicion.

      The effect is that if you do ask the cop for, say, directions, he can, just from your accent, from the fact you don't know where you are going, and that you exhibit a number of subjective other attributes he makes up later (you looked nervous, you looked confused, etc.) hold you for nothing other than asking for directions.

      Additionally, the law was simply enforcement of the existing federal law, so if the AZ law was truly "profiling", then the federal law is, as well.

      That's a flat out lie. It's not the law that's profiling, but the implementation. The federal law, as applied, is to determine the nationality of someone already in custody when something specific triggers a question (addresses not adding up, problem with ID, no SSN) , and is never used as a primary law at all. The Arizona implementation leaves open the possibility of driving into a lot at Wal-Mart and checking green cards of the dark-skinned people the cops suspect of being illegal migrant workers. And, based on some of the popular police figures, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable expectation.

      The law should have simply indicated that all people convicted of an offense leading to jail time shall have their nationality verified. That's closer to how the feds enforce theirs, and would eliminate profiling. Instead, it will likely be used to harass brown people, and can be used to do so.

    99. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry AC, but I need to bust some chops here.

      My dad was a police officer for 26 years. he fits GGP's profile for egomaniac quite well. He is also paranoid, and an "end of the world" nutter.

      I grew up hearing stories from his work that would make any sensible person cringe concering civil rights violations of people based on the simple "gut instincts" of police officers, as well as even scarier stories of corruption, racketeering, and conspiracy. (I firmly believe that my dad is a paranoid, power abusing crank BECAUSE of the experiences in his life. Becoming a policeman AFTER being in Korea does NOT a sane mind make.)

      The icing on the shitcake you just spun, is that I have had a front seat view of the behind the scenes goings on of these "oh so misunderstood, and noble policepeople." As scary as my dad is, he really WAS one of the LEAST corrupt; That doesnt excuse his behavior any, it is merely a frightening observation. People who are sworn to protect citizens and enforce the law were actively engaged in beating first, and asking questions later, extorting money and information from known prostitues, Covering up criminal activities of wealthy citizens--including murder--etc.

      Do I have proof? No. Did these things really happen? Who knows. there is no evidence; and that is kinda the point. I simply know I have heard officers joking and laughing about such things, the way geeks joke about their encrypted porn collections.

      Law enforcement attracts a specific kind of person; People that LIKE to enforce. The problem is that these peopel dont always enforce the LAW, but rather their own personal version of it. Again, my dad was no exception.

      So, forgive me if I tell you to take your candy coated version of the poor, misunderstood and downtrodden civil servant, and stuff it were the sun doesnt shine. IF such officers still exist, they comprise FAR less than 1% of the active force.

    100. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the short term, the probably the best you can do is to destroy it while leaving the appearance of innocence. You are trying to get them to repeatedly replace the device. Each one you destroy constitutes a successful attack on the limited budget of the police force. Your goal is to make this kind of surveillance expensive enough that it is only used in cases of extreme need.

      Possible methods include:
      - Take the car to the nearest body of salt water and while you are there, make sure enough salt water gets inside the device to destroy it.
      - If the device is near the exterior, go 4 wheeling. While you are out, smash the device (and the area around the device) with a rock.
      - If you can move it without being detected, give it an overnight cook in a high temperature kiln.
      - Wait for a storm, then do some arc-welding in close proximity to the device. Don't leave any burns near the device. If you don't have a friend with an arc-welder, then discharge a big capacitor thru the device. If you don't have a capacitor, try briefly grounding the battery through it. The objective is to induce enough current through the antaenna to fry the radio.
      - The old liquid Nitrogen followed by a gentle tap might also do it. You don't want to make it look smashed, just make it look like materials failure.

      While destroying a succession of these devices is fun, it is not the best answer. The best answers are the hard ones. We need to fight the slide into a police state. Going as public as possible is probably the best answer. Write letters to the editor in the remaining papers. Put all the details up where the internet can replicate them. Publicly demand accountability from your elected representatives. Every chance you get, demand to know why the police were secretly monitoring you without a warrent.

      Probably Not Anonymous Enough..

    101. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proper estimates were around one in five, but that's more than enough for a total surveillance society.

    102. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work. The FIB would tell them to teach you a lesson, and then they'd just blow up your car without removing the device first (or letting you remove it).

    103. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by westlake · · Score: 1

      If you just find one of these and don't realize that it belongs to the FBI, and think "doesn't belong" and destory it (or just toss it in a dumpster), are you liable to pay for it when the FBI comes to get it back

      What happens when you destroy it - or pull some crack-brained stunt like planting the tracker on your ex-girl friend's car - is that you move up one, two, three or more notches on the watch list.

      The smart thing to do is call the cops and let them remove the device and decide what to do with it.

    104. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      He meant USPS, of course... leave it in a package drop box. It'd probably end up lost in mountains of unclaimed mail addressed to Santa Claus and God...

      or bin Laden.

    105. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      Hate to take it to the extremes, and no I don't think cops are even close to being that bad on a bad bad day. Buttttt I am sure people were able to find nice nazi soldiers, who looked after people etc but at the end of the day if they are contributing overall to something bad then they can't really claim innocence. If the police are really that bad then one or two good ones won't really make up for many more bad ones.

      No idea what American police are like except for cops, crime channel etc, and by the looks of it they seem to be very rough whilst detaining people, aggressive and angry, whilst Aussie cop shows tend to show our cops trying to talk the person into submission. There are a few american cops like that but generally they seem to just be one angry bunch and I really hope that tv is showing them wrongly.

      In Australia though most police I see are usually quite friendly, I'll wave and say hi to them and they are usually fine. But I know of people who say how they speak to officers when being pulled over, eg aggressive n angry attitudes, and then wonder why the cops are giving them tickets or "hassling" them. They're humans, treat them good and you will probably be ok, but if you meet under bad circumstances then they probably aren't going to be that friendly. Respect is a 2 way street.

      However dealing with criminals and no respect, abuse, etc, I think pretty much everyone would be an angry cop. And also it would depend on training, they are trained to be the AUTHORITY, the boss, the law, they're trained to be above all others in some respects as they are in a position of power and need to keep it. Hence a nice big ego, or an attractive job for those who already had a nice big ego.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    106. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      "The subject 'acted suspiciously' is not probable cause for a warrantless search....." - US Supreme Court
      .

      >>>Arizona implementation leaves open the possibility of driving into a lot at Wal-Mart and checking green cards of the dark-skinned people

      False, false, FALSE. Can't you at least READ the law before you opine? Or a summary thereof? The law says a cop may only check IDs if the subject was caught in a crime. So if the subject was caught stealing a Walmart stereo, then yes the cop could ask for ID, but he can NOT just walk into the store and start demanding IDs.

      That's the trouble with liberals/conservatives.
      They repeat the talking points.
      But those are inaccurate.

      The Arizona law also includes a Signing Statement from the governor which specifically forbids the use of profiling by the Arizona officers. So overall the Arizona law is actually *more* protective of civil liberties than the Congressional law, which does allow profiling and does allow US cops to demand ID from anybody. (See the Homeland Security stops on various highways.) The Arizona law forbids those last two things.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    107. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by arisvega · · Score: 1

      If you just find one of these

      .. and there there is another, smaller one. They could come in pairs! Sneaky, but efficient.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    108. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You either fail at reading comprehension or basic logic, since I wasn't speaking about the qualities or opinions of others.

    109. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "The subject 'acted suspiciously' is not probable cause for a warrantless search....." - US Supreme Court

      Yes, they call it Reasonable Suspicion, but suspicious behavior is unrelated to suspicion, right? A police officer can't satisfy Reasonable Suspicion by saying "he was suspicious" with nothing else. However, when the officer breaks down the suspicion to a number of discrete suspicions, it is allowable. "He acted suspiciously by asking for directions to a well known street, speaking with an accent, acting nervously, etc." is acceptable for Reasonable Suspicion. Additionally, you are referring specifically to a warrantless search. Requesting ID as directed by state law is not a warrantless search, so even if you were correct in the spirit of what was said, it is still 100% not applicable to this situation. But I guess making up things that aren't applicable is the best you can do.

      Can't you at least READ the law before you opine? Or a summary thereof?

      Sure. Here are the first three links from a search on that law:

      It requires police officers, "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

      The law requires police to query the immigration status of people stopped for a legitimate reason whom they suspect are in the US illegally.

      What does the Arizona law do? Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

      Those were the first three, picked because they are obviously popular, and they agree 100% with my statements. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you are wrong about me not reading about it and being an ass about it by accusing me of things I obviously am not guilty of. Perhaps you should read what's being written before claiming it would all agree with you. I picked those as the first three, not because they are better or worse than any others, but because they were the top three. Anyone else doing the same search would read those and get the impression I have. But regardless, that just proves you 100% wrong about me not reading about it. You are wrong much more than you are right, but you still feel the moral imperative to speak and demonstrate your idiocy. The only problem is that you speak so authoritatively when wrong that people mistakenly believe you.

      The Arizona law also includes a Signing Statement


      I'd like you to point out where in the Arizona Constitution where the power to make a signing statement is enumerated. Do so for the US Constitution as well, just for a comparison. I don't know the AZ Constitution as well, but I know that signing statements aren't in the US Constitution, and it's liberal activist revisionists like you that pervert the Constitution by adding in powers like "signing statements" whenever you find it convenient.

    110. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, they call it Reasonable Suspicion, but suspicious behavior is unrelated to suspicion, right? A police officer can't satisfy Reasonable Suspicion by saying "he was suspicious" with nothing else. However, when the officer breaks down the suspicion to a number of discrete suspicions, it is allowable. "He acted suspiciously by asking for directions to a well known street, speaking with an accent, acting nervously, etc." is acceptable for Reasonable Suspicion. Additionally, you are referring specifically to a warrantless search. Requesting ID as directed by state law is not a warrantless search, so even if you were correct in the spirit of what was said, it is still 100% not applicable to this situation. But I guess making up things that aren't applicable is the best you can do.

      Hogwash. You are making crap up here. In order for the police to use the specific events of someone acting suspiciously or to make that suspicious behavior cause for a search, the police officer has to connect the suspicious behavior to a crime he is lawfully pursuing. In other words, saying he acted suspiciously has to connect to a crime within the cop's jurisdiction in which makes the suspicious behavior notable more so then an ordinary person. Someone being taking off running when the cop rounds the corner is not enough for a search. But if they were investigating a mugging in which the runner match at least in part, the description of the mugger, then it's enough to focus on that individual. Try to learn about a Terry stop, and perhaps learn a little about the law outside of watching an episode of cops on your Friday night.

      hose were the first three, picked because they are obviously popular, and they agree 100% with my statements. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you are wrong about me not reading about it and being an ass about it by accusing me of things I obviously am not guilty of. Perhaps you should read what's being written before claiming it would all agree with you.

      Everyone knows that I have had several heated discussions in the past with the parent poster so it's not likely I'm coming to his defense out of love. But you have to at least read his damn post before going off. He said you need to "at least READ the law before you opine". I mean you even quoted that but you failed to link to anywhere in the law at all. So I have to ask, are you being willfully ignorant in order to maintain your incorrect opinion or is there something physically wrong with you that handicaps your judgment and we should make minor allowances for? Here are two separate links to the actual bill that was signed into law.

      http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm

      Nowhere in those bills (the law) does it say what you are attempting to make out. Furthermore, anyone with a valid ID is automatically presumed to be legal regardless of any other indication given by the person.

      I picked those as the first three, not because they are better or worse than any others, but because they were the top three. Anyone else doing the same search would read those and get the impression I have.

      What was the search terms you used? I mean if you searched for something like AZ law allows racial profiling, then sure, the first results are going to be by people who think the same. If you searched for Arizona immigration law, it would be different.

      I'd like you to point out where in the Arizona Constitution where the power to make a signing statement is enumerated. Do so for the US Constitution as well, just for a comparison. I don't know the AZ Constitution as well, but I know that signing statements aren't in the US Constitution,

    111. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But you have to at least read his damn post before going off. He said you need to "at least READ the law before you opine". I mean you even quoted that but you failed to link to anywhere in the law at all.

      Dear fucking liar Dumbass,
      His words included: "Or a summary thereof?" (which you, lying by omission, omitted) And I pointed to a number of summaries that lead directly to the same conclusion I presented, taken because of the popularity of the link, not because they supported me (though every summary of the law I read supported my statement, and not a single one supported yours or his). If he wishes to take that to bash the liberal media, so be it. But for him to insult me for not reading *about* it when I did, was provably 100% wrong.

      commodore64_love is correct in his/her interpretation of the law.

      Again, lies. The law has, to my knowledge, not yet been enforced. I know you progressives want the activist judges to rule your way, but "lawful contact" is required, and that is a currently undefined term. If I'm incorrect, please point out the law that defines it. If it is not defined in law, then it's up to your activist judges to make it whatever you want it to be. You can't know he's correct because there is no definition of that term in the law. That was one of the points of contention. So, unless you can point to where in the law it's defined, I assert you are wrong, as is he. "I'd hope the law is implemented in XXX way" would be a correct statement. "The law means XXX" is no better than an unformed guess based on obviously biased assumptions without regard to the process or likely outcome when this does get challenged. Not to mention that if this is fully struck down (probably unlikely, but I'm expect at least some gets struck down), the law means nothing. That's right, all those words, and the legal effect is nothing. Given the complete absence of that possibility in the absolutist statements made by you and C64, it's obvious that you aren't taking reality into account in your statements. In addition to them being purposefully stated to deceive (liars) and just plain factually incorrect. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me a law that defines "lawful contact." I'm waiting. If it isn't in the law, then you and C64 are both wrong, and arrogant and egotistical about it to the point of some massive self-delusion about your abilities to decide law from the sidelines, while asserting that someone else is wrong for doing the exact same thing.

    112. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Dear fucking liar Dumbass,
      His words included: "Or a summary thereof?" (which you, lying by omission, omitted)

      Dear fucking stupid idiot. A summer thereof means a summery of the fucking "law" you were suppose to read before opining, not some article in a newspaper that is more opinion then fact. And no, not mentioning the summery is not lieing by omission as it's not even relevant because you still failed drastically in the task. You see, my point still stands as argues despite your inability to focus your reading comprehension skill to the task. In short, you did exactly what you were doing in the first place that sparked the entire comment about you actually reading the law before showing how stupid you are.

      And I pointed to a number of summaries that lead directly to the same conclusion I presented, taken because of the popularity of the link, not because they supported me (though every summary of the law I read supported my statement, and not a single one supported yours or his).

      As I pointed out before, you suffered from selection bias because you went searching for articles that support your theory. The great thing about a search nowadays is that the wording of the search can drastically effect the ranking of articles returned as it's attempting to return articles you searched for. This is why the comment was about summaries thereof, meaning direct summaries of the law, not opinion laden newspaper articles that favor your preconceived notions. This is why I also presented links to the actual fucking laws which it appeared you totally ignored in preference for the opinions of others. If you can't be bothered to actually read the laws or a summary of the law without all the opinion attached to it, then you probably aren't remotely qualified to talk about it. In essence, you are arguing the sky is pink because you found search results when searching for "the sky is pink" and you are refusing to go outside and simply look up. That types of wilful ignorance is nothing short of clear fraud and intellectual laziness.

      Again, lies.

      I don't think that word means what you think it means. It's not something you can just banter around every time you want to close your eyes to the real facts in order to support some incorrect preconceived notion.

      The law has, to my knowledge, not yet been enforced.

      Actually, its being enforce right now, Only a portion of the law was blocked by the court and it was blocked because of some conflict with federal law that could divert resources and "impose a burden on federal law enforcement and are "preempted" by federal law". Preempted meaning it's a mirror of federal law as the law does nothing more then state that if after lawful contact with anyone, if their immigration status is in question, they need to verify it before releasing them unless it interferes with an ongoing investigation. Portions of it are in effect outside of the holding people until their legal residence can be established.

      I know you progressives want the activist judges to rule your way, but "lawful contact" is required, and that is a currently undefined term. If I'm incorrect, please point out the law that defines it. If it is not defined in law, then it's up to your activist judges to make it whatever you want it to be.

      Actually, this has already been determined which is why I told you to investigate what a Terry Stop it. It's defined as if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. And this law expressly forbids immigration status as being part of that as it only enables their status checks after a "lawful contact" has been made. Furthermore, it's extremely easy to prove citizenship or legal status, all you have to do is present a proper state, federal, military, or government issued ID or reference that you hav

    113. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Any time you hear a soldier, cop, or politician speak about their field of work, they tell you more about themselves than they do about the organization.

      I wasn't speaking about the qualities or opinions of others.

      So you were talking about yourself... RIGHT. And I fail at reading comprehension. Or basic logic. RIGHT!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    114. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No, I wasn't talking about myself. Look, I know you're not exactly a rocket scientist, but this shouldn't be difficult to understand, even for you. I stated that no individual can speak for the group as a whole. The logical implication is that anyone claiming to speak for the group is either speaking about himself, making broad generalizations, or talking out of his ass - either way he's revealing more about himself than he is about the group. These are not contradictory statements - one stems directly from the other. If you don't get that, then you don't understand basic logic. You can disagree with the initial premise, if you like, but you don't get to pretend that there's a problem with the way the statements are structured. And if you disagree with the initial claim then I'm not particularly impressed by your reasoning abilities in general.

    115. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If there's one thing I've learned from being a part of large [group] ... anyone claiming to speak for the group is either speaking about himself, making broad generalizations, or talking out of his ass - either way he's revealing more about himself than he is about the group.

      /thread

      You’re in a hole. Quit digging.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    116. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      lol. I guess you need at least a modicum of intelligence to realize that you're clueless. Thanks for the laughs, anyway.

    117. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No... thank you. It’s nice to have a reminder every now and then that yes, there was in fact a very good reason that I had added you to my Foes list.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    118. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize "US Government" was a race now.

      (Please note that I am not trying to defend/dismiss C64's point about this being racial profiling, I just find it not quite accurate to say C64 is themself doing racial profiling)

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    119. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would hope that they would charge you for it, meaning they will just put an entry into the US Treasury to withhold your next 10 tax returns until the unit is paid for. Otherwise they can simply put you on the "No Fly List" ..that is what they mean by "making it difficult for you". They will simply label you a terrorist or send your name to ICE..the world is their oyster, and you are nothing but a pawn.

      As a (former) cop, I've watched other cops label innocent people as "Scumbags" and their life was hell in this jurisdiction from then on. A cop just has to "say" you did something to cause you irreparable grief. He doesn't have to prove anything until you go to court. I could only imagine an FBI agent and what his ego could do. Anybody in law enforcement, at every level, is an infantile egomaniac.

      Remember the sleaze balls in school?

      Guess where the ones who didn't end up in the jail or military ended?

    120. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by severoon · · Score: 1

      Uh, no...still not quite there. The poster was making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences of the victim based upon his race, i.e., Oh, you are obviously being treated in this way because you are Arabic.

      This is a perfectly valid hypothesis. I have a very loose set of requirements for a hypothesis. People ought to feel free to explore all sorts of crazy ideas, especially ones where people might be getting treated differently based upon their race, because that kind of thing has to be rooted out wherever it occurs.

      In this case, though, it fails...there's just no evidence to support it, so it's not worth bringing into the discussion.

      This is wholly separate from the discussion about whether law enforcement ought to be allowed (1) on my property without a warrant, (2) to track my or my property's location electronically without a warrant.

      On this topic, let us recall for a moment that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not exist in order to describe the rights of individuals; these documents exist in order to describe the rights of government to infringe the rights of states and individuals. Thus, they begin by recognizing—not granting—the inherent rights of individuals, i.e., rights that cannot be granted by any document. It goes on to say that certain freedoms of individuals may be infringed by government for the express purpose of establishing a stable and free society. (Actually, it says a "more perfect union," which means that our great republic is primarily founded on a grammatical error. More perfect? If it's perfect it's perfect. How can it be moreso?)

      So, should government be allowed to track this individual? I don't know. Neither do they, because approval from enough parts of the government necessary to make such a statement was never sought, in my estimation. Nonetheless, this is a wholly separate problem from one of racial/religious profiling.

      Implying the racial profiling thing sure sells a lot of ad impressions, though. Coincidence?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    121. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      The poster was making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences of the victim based upon his race

      I guess that's one way of looking at it. Personally, I looked at it as C64 making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences that specifically the US government was giving to the victim. And it's not like the US government has never performed racial profiling, with the immediate examples that come to mind being Muslims trying to get through airport security (which is just hearsay for me, so it perhaps shouldn't count), and the WWII treatment of Japanese-Americans.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    122. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      The FBI is supported by tax dollars, you're going to pay for it one way or the other.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    123. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I found something like that on my car I'd disassemble it, remove any sim cards and use it for my own desired purposes, like maybe use it to track a balloon with a camera.

      The way I see it, they delivered something to you without your request, so you don't have to return it.

      I do like the "will it blend" idea, and posting the results to Youtube. :)

    124. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Liable to pay for it"?

      How innocent.

    125. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Take it to the police lost and found. Somebody should get a giggle out of that at the FBI's expense.

    126. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't mean its not true about the majority of them.
      i know many law enforcement people, men and women, and the description of "infantile egomaniac" describes the majority to a tee.

    127. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by severoon · · Score: 1

      Personally, I looked at it as C64 making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences that specifically the US government was giving to the victim.

      I looked at it basically the same way. Except, in my statement, I recognized the fact that these assumptions enjoy no support whatsoever from the text.

      ...it's not like the US government has never performed racial profiling...

      ...which is all well and good if we're speaking about how the USG generally treats certain races of people. But we are not. We are speaking about a specific incident where generalizations don't apply.

      You know who else makes broad generalizations without compelling evidence? :->

      (Actually, even I acknowledge that I've now gone one step too far...especially with that snarky little smiley.)

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    128. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      Yes well just look at the budget for "terrorism" it is extremely bloated and it looks like the FBI (or any federal agency for that matter) can say you are a suspected terrorist under almost any circumstance and the government gives you carte blanche to investigate the "suspect". Under ideal circumstances this probably would not be all that bad but the abuse is there no doubt about it.
      The terrorism act as enacted by the Bush administration essentially gives federal agencies a blank check. When is the last time that you ever heard of a governement official not spending all that they can get away with. Terrorism is the latest boondoogle the bureaucrats have up their sleeve to make themselves out to be the gangsters of terror.
           

    129. Re:What happens if you destroy it? by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you could reasonably argue that you had no idea what the device was and thus could not be held accountable.
      However if there was identifying marks on it (say Property of FBI)it would be a whole different situation.

  13. On One Hand... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    On the one hand,

    if you are up to no good, and you're smart, being boring is the way to go.

    On the other hand,

    he should have put it up for sale on eBay.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:On One Hand... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And don't use your car when going places. Use a bicycle - it's a tad harder to place a tracker on a bicycle without someone noticing it.

      And bicycles can be used on a lot of trails too.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  14. Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Dancindan84 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not saying it's right, but "Afifi said he often travels for business and has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially." Frequent traveling along with sending (presumably) large amounts of cash to the middle-east has to raise some red flags.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And? I travel often for business, have family in Indonesia (in-laws), and often send large sums abroad (which is where I live). Does that warrant people investigating me? No. Not everyone with money who travels is suspect.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    2. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'd think there would be a huge gap in between someone having raised a red flag ("looking suspicious" in street cop talk), and there being enough probable cause to suspect someone of a crime, enough to get a warrant. That suggests the warrant issue process is extremely liberal and lax. And if things are like that, then maybe you are going to have such a tracker, some day.

    3. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Galestar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to the dragnet-police-state that is America in the new millenium.

      I used to be thankful I don't live their, but that was until the G20 in Toronto. Looks like your country's government's attitude towards citizen's rights its (respective) constitution has started infecting ours as well.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Funny

      You are not suspected, but you may want to check your car ;)

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    5. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      Erm... I live in Belleville, about an hour and a half from Toronto.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by g4c · · Score: 1

      Have you checked out your car lately?

    7. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Entirely normal, understandable, and acceptable behavior should never be considered suspicious and should *never* be considered probable cause for a warrant. (remember probable = >50% chance) Sending money overseas to your family isn't evidence of terrorism any more than making funny faces at children to make them laugh is evidence of pedophilia.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frequent traveling along with sending (presumably) large amounts of cash to the middle-east has to raise some red flags.

      Well, no, it doesn't have to. But it probably will.

    9. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So get a warrant.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    10. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Not saying it's right, but "Afifi said he often travels for business and has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially." Frequent traveling along with sending (presumably) large amounts of cash to the middle-east has to raise some red flags.

      Yeah, but the thing with red flags is that they are flagged for review. If, as is alleged, the FBI says guy is 'boring', then that flag should be cleared.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    11. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I wish the police had cracked down a bit more. If you disagree, can I ask you to send me the $3500 my small company lost because they didn't? I get to work a whole month, for free, to make it up.

      I used to be thankful I don't live their, but that was until the G20 in Toronto. Looks like your country's government's attitude towards citizen's rights its (respective) constitution has started infecting ours as well.

    12. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was just laid off. Yet he still has "business trips". BS I'm sure they already called his previous employer and his boss said, "What business trips?... Are you serious? He travels that often? His only job is to __________. He said he travels to the Mideast on behalf of this business? (laughs). He makes $20/hr. I make a lot more than him, over 6 figures. I can't even afford to travel around the world that often."

    13. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by bm_luethke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe - I do not necessarily disagree with that either. There may be a large number of other reasons we aren't told, we are only hearing his side of the story too. My bet is that the vast vast majority of people who were *actually* doing something got caught before doing it they would raise a fuss about being watched and would take advantage of the current political climate in certain groups to have knee jerk reactions to anything the govt does. I seriously doubt most would admit to being a subversive. The same would be true if we only talked to the law enforcement side - I'm betting they have have some good logical reasoning to do this that ignores the other sides view of the matter too.

      However, in this particular case what we *have* heard from the Law Enforcement side is that there was no court ordered placement of the device. *That* is truly wrong. A large part of why we are supposed to tolerate this type of intrusion into our privacy is that it went through many checks and balances to happen and for many many decades it certainly has done so. One entity, carrying the full weight of the Federal govt, did this with *no* oversight whatsoever. *That* is why many groups (and while it changes some based on who is President, it is slowly becoming a universal idea) have afore mentioned knee jerk reaction.

      There was a time when, for the most part, we believed the authorities because of what they had to go through to do this type of thing. We knew that enough different types of people had signed off on it that saying "There is a reason" was *mostly* good enough. There has never been a perfect system and sometimes it didn't work - but over all those things were rare. However for quite a while (well before 9/11 - ask the Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas families that the ATF/FBI went after) there has been a sever erosion of those checks and balances with the power inevitably going towards the govt - and specifically the executive branch. I can't really say when it started either, I can say that it became blatant enough during Bush Jr's tenure that it was obvious and all but the most partisan deny that. Further all but the most partisan find it obvious that Obama has not only failed to reverse or halt that course but has done everything he can to further making Bush Jr's term look good. Unless *both* parties go through a major internal change I suspect that the next couple of Presidents will do the same thing too, it's just a question of if they will have an "R" or "D" after their name and which parts of our lives they will enact draconian one sided controls on.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    14. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by stdarg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Entirely normal

      Normal depends on the level of detail you apply. If you report it as "sending money to family" maybe. If you report it as "sending money to Egypt" well how many Americans regularly send money to Egypt? Not many as a percentage.

      The fact that he's a college student himself probably makes it very unusual. How many students send money to their families rather than vice versa? Could definitely be accepting money from one group and forwarding it on himself.

    15. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not saying it's right, but... Frequent traveling along with sending (presumably) large amounts of cash to the middle-east has to raise some red flags.

      When anyone says "Not saying it's right, but..." what follows is their true colors.

      Dude, he's got family there. If I had family in the middle east and I was a halfway decent person, I'd send them some money too because the of the vast wage disparities between here and there. Now, I don't mean to offend, but your red-flag-raising is a perfect example of the twisted fear-mongering that is ruining this country and destroying our freedoms. I'm not saying that I wish you'd recognize your neocon views for what they are, but.. actually, that's exactly what I'm saying.

    16. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Galestar · · Score: 1

      You can go after the perps. They arrested almost 1000 innocent bystanders without charges.

      Tell me, how much are your rights worth to you? I would hope more than $3500. Personally my rights are worth a whole lot more than your $3500.

      --
      AccountKiller
    17. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Galestar · · Score: 1

      And this story happened in the USA. Are we talking about the story or about you?

      --
      AccountKiller
    18. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked under you car lately?

    19. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they should investigate you, Damn foreigners taking all the jobs. No wonder Obama hasn't fixed the unemployment problem.

      (I'm being sarcastic, well except for the Obama part ;-)

    20. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should take your car to get an oil change just in case.

    21. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, have you looked under your car?...Just sayin'

    22. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Clovert+Agent · · Score: 1

      That's what you think. Just because you haven't found the GPS device on your car doesn't mean no one's watching. They might just be less incompetent.

      Or not - maybe you're above suspicion. But I wouldn't put money on it.

    23. Re:Not hard to guess why he was being looked at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should know this, but Indonesia isn't in the middle-east. And besides, for all you know the FBI has already looked at you for the reasons you gave and decided you weren't worthy of further investigation.

  15. Replant the device by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now that we have pictures we can identify future devices.
    When you find one, wander over to a freeway gas station and replant it on an interstate truck. At least make them work to recover it.

    1. Re:Replant the device by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Truck? You're not being creative enough. Throw it onto a river barge. Track that!

    2. Re:Replant the device by literaldeluxe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or drop it off at the police station or mail it to the FBI. An unmarked box containing electronics that sends out transmissions? They'll get the bomb squad to deal with it. Then it ends up on the news, and people will actually hear about it.

    3. Re:Replant the device by ravenscar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interstate truck? That's far too easy. I'm thinking something like slip it in some meat and feed it to a gator in the Everglades.

    4. Re:Replant the device by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If only they had some sort of tracking device...

    5. Re:Replant the device by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Uhmmm maybe not. The article mentions an ex-FBI saying that this is an older version of the device. He mentions that newer devices do not include battery packs, and are connected directly to the battery.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    6. Re:Replant the device by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i'd rather go out with a tranquilizer gun and tag a black bear with it..

      then we can see how much they really want it back, although they would probably jut kill the bear which would be sad.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    7. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking trash truck or city bus.

    8. Re:Replant the device by mortonda · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was just thinking of tossing it in the back of the garbage truck when it comes by to collect my garbage. Wading through my boy's old diapers would be an appropriate quid pro quo.

    9. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, you aren't thinking hard enough.
      Stick that baby in someones bag going to the airport.
      Suddenly they will see a car going at several hundred miles per hour in the air.

      Oh, i wonder if i should have went there, planes and electronics?! MUST BE A TERRORIST!
      GET HIM, HE'S TRACKING PLANES AND STUFF! WITH OUR TECHNOLOGY!

    10. Re:Replant the device by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Informative

      mail it to the FBI. An unmarked box containing electronics that sends out transmissions? They'll get the bomb squad to deal with it.

      Uh, do that, go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    11. Re:Replant the device by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great idea... then they come looking for the guy who did it, and you’re looking at years in a Federal prison for putting something into someone’s bag at an airport...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:Replant the device by literaldeluxe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why would you go to jail? First off, you're returning government property. It could be argued that doing anything else would get you put in jail. Second, who said to put your name and return address on it?

    13. Re:Replant the device by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      For returning their property to them? Maybe, but I get the feeling that the press would have a field day with that.

    14. Re:Replant the device by IICV · · Score: 1

      Why would you go to jail? You were simply returning federal property.

    15. Re:Replant the device by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Third, wouldn’t they have seen it coming?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    16. Re:Replant the device by MrSenile · · Score: 1

      Shove it in the mouth of a tuna and head out to sea to chum the waters for great white sharks.

    17. Re:Replant the device by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's theirs. You're just returning it....
      They should not have any problems. They even asked for the thing back.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    18. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Connected to the battery in my car? That's stealing electricity from me -- power that I'm paying for. The courts may have ruled that there is no 'expectation of privacy' for your car even when it's sitting on private property, but I suspect that a good lawyer could have a field day with the concomitant premise that the government is allowed to commit an ongoing theft of services.

    19. Re:Replant the device by TrixX · · Score: 1

      I'd try to get my hands in a high-altitude weather balloon... The FBI might have an interesting day wondering what's my car doing at 100000 feet.

    20. Re:Replant the device by rwade · · Score: 1

      Uh sir...it's in the building

    21. Re:Replant the device by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Then it ends up on the news, and people will actually hear about it.

      As opposed to being buried in a /. story?

    22. Re:Replant the device by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Who's not being creative enough?

      Plant it on top of Mt. Rainier.

    23. Re:Replant the device by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Better yet, walk into your local police station.

      "I found this attached to my car. Here are some photos I took of it. I don't think it's dangerous, but it's not mine. Someone must have lost this, can I fill out some 'I found this weird thing' paperwork, so that we can help find out who it belongs to?"

      - If the police know it's an FBI tracking device, it's still not on your car.
      - You've done your due diligence in terms of handing Finding Strange Things that Aren't Yours (you're not keeping/destroying/ebaying it)
      - After a month, if they haven't found the owner ... let them keep it or dispose of it as they see fit.

    24. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um it's a /tracking/ device.

    25. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they won't. They'll see on their GPS tracking monitor that their tracking device is in the box in front of them.

    26. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you find an unmarked box of that size under your car, wouldn't it be safer to just assume it's a bomb or a tracking device planted by some criminals and ask the police to handle it accordingly? Better not touch it or try to remove it by yourself..

      Perhaps the FBI should include a clear label on their devices requesting for contact in the case of finding the device to give a law abiding citizen a possibility for cooperation and to save government money. After all, once the device is found or removed the FBI can't trust the information collected or transmitted.

    27. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would add a whole new meaning to 'package tracking' :D

    28. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People just don't know how to anti-troll.

      Sprinkle some asbestos, or green mold on it and give it back free of charge.

    29. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would call the bomb squad. How are you to know it isn't a receiver and some explosive?

    30. Re:Replant the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... you're suggesting that to remain anonymous, you should leave out the return address on the GPS TRACKING DEVICE THAT THE FBI HAS ASSIGNED TO YOU?

      There's possibly a slight flaw in that argument, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

  16. In Soviet America... by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...hidden GPS device tracks you!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:In Soviet America... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Wait... so in Capitalist Russia... you track hidden GPS devices?

      I'm so confused.

    2. Re:In Soviet America... by adolf · · Score: 1

      In hidden GPS devices, Soviet Russia tracks you!

    3. Re:In Soviet America... by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      I hear geocaching is very popular there.

    4. Re:In Soviet America... by GlyphedArchitect · · Score: 1

      So then it works the normal way over there too? Nothing makes sense anymore!

    5. Re:In Soviet America... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      No. Well, you track down boxes with receivers hidden in car, but it's usually a bomb.

  17. GPS in a jam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For everyone out there who doesn't want their liberties trampled on, someone want to comment on the effectiveness of GPS jammers? Of course, the most practical and friendly would be short-range ones that don't bother other people.

    1. Re:GPS in a jam by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Informative

      someone want to comment on the effectiveness of GPS jammers?

      Most likely prohibited by the FCC.

    2. Re:GPS in a jam by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

      A large radio station had a badly-tuned transmitter that jammed the lower half of the FM band in a major city for years, affecting radio reception in the (poor) quarter of the city badly, and making those low-power personal FM transmitters (for use with ipods) useless within 30 miles.

      The residents of that neighborhood heard (shitty) gospel music over their land lines, the signal leakage was so bad.

      It took the FCC repeated complaints and 10 years to do anything.

    3. Re:GPS in a jam by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      There are no ways you can keep your liberties from being trampled upon by looking for clever technological hacks or legal protections. The state has access to more technology than you, and to the instruments to create, interpret and enforce law. The real solutions are political. Until enough people who care about civil liberty start winning political fights, it isn't going to change.

      It is also hard work, incremental, involves compromise and not simply firing potshots across ideological divides, either. The libertarians (except Radley Balko and Justin Raimundo) long ago squandered a chance to build common cause with people on the left, because they lazily wanted everyone to subscribe to a very specific conception of liberty before taking any positive action.

    4. Re:GPS in a jam by RealErmine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      someone want to comment on the effectiveness of GPS jammers?

      Most likely prohibited by the FCC.

      These are definitely prohibited by the FCC / FAA. Even a GPS re-radiation system (for bringing GPS indoors) must be registered with the authorities. I have personally been witness to this situation when a company that makes re-rad devices was not checking that its customers were authorized to use the equipment. The FCC / FAA tracked them down and made them contact all their customers to register their equipment.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    5. Re:GPS in a jam by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Metal boxes are prohibited by the FCC?

    6. Re:GPS in a jam by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      "There are no ways you can keep your liberties from being trampled upon by looking for clever technological hacks..."

      Unfortunately, a personal firearm is just another useless "technological hacks". Rambo types may fantasize about keeping the Feds at bay with their arsenal of hunting weapons, but the reality is that no firearm you can legally purchase in any part of the USA (including so-called "assault rifles") is going to do jack shit when you are targeted by the Feds.

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    7. Re:GPS in a jam by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      A metal box that emits a signal in a specific frequency range that is not authorized by the FCC is prohibited, yes.

      I used to be a jammer in the military. You can't just go around jamming stuff for fun or for your own "liberties".

    8. Re:GPS in a jam by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you.: that's why I say the only effective approach is political, not violent. (I'm not against violence per se, but it just is useless in this context, and the whole guns-defend-liberty is, as you suggest, pure macho posturing.)

      I actually think "liberty" is incremental, not absolute, and is constructed through a network of negotiated protections and expectations, not by the fiat of a one-time constitutional moment.

    9. Re:GPS in a jam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in the (poor) quarter of the city badly...It took the FCC repeated complaints and 10 years to do anything.

      There's your answer right there.

      Jam the GPS reciever in some executive's BMW, and the FCC will be at your door within the hour.

  18. Could have been interesting by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be really interesting to see what would have happened had he disposed of it in a lake before the FBI showed up. There's nothing in the photo to indicate that it belongs to the government; it could have been placed by a private detective. As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as far as the government is concerned, it is not, and they have a lot more guns and lawyers than you do.

    2. Re:Could have been interesting by omnichad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if putting an FBI sticker made you liable for not destroying it, wouldn't everyone start putting FBI stickers on them?

    3. Re:Could have been interesting by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.

      Interesting theory. So if A has something B doesn't want him to have, then B just has to attach it to your car without your permission, and then it's yours and therefore no longer A's ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Could have been interesting by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or, better yet, call 911 and report a suspicious device attached to your car. Given what I saw in the picture, that would've been my first step. The device itself isn't easily distinguishable from a bomb. It's clearly got at least 3 of the components necessary, and I personally wouldn't go screwing around with something that has that many components without a robot to do it for me.

    5. Re:Could have been interesting by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      if they (or anyone) installs something on MY property without my permission I consider that an act of personal invasion, almost personal war. this is crossing a line WAY too big even for this 'we dont care, we dont have to' government.

      but its laughable to make the subject liable for property that you installed on his car! if I found such a device and disposed of it, theres' no way to know what its intended purpose was and its logical and smart to assume its harmful and should be removed and disposed of. with extreme prejudice.

      horseshit that citizens have to put up with being 'tagged' in such a way.

      suppose the batteries (or their device) malfunctions while on my car. that's just not a risk I expect to take, nor am I willing to put up with such practices.

      we are being tested to see if we citizens will allow this. please, people, don't allow it! if you find devices, destroy them. such devices are immoral and illegal by any rational view of what's right and what's wrong.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Could have been interesting by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      if they (or anyone) installs something on MY property without my permission I consider that an act of personal invasion, almost personal war. this is crossing a line WAY too big even for this 'we dont care, we dont have to' government.

      In a personal war between you and the FBI, who do you think would end up the winner? But that's not the question that should concern you, which would be: What would it cost you?

    7. Re:Could have been interesting by ZosX · · Score: 1

      You just tell the FBI agents that. I'm quite sure they would see it your way.

    8. Re:Could have been interesting by duranaki · · Score: 1

      Oh I get it now. The FBI agent (B) didn't want the FBI (A) to have the tracking device anymore, so they attached it to this third party's car. And they thought they could get away with it. Silly B.

    9. Re:Could have been interesting by Nyder · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.

      Interesting theory. So if A has something B doesn't want him to have, then B just has to attach it to your car without your permission, and then it's yours and therefore no longer A's ...

      You almost understand logic.

      If A has something and B takes it, yes, A no longer has the object.

      Now, just because B hid it on your car, it's not yours until you find it. Once you find it, then yes, it's yours.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    10. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd destroy it, do it before you go public. Since he already has a reply/threat from the FBI, chances are he is much more liable than before. It's too late to reasonably do anything other than to cave in to the thugs or visit a lawyer.

      Oh well, at least things like this provide some entertainment for those of us not living in "the Land of the Free"(TM).

    11. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant idea to give them a chance to destroy the evidence against them while also blowing up your car.

    12. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right. Do you know what the bomb squad actually do?

      Hint: They don't defuse the bomb. They clear the area and do a "Controlled explosion"

      Bye bye car.

    13. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can only kill him once. As long as he takes out more then one of them it's worth it in terms of numbers.

    14. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.

      Exactly! I wish you were there to explain to the bicyclist in my SUV's wheel well, that the nice carbon fiber Trek stuck to my grill was now mine, like I said it was!

    15. Re:Could have been interesting by RebootKid · · Score: 1

      You placed something on my car? Huh. That's odd. I've got no clue about what it is, was, or where it is. Sorry.
      I went over a really bumpy road a while ago. Sounded like something fell off, but the car was driving fine so I just kept going


      Or hey, maybe do something really fun, like call in the bomb squad, and have them detonate the thing.

      You don't know what the device is, how it got there, or what its purpose is. Say it looks like a bomb to you.

      I get the massive fear of law enforcement and the FBI, but really, the vehicle is your property. You can do anything with your car you want. (Assuming you've got the pink slip.) Heck, if I found one attached to one of my cars, I'd seriously consider sending that car off to the smasher.

    16. Re:Could have been interesting by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Maybe you want to learn the difference between possession (you have it) and ownership (it's yours).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they'll dispose of the bomb by blowing up your car.

    18. Re:Could have been interesting by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Trouble is, even if they didn't recognize the device for what it really was and I'm pretty sure they would. They wouldn't "remove" it from your car before they blew it up. If the desire was to get them to blow it up, then your best bet is to disconnect the power supply from the transmitter and mail it back in a plain package to the FBI. That said I'm certain you would find yourself surrounded by a bad set of consequences even though you were "returning it to them."

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    19. Re:Could have been interesting by BillX · · Score: 1

      From what I saw of the pictures, it had only 1 of the required 3 elements, the battery pack. Where's the blinking LED and the 7-segment digital countdown?

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    20. Re:Could have been interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now THERE is a comment that warrants some FBI attention.

    21. Re:Could have been interesting by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      And if putting an FBI sticker made you liable for not destroying it, wouldn't everyone start putting FBI stickers on them?

      That's a good point. I've seen that thing already with a lot of junk mail. The marketers who send it go to great pains to make it look like it came from a government agency; however, they always stop short of the line where they would actually claim to be a government agency. I expect that there is some kind of law against it. Whether it would be applicable to a label on a device that isn't trying to sell anything is an interesting question.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    22. Re:Could have been interesting by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, if you attach something to my car without my permission, it's mine.

      Interesting theory. So if A has something B doesn't want him to have, then B just has to attach it to your car without your permission, and then it's yours and therefore no longer A's ...

      It looks to me like this is governed by state law. I guess the best thing to do is just to attach it to the nearest garbage or mail truck.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  19. so what.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    what's that? u want it back? sorry Mr FBI. I already disassembled it and destroyed it. what? u want to charge me with destruction of federal property? was there a tag on it that said it belonged to the FBI? it was in my car, it's my property. suck it!

  20. In Soviet America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...FBI tracks ... oh, wait a second.

  21. Private driveway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if the private driveway is located in Texas, couldn't the car owner just shoot the FBI agent that installs the device?

  22. Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker. by anUnhandledException · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker.

    A GPS receiver knows where the GPS receiver is but doesn't have a mechanism to send that information to a remote location.
    It doesn't do the FBI any good.

    A GPS tracker contains a GPS receiver but also some communication method (cellular, sat, other wireless technology) to periodically or continually send location information to a remote location.

  23. it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by cindyann · · Score: 4, Funny
    What if it's in the driveway of my fenced, gated (and gate closed) house, possibly with a guard dog or three roaming the premises?

    I think if I found someone crawling under my car in my unfenced, ungated driveway, placing some device on my car, I'd be cueing up the track of a shotgun being pumped on my MP3 player, then playing it real loud for the perp under my car.

    1. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I think if I found someone crawling under my car in my unfenced, ungated driveway, placing some device on my car, I'd be cueing up the track of a shotgun being pumped on my MP3 player, then playing it real loud for the perp under my car.

      Yeah, because an MP3 suggesting you might be about to use deadly force won't suddenly back you into a corner when someone who is prepared to use deadly force actually does?

      I know you're going for humor, but that just seems like a bit of a dangerous game.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it's in the driveway of my fenced, gated (and gate closed) house, possibly with a guard dog or three roaming the premises?

      I think if I found someone crawling under my car in my unfenced, ungated driveway, placing some device on my car, I'd be cueing up the track of a shotgun being pumped on my MP3 player, then playing it real loud for the perp under my car.

      Yeah, I always get the feeling this happens a lot less in Texas.

    3. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      The state I live in has the "Castle Doctrine" law. This means it is legal for me to shoot intruders on my property.
      Be forewarned: ANYONE who sneaks onto my property, uninvited, unidentified, with no warrant will be shot on sight.

      I don't give a fuck if you are FBI, CIA, or a common criminal, YOU WILL BE SHOT.

      If you want to come on my property and you aren't expected you better come to the front door and knock politely.

      One whacked out court of appeals (the 9th circuit), which is the most reversed court in the United States does not and cannot trump the 4th and 5th Amendments by fiat. I do not recognize their authority to do so because they DO NOT HAVE IT.

      Americans need to lose this notion that our government, any part of it, including the judiciary, is above our Constitution, because they are not.

      We also need to start insisting that our state governments step up and do their job, one of which is protecting us from overreaching Federal authority.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    4. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd be cueing up the track of a shotgun being pumped on my MP3 player, then playing it real loud for the perp under my car."

      I don't think I've ever seen a better definition of pussy, ever.

      I guess the choice of the Remington, the Mossberg, or the Taurus...and you pick up your ipod. No wonder they're doing this shit.

    5. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone is shooting at me, I must then have the right to defend myself. Bye bye you go.

    6. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      "If someone is shooting at me, I must then have the right to defend myself. Bye bye you go."

      You have no right to be on someone else's property uninvited. Besides, after getting hit with a 12-gauge, .45ACP or .30-06 I doubt you'd be in any condition to shoot back.

      As I said, I don't care if the intruder is from the government or not, if they are on my property illegally (which means uninvited and no warrant) they WILL be shot. Maybe after a couple cops or FBI types get killed in Castle Doctrine states for wanting to pretend they are James Bond they'll think better of this practice of trying to plant non warrant sanctioned monitoring devices on private property.

      I have no sympathy for them. Indeed, I have more contempt for such people than I do common criminals, people who work for the government are supposed to uphold the law, not circumvent it.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    7. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      That's wonderful and all but you do realize there's a bit of a disconnect between your guaranteed legal rights and your realized legal rights don't you? Your guaranteed legal rights are only available to you should you have the resources to ensure them. Even so, prior to and during your expenditure of a substantial fortune, time and a measure of your sanity you will only be provided with the aforementioned subset. Hopefully it isn't a subset that allows for your termination with extreme prejudice since you just shot a law enforcement officer.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    8. Re:it's okay if the car is/was in your driveway? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I'd be cueing up the track of a shotgun being pumped on my MP3 player, then playing it real loud for the perp under my car.

      Sounds to me like the quickest way imaginable to get shot. On other hand, if you had a real shotgun (preferably a semi-automatic; pumps are overrated IMHO), you could call out to whoever's under your car and tell 'em he has two choices:

      Show you a warrant or make peace with his god. 'Cause this country isn't going to shake off the tightening chains of tyranny unless people start growing a fucking pair and making it clear they mean business.

  24. Re:we should profile Arabs and kick the illegals o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so when are you leaving?

  25. From the article by wiredog · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    he was planning a short business trip to Dubai in a few weeks... has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially. ...

    Afifi's father, Aladdin Afifi, was a U.S. citizen and former president of the Muslim Community Association here, before his family moved to Egypt in 2003. Yasir Afifi returned to the U.S. alone in 2008, while his father and brothers stayed in Egypt, to further his education he said. He knows he's on a federal watchlist and is regularly taken aside at airports for secondary screening.

    Fits the profile of someone you want to keep an eye on pretty well, actually.

    1. Re:From the article by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Fits the profile of someone you want to keep an eye on pretty well, actually.

      Tell yourself that the next time you fill up at the gas station and send a couple dollars a gallon to Saudi Arabia. You know, the country that financed 9/11 and even provided most of the hijackers.

    2. Re:From the article by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fits the profile of someone you want to keep an eye on pretty well, actually.

      What: having a dad and brothers is bad? David Kaczynski turned in his brother, the Unabomber; should he also be on a watch list for having suspicious relatives?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:From the article by cindyann · · Score: 1

      Actually, when I fill my gas tank, that two dollars is more likely going to Canada.

      But hey, Canadians, Saudis; mostly they look the same.

    4. Re:From the article by mdielmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he was planning a short business trip to Dubai in a few weeks... has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially. ...

      Afifi's father, Aladdin Afifi, was a U.S. citizen and former president of the Muslim Community Association here, before his family moved to Egypt in 2003. Yasir Afifi returned to the U.S. alone in 2008, while his father and brothers stayed in Egypt, to further his education he said. He knows he's on a federal watchlist and is regularly taken aside at airports for secondary screening.

      Fits the profile of someone you want to keep an eye on pretty well, actually.

      In which case, getting a warrant should be a piece of cake.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    5. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's suspicious to you because you've been sold that Muslim=terrorist sympathiser. Re-word your clip with "Mormon Community Association" and "France" and you wouldn't care any more.

      Remember that most domestic terrorists in USA, UK, Germany since 1965 have been Christian AND that the recent USA cases of homegrown Muslim terrorism hitting the courts involved the FBI setting up the plot, providing the materials etc.

    6. Re:From the article by wiredog · · Score: 1

      As I said, fit's the profile. So you watch him for a few months and then, if he isn't doing anything interesting, you go watch someone else. FBI doesn't have unlimited resources.

    7. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Because he is a foreigner? If we replaced Muslim with Christian and Egypt with Canada you wouldn't find this at all suspicious. There are allot more Muslims from Egypt who are not terrorists than who are. And being a leader of a religious organization has no bearing on if someone is a violent extremist or connections to one.

  26. Friend "wrote something stupid" by martyros · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you look further in the article, you can reconstruct a hypothetical scenario which, from the FBI's point of view, looks completely normal:

    • Young Arab American named Khaled writes a blog post hinting at something violent: (TFA: "When he later asked Khaled about the post, his friend recalled “writing something stupid,” but said he wasn’t involved in any wrongdoing.")
    • FBI gets warrants to track whereabouts of Khalid and his friends, one of whom is Afifi (TFA: "[A former FBI agent] said he was certain that agents who installed it would have obtained a 30-day warrant for its use.")
    • FBI plants device on Afifi's car.
    • Afifi finds the device during a routine check-up
    • FBI notices the thing isn't moving, and/or notice the photos online, and decide to show their cards; especially since they're convinced he's not important anyway.

    It's of course a bit scary to have people tracking you when you didn't do anything wrong; and it sounds like there was some annoying bullying (TFA: "[The FBI agent] told Afifi, “We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate.”) But it sounds like there's an explanation of how this could have happened by-the-book, and the FBI is doing their job.

    --

    TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    1. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have no problem with the FBI putting tracking devices on people on whom they are conducting a legitimate investigation. I have a huge problem with the fact that they can do it now on minimum suspicion and without a warrant.

    2. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree, but he still had better options. He should have said nothing and either re-planted it, thrown it in a dumpster/lake, or driven someplace, disassembled it and then taken it home for further inspection. As it is, he simply managed to achieve attention-whoredome.

    3. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      They don't require a warrant, though, as the courts recently decided. They don't have to give an good reason, or a bad reason, or any reason to do it. That's what worries people.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, given all the trouble the FBI has had issuing legal National Security Letters, I wouldn't assume that there's a valid warrant until I read it.

      Second, if stalking immigrant kids is the FBI "doing their job", they should find a different job. Getting a warrant requires "probable cause". Probable refers to probability. How many of these fishing expeditions has the FBI gone on? If less than 50% of them lead to arrests, they are getting warrants for improbable causes. That's unconstitutional.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it sounds like there's an explanation of how this could have happened

      Yes and the reason is "racial profiling". Basically that guy was only subject to FBI surveillance because of his ancestry. The FBI wouldn't have given a rats ass if his name was George and he was white.

    6. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Nyder · · Score: 1

      If you look further in the article, you can reconstruct a hypothetical scenario which, from the FBI's point of view, looks completely normal:...

      Dude, you can make any situation "seem normal". Proves nothing.

      The issue is, is it really okay morally for our government to be doing this? Remember, today it's "terrorist" who happened to be Arab, tomorrow it can be terrorist who like math, or drink chocolate milk.

      This is the start, we let them get away with stuff like this, then next time they are going to try to get away with something even bigger. Soon they'll decide they don't need warrents to plant bugs, search your home, etc.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by almiki · · Score: 1

      Here is the post from Reddit:

      bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /

      It's obvious there wasn't anything threatening about that post, especially in context.

    8. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by shitzu · · Score: 1

      It is strange how stone age law enforcement can be. Wouldn't it be easier (and give more results - as the cellphone travels in your pocket even on foot) to track his cellphone location. Getting this informations from the carrier might need a warrant and that's it - but oh no - they prefer to crawl under a greasy car and attach something physical and "expensive" to it.

    9. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by SoTerrified · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just for interests sake, here's the "something stupid" that his buddy Khaled wrote on a 'blog'.

      http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q

      bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /

      If that post gets you FBI monitoring... The FBI has WAYYYY too much time on their hands. But one has to laugh at the irony of the "I'm surely bugged"...

    10. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Khaled writes a blog post hinting at something violent

      This is what the "blog post" was (supposedly)
      http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q

      >bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /

      He is doing a theoretical "what if" , and if anything is using it as an argument to show the threat of terrorism is overblown and probably not as "real" the the Threat index invented by Bush would have you believe

    11. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by dcollins · · Score: 1

      TFA: "[A former FBI agent] said he was certain that agents who installed it would have obtained a 30-day warrant for its use."

      Don't believe it. No evidence to back up claim, and source has conflict of interest.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    12. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He saw through the security theater and openly questioned it. Pretty dangerous, huh?

      And so, the war against common sense and intelligence dutifully continues.

    13. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Chowderbags · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh crap, I've said pretty much that same thing. Maybe I should check my car... oh wait, I'm not brown, the FBI won't care.

    14. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      And now that you have quoted it, you may want to check under your car for an expensive electronic tracking device...

    15. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by precariousgray · · Score: 1

      Free thinkers are dangerous. All praise be unto The Establishment.

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    16. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by rwade · · Score: 1

      Second, if stalking immigrant kids is the FBI "doing their job", they should find a different job.

      Just for the record, the kid is a US-born American citizen. His claim to fame was being half-egyptian.

    17. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The post-security duty free shops in Narita (Tokyo) sell replica samurai swords.
      I noticed this after my nail clippers were confiscated."

    18. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Fuck, I guess I better check my car, since I too have stated the obvious.

    19. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Does the slippery slope argument really hold weight?

      As McCarthyism progressed in this country, did people who like math or drink chocolate milk come under fire?

    20. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by stdarg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're up for an experiment, why not go a bit further. You're assuming he was targeted because he's brown, but you have to do everything he did except be brown to really test that. So change your name to an ethnic Muslim name. Start sending money and traveling to the Middle East. Leave similar comments. Have someone report you as a possible threat. If nothing happens to you then you've got a pretty good case.

    21. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First they came for the browns....

    22. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does "American Citizen" translate into "immigrant kid"?

    23. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      Oh crap, I've said pretty much that same thing. Maybe I should check my car... oh wait, I'm not brown, the FBI won't care.

      Good thing parent was modded up, it's just so insightful to be mocking that a potential terrorist is more likely to be brown than not.

      Oh nevermind, he is right. It would certainly be much more efficient for the FBI to investigate each person the same way and have no bias. He probably also complains about how much the FBI spends..

    24. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was thinking. I would assume that as a 20 year old college student, he had a cell phone. Why wouldn't they track that instead?

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    25. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      But he was right in his last statement

    26. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your missing one of the key points here:

      FBI gets warrants to track whereabouts of Khalid and his friends, one of whom is Afifi (TFA: "[A former FBI agent] said he was certain that agents who installed it would have obtained a 30-day warrant for its use.")

      ^That is not a true statement they did not obtain warrants because they no longer need to. The erosion of our rights has allow investigations like this to go on unchecked.

    27. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the slippery slope bit where they don't need warrants to plant bugs seems to have come to pass.

    28. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by internic · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not as though the second most deadly domestic terrorist attack in US history was perpetrated by two white guys or something.

      There are a number of factors you could look at the narrow down a field of terrorism suspects. Race is probably not a very predictive one. If a law enforcement agency is using it as any high-priority criterion their methodology is probably pretty hopeless.

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    29. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he only got a tracking device.

      I'm an average build white male who has not traveled internationally and who has not sent money overseas and yet, in a period of hours, the FBI had warrants signed to search and seize property from my house and acted on it. I was also arrested for terrorism. I have no prior record, had never been arrested before, and have and had not conducted, promoted or planned terrorism.

      I wish I only got the tracking device. If that had happened, I might still have a good job and a home.

    30. Re:Friend "wrote something stupid" by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Oh crap, I've said pretty much that same thing. Maybe I should check my car... oh wait, I'm not brown, the FBI won't care.

      I've also said pretty much the same thing. Because it's flippin obvious. The really scary thing about actual terrorism -- the kind that's directed at random civilians, not high-profile hardened political/economic/military targets -- it doesn't require a lot of special equipment/training, so it's damn near impossible to prevent. Think IRA bombings or the Mumbai attack. Thank the gods we haven't experienced that kind of terrorism in America; probably because, for the most part, our enemies hate the American government a lot more than they hate the American people.

      Do people at the FBI really think saying stuff like this is dangerous or anti-American? That's akin to telling your neighbor, "oh hey, you know anyone could bust in that first floor window and rob you", and him in reply accusing you of being a burglar. I know local cops are not the brightest lot, but I have to hope the FBI can attract better quality help.

      No car here, so no worries about that. Doubt anyone would bother to bug my bicycle, since I always carry a tracking & surveillance device (smartphone) with me anyways.

  27. Golden opportunity lost by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This guy missed a golden opportunity to mess with the FBI. Like maybe taking the thing up in a plane and throwing it out the window. Or tie it to a giant helium balloon.

    1. Re:Golden opportunity lost by UninformedCoward · · Score: 1

      Yes, great idea. Have the Egyptian American who is on the watch list take an unmarked black box w/ blinking LEDs and antenna onto an airplane. He should also carry a brick wrapped in duct tape and label it c4...

    2. Re:Golden opportunity lost by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      This guy missed a golden opportunity to mess with the FBI. Like maybe taking the thing up in a plane and throwing it out the window. Or tie it to a giant helium balloon.

      Like this?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:Golden opportunity lost by Gabrosin · · Score: 1

      Do they often let you open the windows of the planes you're flying in?

    4. Re:Golden opportunity lost by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      It would be comical to watch if he chose his words correctly.
      "Has anyone tampered with your luggage?"
      "Yes. Absolutely. A member of the FBI, but I don't know which one."

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Golden opportunity lost by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      "They" may not, but I will.

    6. Re:Golden opportunity lost by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      A member of the FBI, but I don't know which one.

      Maybe the Food and Beverage Industry.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:Golden opportunity lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I skydive every few weeks. I fly in more planes without windows and doors, than in those that do.

    8. Re:Golden opportunity lost by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Sure...just find a scenic flight outfit. Throwing stuff out of a plane isn't exactly legal but then again, the legality of GPS tracking is being debated quite a bit.

    9. Re:Golden opportunity lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a cell-based system, it won't work very well once it has a view of too many towers. It might work again when it reaches the ground, assuming you don't just drop it.

  28. Relocate it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be great if we could find a Supreme Court Justice's car to attach it to!

  29. What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    While they did ultimately tell him that they wanted it back, what if he had thrown it out before then? Could they have held him responsible for the loss of their property when they never informed him in the first place that he was not supposed to discard it?

    1. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by js3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine if an FBI agent shows up to your house and hold you responsible for a missing tracking device you didn't know was on your car.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    2. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a GPS tracker - let's see if we can think of a way they might find it, if it got thrown away? ;-)

    3. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      While they did ultimately tell him that they wanted it back, what if he had thrown it out before then? Could they have held him responsible for the loss of their property when they never informed him in the first place that he was not supposed to discard it?

      Interesting question. It was the property of the FBI, and they kept track of it. Destroying it or throwing it in the trash would make you liable for replacement. You can't destroy someone else's property without their permission (and not telling you that you can't isn't giving you permission). I think taking it off the car and putting it into any reasonably safe location where they can pick it up would be fine.

    4. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by Combatso · · Score: 1

      how can a tracking dev ice go missing at all, is the question... "Check this out, its an un-losable golf ball!" - "sweet! where did you get it? i need one of those!" - "I found it"

    5. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      If he simply discarded it I would assume that the FBI would just go directly to the device and not talk to the kid.

    6. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      Interesting question. It was the property of the FBI, and they kept track of it. Destroying it or throwing it in the trash would make you liable for replacement. You can't destroy someone else's property without their permission (and not telling you that you can't isn't giving you permission). I think taking it off the car and putting it into any reasonably safe location where they can pick it up would be fine.

      So I attached a hundred dollar bill to your car. It has my name on it (my property). I checked if it was there every day (I kept track of it). I noticed today that it was gone. You owe me $100.

    7. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      So I attached a hundred dollar bill to your car. It has my name on it

      Timothy Geithner, is that you?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      they never informed him in the first place that he was not supposed to discard it?

      When would they have been able to tell him? I would suspect something was amiss when some feds would show up on my door informing me I should not discard the GPS tracker they just placed on my car, in the unlikely event I would discover it on accident...
      Quite the conundrum.
      Although I must say I am such a wuss I'd probably comply with them, except for the "do not contact a lawyer" part.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    9. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Throwing in the trash would have been a perfect thing to do. The device probably would survice the trash cart compactor, an then the FBI dude's boss would have them trawling through shit in a landfill for their 'valuable' device!

    10. Re:What if he had simply thrown it in the trash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like when Frodo told Bilbo he had lost that one ring of him. Bilbo just said 'Oh, pity'

  30. From the "(Gum)Shoe on the other Foot" Dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, is it okay for a "civvie" (ordinary citizen) to place a tracking device on a car belonging to The Authorities? You know, "watching the watchers"....

  31. Won't leave many people in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't leave many people in. After all, you're ALL descended from illegals.

    1. Re:Won't leave many people in. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      you're ALL descended from illegals.
      Well, I'M not, and most everyone else in the U.S. is not, but otherwise your point stands.
      Remember kiddies, if there is no law against it, it is not illegal.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Won't leave many people in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that apply to Europe as well?

    3. Re:Won't leave many people in. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Exactly how much you willing to bet that one of your fore-fathers was a crook of some sort?

    4. Re:Won't leave many people in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're a 100% pure blood native American then?

    5. Re:Won't leave many people in. by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      No, I am not, I am only about 1/8th native American. But that is not at issue. Whether I am Native American or not does not determine whether I am illegal. I was born in the United States from two citizens of the United States and am descended from immigrants who legally immigrated from Europe. However, even the people who came here and took the land from the Indians were not illegal because there was no law. A lot of what happened was morally wrong, but not illegal.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  32. You never know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    it might have been smarter to call the bomb squad when you find an unexpected device attached to your car than to touch it or remove it yourself.

  33. Proper documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have asked for proof of ownership and a receipt for handing it over.

    1. Re:Proper documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah and buy your self a hooded plane ticket to egypt? No thanks.

  34. Here i thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that americans were big on keeping an eye on gov, not the other way around. way to make the tinfoil hat crowd look sane

    1. Re:Here i thought by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      that americans were big on keeping an eye on gov, not the other way around. way to make the tinfoil hat crowd look sane

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

  35. They're really going to come for me some day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never learned to drive. I have no official government-issued ID other than my passport (which I keep in an RFID-blocking wallet), and I obviously don't have a car that they can plant tracking devices on without notifying me. I host my email and web service with my own hardware on my own property (basically, I'm my own ISP), so they can't obtain my email without notifying me... and even there, I use some cryptography.

    How long do you think I've got before they come after me?

    1. Re:They're really going to come for me some day... by Pengo · · Score: 1

      Maybe when you leave your mothers basement.

  36. Re:they should bug the ground zero mosque site as by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Nah, if you're going to bug anything bug the Ground Zero strip club. (Full video, of course).

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  37. Example of why California has strict gun control by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Someone doing that in my neck of the woods would be greeted by a shotgun-toting homeowner and held for trespassing until the Sheriff showed up.

    The Fourth Amendment reads:

    ``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.''

    If there's no warrant or probable cause or justifiable reason to be there, they had better stay off my property.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  38. What if he sold his car by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I mean, let's say he never discovered the device and had simply sold the car to somebody else as a used vehicle before the FBI came to retrieve it? And let's say that the owner of the new vehicle discovers it, presumes that the device was installed by the previous owner and presses charges for invasion of privacy....

    Anybody wanna guess how *THAT* would have played out?

  39. Not saying I'm ok with it... by kungfugleek · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ..but it wasn't totally out of the blue. FTA:

    Six months ago, a former roommate of his was visited by FBI agents who said they wanted to speak with Afifi. Afifi contacted one agent and was told the agency received an anonymous tip from someone saying he might be a threat to national security. Afifi told the agent he was willing to answer questions if his lawyer approved. But after Afifi's lawyer contacted the agency, he never heard from the feds again until he found their tracking device.

    1. Re:Not saying I'm ok with it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, back to needing more external review of all this privatized public concern.

      Time to stand up to shut it down.

  40. My $0.02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have popped it in a microwave for a couple of seconds.

  41. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The TomTom "Live" devices have a sim card & can connect to the cellular network....so it really depends on the model! It can also be used to track your Friends if you purchase the "Live services"

  42. Just return it. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Find out the name and address of the local SAC and put it on his car instead. Or, even better, put it on his wife or daughter's car.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  43. A couple of pieces of commonsense advice. by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (1) When a cop investigating you acts friendly toward you, don't assume that means he's your friend.

    (2) [corollary] When a cop who's been investigating you tells you that you don't need to talk to your lawyer, *talk to your lawyer*.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  44. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker.

    That's what they want you to believe.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  45. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

    That may be true.

    Which is why I wrap my TomTom in a Faraday cage.

    The good news is the location signals can't get out. The bad news is the GPS signals can't get in significantly reducing the effectiveness.

  46. Is someone is NOT smart enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to find another nearby car (e.g. the one owned by the morbidly obese redneck neighbor with the idiotic bumper stickers) and affix the device there before going on one's merry way, they probably deserve to get caught.

  47. Thank god by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Thank god for our right-wing supreme court! They'll keep us safe from ourselves!

    1. Re:Thank god by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I’m hoping they’ll reverse a lot of the asinine decisions made by the extreme-left-wing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals there in CA. Such as this:

      recent ruling by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals saying it's legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect's car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Thank god by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping the people will eventually just overthrow this worthless, corrupted government and install an actual democracy, eventually.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Thank god by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The founding fathers knew that pure democracy is little better than anarchy. In a pure democracy, the only dissenting vote is the guy at the end of the rope.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Thank god by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      A democracy would be horrible, but if we can agree on some sort of constitutionally-limited Republic, I think we might be able to form a group of guys between the ages of 16 and 40 to work on that.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    5. Re:Thank god by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "The founding fathers knew that pure democracy is little better than anarchy"

      It's far better. If a few restrictions are put into place, it ensures that there is little to no corruption.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Thank god by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "but if we can agree on some sort of constitutionally-limited Republic"

      I meant something like a direct democracy but with restrictions. For instance, people couldn't vote to override the constitution or anything like that. Checks and balances would still exist.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:Thank god by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If a few restrictions are put into place, it is no longer a democracy.

      And they did put a few restrictions into place: they made a democratic republic.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:Thank god by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      For instance, people couldn't vote to override the constitution or anything like that.

      People already can’t vote to override the constitution. And lawmakers can’t vote to override the constitution. And the supreme court can’t rule in direct contradiction to the constitution. Except... how can you keep any of that from happening, in practice?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:Thank god by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Alright, fine. I think you know what I mean, however.

      "And they did put a few restrictions into place: they made a democratic republic."

      Does it appear to be working to you? The government is able to take so many actions that affect the people without the consent of the people.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Thank god by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "People already can’t vote to override the constitution"

      It's obvious I'm talking about a system where the government cannot take an action that affects the people without the consent of the people. One of the arguments I see against this is "but the majority will take away the rights of the minority!" The current system is corrupted and terrible.

      "And lawmakers can’t vote to override the constitution"

      But, politicians seem to be able to simply because no one does anything (patriot act, and lots of other decisions that are being made). We need more involvement from the people. They should not be able to pass such things without our consent.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  48. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    To be fair, your possessions are being neither searched nor seized.

    While they may be able to put a tracking device on your car without your permission, it'd be another thing to trespass without a warrant. (And as you point out, not particularly safe in many areas of the country.)

  49. George Bush's fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought all this was supposed to end when Obama became President? Pete Townshend said it best: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

  50. Gift-receivers Keepers? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    That phone was lost. The owner did not intend to transfer ownership.

    This device was placed with the knowledge and consent of the owner at that time. Do you have to make an attempt to return a gift?

    If I place something in your car, not accidentally leaving it behind or mistakenly leaving the wrong item, why wouldn't you be the owner? Sure, it might not be worth fighting about if I really badly want it back and you're not rich/motivated enough to fight, but assuming you went through with it to the point of getting a jury, then it's probably going to remain yours.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by mpe · · Score: 1

      If I place something in your car, not accidentally leaving it behind or mistakenly leaving the wrong item, why wouldn't you be the owner? Sure, it might not be worth fighting about if I really badly want it back and you're not rich/motivated enough to fight, but assuming you went through with it to the point of getting a jury, then it's probably going to remain yours.

      Interestingly the article mentions that newer devices are connected to the vehicle's electrical system. The court ruling appears to be about attaching a device to the outside. Does the same apply to putting a self contained device inside? What about making the bug part of the vehicle? In both of these two situations it may be necessary to subvert locks or intruder alarms. The last case involves property without their consent as well as effectivly stealing energy from them.

    2. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      This device was placed with the knowledge and consent of the owner at that time.

      This is a ridiculous argument, as the intent of placing the item in/on your car is absolutely in question here.

      If I leave a CD in your car, and say, "You keep this," then it is a gift.

      If I place a GPS tracking device on your car and say, "Now we can see where he goes during the day," then it is not a gift, it is a surveillance tool which has been deployed to support an ongoing investigation. The government still has a very real interest in not losing that property - enough so that it has a fucking GPS hooked up to a transmitter, so that you always know where the device is.

      I've never understood why so many Slashdotters spend so much time trying to justify how their naive black-and-white view of the world is correct, instead of understanding that the intent of an action, and not just the *effect* of an action, changes the *character* of an action quite a bit. Here's an example: If I lose control of my vehicle and run over a couple kids in the street, I may be charged with manslaughter; if I *intended* to run them down, and got in my car and drove into them with the express purpose of running down those kids, I may be charged with first degree murder. If I am attempting to flee a group of young people with guns who are chasing me and trying to kill me, and accidentally run one down, I may even be acquitted because my action was in self defense. These are all VERY different in the eyes of the law, and the *difference* is strictly in the *intent* of the action that caused someone to die.

      You may not consider them different, who knows. Fortunately, our legal system draws a distinction based on the intent of the action, and so all your arguing about whether or not they "gifted" it to you by leaving it attached to your car has absolutely no basis or support in the law.

    3. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You state they are separate, then fail to explore that. If I drop past you house and drop off a plant and tell you I'll be back sometime to get it, what are your rights and responsibilities? Are you required to care for it, like watering? Are you required to keep it where I placed it? If you object and I don't listen, do your rights change? Forget the FBI and apply this two private individuals, then let us know how it should be handled. Then, after that's described, tell us if the FBI should be treated differently and why.

    4. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I place a GPS tracking device on your car and say, "Now we can see where he goes during the day," then it is not a gift, it is a surveillance tool which has been deployed to support an ongoing investigation. The government still has a very real interest in not losing that property - enough so that it has a fucking GPS hooked up to a transmitter, so that you always know where the device is.

      So here's the question: if you plant such a malicious (to me) device on my car, why would I have any obligation whatsoever to support your malice by returning your device intact to you after I've discovered its purpose?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      You state they are separate, then fail to explore that. If I drop past you house and drop off a plant and tell you I'll be back sometime to get it, what are your rights and responsibilities?

      The same rights anybody else has when offered a voluntary contract: accept, or decline. If I accept, and then I throw the plant out the window, my friend would likely have a civil case against me for breaking a verbal agreement to feed & water his plant, if we were both litigious pricks. If he never came back for it, and indicated he had no intent of recovering his plant from me, then it would become my property to dispose of as I wish.

      If I decline your offer of a verbal agreement, and you leave the item on my property, I can either return it to you, or, once again, if I'm a litigious prick, probably have charges pressed against you for littering on my property.

      The situation you're describing is an offer of a verbal contract. You can agree, or decline - nobody may force you to care for a plant against your will, and so you would have legal recourse if your friend tried to force you to.

      Now, comparing this with the FBI scenario, the difference is quite clear: this is not a voluntary agreement you are entering into, and the courts have ruled that law enforcement agents may use force - i.e., attach the tracker without your knowledge or consent. As law enforcement, they are granted this authority.

      As I mentioned elsewhere, you may not LIKE that they can attach the device without a warrant, and you may object to it, but the laws say (and the courts have upheld) that they may. So either support candidates for the legislature that will change that law to require warrants, or take your lumps when you discover a device, destroy it, and end up facing legal consequences for that.

      It's also worth noting that, even if these devices *required* warrants to be placed, the FBI would still have the authority to place one without your knowledge or consent, provided *a judge* has agreed that there was a probable cause for using the device to collect information about you as part of an investigation. You would *still* not have the right to tamper with or destroy the tracker if it was placed legally, though you'd have a hell of a case against somebody if you found one and they didn't have a warrant.

    6. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't understand why this doesn't seem to compute. You *cannot* have it both ways - it cannot be a "lost item" and a "malicious device planted on my car by some shadowy third party who is out to do me harm." Either somebody misplaced it, or somebody knows *exactly* where it is and why it's there, and then the only question is whether or not they have the legal authority to place it there -if they do, then you're just destroying government property and extending the list of crimes you're under investigation for; if they don't, then the role of the police is to protect you from these violations, and so you should be putting them to work doing exactly that.

      If you want to consider it "lost" property, you must treat it as such - which means you can't destroy it, or do whatever else you want with it, without facing legal consequences. I'll say it one more time: "FINDERS KEEPERS" IS NOT THE LAW, and never has been.

      If you want to consider it a "malicious device," then you call the police and report what you've found, and turn the device over for them to investigate what the device is, what its purpose is, and who attached it to your car.

      As a third option, only to be chosen if you want to continue to be a complete blithering idiot, keep claiming it's "lost property," and that its status as "found" property somehow allows you to dispose of it as you see fit, or destroy it if you feel like it. This option is completely indefensible from a legal standpoint, but it seems to be oddly comforting to a lot of armchair lawyers here.

    7. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Intent is exactly what I was getting at. (What part of "with the knowledge and consent of the owner" made you think I was blowing off intent?!) They intended for the car owner to have possession of the bug. You can argue they intended the car owner to have temporary or conditional possession of the bug, but if they don't communicate that, then what's a reasonable thing for the finder to assume? My point is that it sure as hell wasn't lost, misplaced, planted by mistake, etc. If you look at it on the lost-to-gift spectrum, it's a lot closer to a gift.

      If you find a phone in a bar, it's reasonable for the finder to assume it's probably lost -- it's there by mistake -- and we expect the finder to try to return it to its owner. This is not only a law, but it's also just plain courteous and fits in with the ethic of "don't be an asshole; give back the phone because you would want someone to give back your phone."

      If you find something that is deliberately planted, it's not lost. Bringing up the if-unclaimed-after-30-days rule is just total bullshit. Someone didn't just make a mistake or misplace it; they deliberately gave up control of the item and (informed and consenting) accepted a significant risk that they wouldn't get it back.

      On top of that, they performed an act that is unambiguously hostile (like someone knowingly giving you HIV); courtesy is the wrong attitude to take and the best ethics are to harm the enemy however you can. And if there happens to be law that says you have to give it back, it sure as hell ain't the same law that says you have to give a lost phone back, and it's a law that will be far outside most laymens' day-to-day experiences.

      It's just an utterly, completely different thing -- in character, in intent, in every way -- than the lost phone example, and the phone comparison is without merit.

      If I leave a CD in your car, and say, "You keep this," then it is a gift.

      If at the moment you're getting our of my car, you get a pensive look, then pull a CD out of your pocket, put it into my player, nod when it starts playing, and leave without a word (no "you keep this") is that a gift? Maybe that's not your intent, but if we end up fighting over that CD later, I bet most people will side with me.

      The government still has a very real interest in not losing that property - enough so that it has a fucking GPS hooked up to a transmitter, so that you always know where the device is.

      Heh heh, you almost got me there. You're right. Ah, but it's an "interest." I can't help but wonder if most givers have "an interest" in not giving, but then do it anyway. If they really wanted to know where the device is, they wouldn't surrender control of it. They chose to sacrifice that interest for some other gain, like any other giver. I would even go as far as to say that the intent of the putting the GPS in the device, is something other than to track their inventory so that it doesn't get lost in the wrong part of their warehouse. It's not for "shrinkage" control.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    8. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      You use the word intent, but then you try to weasel your way out of the fact that the device is IN NO WAY intended to be a "gift" for you when it is placed - you're trying to defend a point of view which is indefensible. You could, in fact, argue that the effort they take to HIDE the device from the owner of the car demonstrate an intent to make certain the the owner of the car does NOT take possession of their device, so it's clearly not a gift. Nor is it lost, because the owner of the device knows exactly where it is, and exactly why it was placed there.

      Fortunately for law enforcement, there are more than two categories that an item can belong to, the world is not as simple as: "EITHER gift OR lost item". At least one more category exists, which is special because of the authority granted to the people to whom the item belongs: government property.

      This third category means that, as someone who is "not the government," the item is neither yours to destroy, nor yours to appropriate. In addition, neither your consent nor your knowledge is required for them to place a tracking device on your vehicle, and then use that device to track your movements.

      Law enforcement by definition has the authority to force you to comply with their lawful orders. This extends to placing a tracking device on your vehicle by force (without your agreement or knowledge), and using that information during an investigation of your activities. If you remove that device, and destroy it, or do anything else with it, you have destroyed (or misappropriated) government property, and are then subject to the legal consequences of doing so.

    9. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The situation you're describing is an offer of a verbal contract. You can agree, or decline

      And what if you don't do either? What if there is no verbal conversation. If I drop it off on your front footstep without speaking to you, then that's more like what happened here. Or more appropriately, I sneak it in your garden hoping you'll not notice.

      It seems to me that you are purposefully twisting the analogy to be as far as possible from the FBI situation to prove it irrelevant, rather than making it as close as possible to the FBI situation to further examine the actions without the law enforcement angle to shield the fact that the snuck garden addition would probably be trespassing.

      As I mentioned elsewhere, you may not LIKE that they can attach the device without a warrant, and you may object to it, but the laws say (and the courts have upheld) that they may.

      What they may do is irrelevant to what you may do. And, of course, that's the obvious reason I was trying to avoid "FBI" in the analogy. But it seems like you've made up your mind and refuse to even explore what would happen in similar situations that don't involve law enforcement.

    10. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      What they may do is irrelevant to what you may do. And, of course, that's the obvious reason I was trying to avoid "FBI" in the analogy. But it seems like you've made up your mind and refuse to even explore what would happen in similar situations that don't involve law enforcement.

      Because the FBI *is NOT* another private citizen. They have the authority under law to compel you to do a lot of things. They don't need your permission or your consent to arrest you. They don't need your permission or your consent to tap your phone, place a tracking device, subpoena your financial records, or perform a host of other investigative actions. The ONLY person they - SOMETIMES - must inform of their actions is a judge, when they are required to request a warrant. They're not always required to even do that, again - BY LAW.

      Why you keep insisting that this analogy of "two private individuals entering into a mutually agreeable contract" is somehow applicable here, I don't understand. This is not two private citizens, this is a citizen, and a law enforcement agency.

      I'm not "purposefully twisting the analogy" in any sense - I'm saying the analogy sucks, and doesn't apply, because it's not a verbal contract, and there's no requirement that law enforcement get your consent.

      Again - you may not LIKE this, but that's the way the law works today.

    11. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Because the FBI *is NOT* another private citizen.

      But the reasonability of a government action is related to how you'd feel if a private citizen did it. If they have extra powers, they should be clear and justified.

      I'm not "purposefully twisting the analogy" in any sense - I'm saying the analogy sucks, and doesn't apply, because it's not a verbal contract, and there's no requirement that law enforcement get your consent.

      I plainly stated that someone can leave something on your property without a verbal contract. You ignored that. And you purposefully twisted your responses to make it seem like I never made such an allowance.

      Again - you may not LIKE this, but that's the way the law works today.

      You haven't answered anything about the law. You just assert that I'm wrong and you are right without addressing any of my points at all. I explicitly mentioned someone dropping something off without having a verbal contract. And you ignore that because it's somehow inconvenient to your gross mischaracterization of my statements. And even on the law not related to the analogy, you've not stated what the rights and responsibilities are for someone that discovers an unknown device attached to their property. They even modified his car to attach it. So, since they put it inside his car and integrated it into the wiring, is that different from a stand-along magnetic device attached? I wouldn't know your opinion. You are so busy asserting that I'm wrong without addressing anything I've said that I have no idea what you actually think, other than the FBI can do whatever they want and, like you, they are never wrong.

    12. Re:Gift-receivers Keepers? by Americano · · Score: 1

      But the reasonability of a government action is related to how you'd feel if a private citizen did it. If they have extra powers, they should be clear and justified.

      Of *course* they have extra powers. It's not a case of "if" but a case of "which." So, by your own standard, we need clear definition of the extra powers ("the FBI may place a tracking device on your car without your knowledge or consent" - pretty clear) and justification ("The FBI needs this authority during the course of a criminal investigation in order to track the movements of suspected criminals and their associates, and if you force them to notify the person being investigated - i.e., 'you must get their consent or even just notify them' - you have severely hampered the ability of the investigators to do their job.") I don't see why you're getting so hung up on this.

      I plainly stated that someone can leave something on your property without a verbal contract.

      Also known as littering, which I clearly addressed in my previous post. Try reading it - specifically, the part where I said: "If I decline your offer of a verbal agreement, and you leave the item on my property, I can either return it to you, or, once again, if I'm a litigious prick, probably have charges pressed against you for littering on my property." If it is *valuable* and you have no reason to believe that it has been left there purposefully (i.e. - a gift, or littering), it should be treated like a 'found object'.

      You haven't answered anything about the law.

      Then you are simply not reading in your haste to opine that law enforcement is really just "another person entering into a verbal contract". Your analogy sucks, I've pointed out the NUMEROUS flaws with it, and explained how the law DOES view the situation. You've responded with the textual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalala."

      Your failure at reading comprehension is not my problem. If you ever find a device like this on your car, good luck defending your decision to smash it, trash it, or otherwise destroy it, and then claim it was a "gift," or that a "found object" may be disposed of as you see fit.

  51. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been wondering about this since the first time we heard that they could do this without a warrant. If someone comes onto your property and I assume they aren't going to wear clothes with big yellow "FBI" letters written on them, in some states with really strong castle doctrine (such as Texas) you are completely within the law to shoot first and ask questions later. As far as you were concerned they could have been planting a car bomb. I am curious exactly what would happen then.

    Isn't that why one of the reason law enforcement always has to identify themselves when entering your property? So if you shoot at them then, you knowingly fired at the police.

  52. theft of services by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Wire it up to someone else's battery, and now you're committing theft of services. It's one thing to bug someone's car, but to have them pay to operate it? I doubt any of the statues or rulings that say warrants aren't necessary, have legalized that.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  53. The funny thing is... by jd · · Score: 0

    ...the Bill of Rights is not recognized as part of the Constitution in America, but it IS recognized as such in Canada. Now we know what the Founding Fathers actually intended, eh?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The funny thing is... by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

      WTF are you talking about?

      1. GP was quoting from the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights.
      2. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 *AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION*. By definition, they are part of it.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:The funny thing is... by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the judge. See how far it gets you.

    3. Re:The funny thing is... by jd · · Score: 0

      What I am talking about is that America has no legal protection for the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but Canada does. Ok, got the bill of rights/declaration of independence mixed up. It had been a long day. So shoot me for it. What you completely ignored is the fact that America is a country that does NOT recognize "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", despite it being the basis of its founding. If you'd like to address that, that would be wonderful. Blasting me for a mixup doesn't address what's important and gets side-tracked on a non-issue.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:The funny thing is... by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's in the 4th and 14th, buddy.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  54. Dissapointing for Consipiracy Theorists... by jda104 · · Score: 1

    This thing looks like "futuristic" technologies from the a 1980s movie: picture.

    And the FCC ID is the same as the one in a mobile credit card terminal)...

    I guess it's comforting to see that, in this instance, the government isn't decades ahead of the rest of us...

    1. Re:Dissapointing for Consipiracy Theorists... by jda104 · · Score: 1

      And in light of this, why are we assuming GPS? I can't get find GPS satellites through the metal in my car roof, let alone through my entire car. Is it more likely they they're just tracking the cellular connections?

    2. Re:Dissapointing for Consipiracy Theorists... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Looks to me like they got the parts in Radio Shack.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    3. Re:Dissapointing for Consipiracy Theorists... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      It probably just uses the same COTS radio used in the credit card terminal, which, if unmodified, would be allowed to carry the same FCC ID.

    4. Re:Dissapointing for Consipiracy Theorists... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Hah, looks like some of the stuff I worked on for an unnamed entity back in the 90s. OTS parts for low volume instruments is not unusual. I used paint gun parts for some things (easily obtained, relatively inexpensive, high pressure ratings). What I assume is a battery case looks like the back end of a MagLight. Given their durability, it's probably not a bad choice.

      Tell you what, though - that thing is pretty far from stealthy. I expected a small, self contained box. Guess for the duration they need surveillance and the power requirements, you really need a big battery. Esp. since you don't want to expose an agent by making him/her find a power wire to tap.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  55. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by weicco · · Score: 1

    In Finland they would shoot you if you are unlucky or arrest you, take your shotgun away and charge you with violent resist, murder one attempt plus some minor things if you are lucky. It's not allowed here to defend your property. Sometimes I hate this socialist country.

    --
    You don't know what you don't know.
  56. Just Abrahamic religions in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about practitioners of all Abrahamic religions in general?

  57. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    And they manage to place such a device into my vehicle on my property w/o looking at things how?

    No warrant or invitation == trespassing == you can talk it over w/ the Sheriff.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  58. Mail it to the ACLU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have FedEx'ed it to the first address on the ACLU's web site with a brief note telling them where I found it the name of the garage and to please bail me out of jail before I even went home.

  59. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by sorak · · Score: 1

    The device was placed without his knowledge. So, unless:

    1. the feds were trying to distract him by running across his backyard, while one places the device on his car, or
    2. unless you keep landmines in your driveway

      lax gun control laws would not have helped, here.

  60. Re:O Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    War Measures Act

  61. Oh, i can assure you by nimbius · · Score: 1

    there are a few hundred people in Guantanamo bay that would argue its much more painful than just "OUCH" if the FBI finds you intriguing.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  62. After reading TFA... by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After reading the TFA (yeah, I know) the FBI actions seem warranted, even though they didn't have a warrant.

    Score 1 for the FBI. Epic fail for the 9th circuit. Even though they were right, they still should have gone through the proper procedure.

    I don't know about you, but I'm willing to pay an extra $1/year in taxes so the FBI follows proper procedure and gets a warrant. If everybody pays that, it's about $300 million. I doubt it would even cost that much to actually do what the Constitution requires. You know, that document that you SWORE TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  63. Disposal -- Secret Agent Style by 8ball629 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you but I'd be shooting that thing with my PP7.... silenced.

  64. ah yes, that amendment. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    I believe we steamrolled it on our way to the underside of your car a few days ago. thats on audiobook right? i mean, we're pretty busy these days...

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  65. Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by sampas · · Score: 4, Funny

    10. Place it on your ex-girlfriend's car.
    9. Place it on a train.
    8. Place it on a freighter carrying electronics to be recycled in China.
    7 Place it in your carry-on luggage and watch the fun at airport security.
    6. Dial 911 and tell them you've found a bomb on your car. Invite TV news crews to come watch the fun.
    5. Give it to your local ACLU and tell them to make the FBI prove it's theirs before handing it back.
    4. Pretend you don't know it's there, and drive to as many Tea Party events as possible.
    3. Build an autonomous flying drone capable of carrying it and program it to fly around in circles all day.
    2. Hack its logic to input arbitrary coordinates and make virtual visits to places you've always wanted to see.
    1. Pretend it's not there and go on a tour of the most patriotic American landmarks to demonstrate your loyalty to the United States.

    1. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by TheLink · · Score: 1

      1. Pretend it's not there and go on a tour of the most patriotic American landmarks to demonstrate your loyalty to the United States.

      That could be rather dangerous.

      How about put a sticker on it: "Hi! :). Please pass this to the next person you see, thanks! Details at our project website (url here)".

      --
    2. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by robot_love · · Score: 1

      I like 5 the best. A great idea!

      --
      .there is enough of everything for everyone.
    3. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      0. Plot a circuit of roads that spells out "FU" and then drive it over and over again until they get the message.

    4. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1 would likely get you a visit from the suits much quicker.

    5. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by davolfman · · Score: 1

      How about use the FCC ID on the thing to look up the manual and other related documents. Apparently it's meant for surveying work originally. "The GRS receiver is a single-frequency, GPS+GLONASS L1 L2receiver and hand-held controller built to be the most advanced, compact, and portable receiver for the GIS surveying market. An integrated electronic compass and digital camera make the GRS an all-purpose, GIS field mapping unit." https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=933914&fcc_id='O9EQ2438F-M'

    6. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by tonywong · · Score: 1

      Find the FBI vehicle who's shadowing him and hide it on the agent's vehicle.

      They would think they are being followed the whole time.

      Or put it on a government worker's car so it looks like he is visiting a whole bunch of government places.

    7. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by Kjella · · Score: 1

      1. Pretend it's not there and go on a tour of the most patriotic American landmarks to demonstrate your loyalty to the United States.

      AKA scouting out possible symbolic terrorist targets. But I'm quite impressed with how well you hid the really bad choice among the other nine.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apply waterproofing and flush it down the toilet. They'll be scratching their heads all day trying to track it down.

    9. Re:Top Ten Things to do with FBI Tracking Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Pretend it's not there and go on a tour of the most patriotic American landmarks to demonstrate your loyalty to the United States.

      disclaimer: NOT going for +5, funny.

      you: "I should show them how patriotic I am"

      fbi office guy: "Damn arab! He's looking for his next target to bomb! Prepare the anal probes!"

  66. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    As long as they're not trespassing, they don't need a warrant (and it doesn't constitute search) to view anything that's in plain sight. These are attached to cars and not placed in the interior compartment, so they neither enter your property nor are "looking at things" that would constitute a search.

  67. Countermeasure idea by d0nster · · Score: 1

    Could you have something to measure the draw on your battery? If you have your radio off, lights off, etc. the same every time you start your car, everything should be the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a device like that should draw something.

    What I'm really wondering is what happens when that little extra draw is just enough to overtax your electrical system. Does the FBI have to pay for damaging your car? Similar note; if you are in a wreck and the device is damaged, does the FBI claim damages too? If their (presumable lithium) battery explodes or shocks a rescue worker, will the FBI just deny all knowledge and leave the car owner with all the responsibility?

    I respect that law enforcement has a very tough job, but in this case, I'm not sure the end justifies the means.

    1. Re:Countermeasure idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA: This one in particular had its own battery pack.

  68. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    These are attached to cars and not placed in the interior compartment, so they neither enter your property nor are "looking at things" that would constitute a search.

    If the car is on private property, and they attach something to the car, how exactly do they do that without entering your private property?

    And the idea that this isn’t a search is bullshit. If they happen to notice when they crawl under your car that you have a baggie of coke taped to the inside of your bumper, do you think they’re going to just ignore it? Anything that involves law enforcement entering private property is the potential for them to gather evidence, therefore, a search.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  69. don't talk to the police by snookerhog · · Score: 1
  70. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trespassing or not, if you pull a gun on a cop what do you think will happen?

  71. anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sure you cant fight em in real life, but u can certainly take to the internet and piss em off, 4chan or wikileaks anyone? how bout a break down of the device on lifehacker? plenty of ways to stick it to the man online :)

  72. why? by Dale512 · · Score: 1

    I'm torn on what I would do in this situation. A hammer would probably be the first course of action on it assuming I didn't ask the mechanic to drill through the middle of it to begin with. Keeping it or trying to sell it is just stupid. They would just intercept it somewhere along the way and it would be gone. Putting it somewhere else isn't clever or funny, it is the same as just handing it back to them. The smartass in me would love to have the scenario where when they came asking for their "expensive" toy to tell them to pay him $500 or something for it. That would get into selling stolen goods though and is therefor no good as well. In any event, why in the hell would he have spoken to the FBI when they showed up? Why would anyone talk to the FBI without a lawyer unless they were reporting a crime (and maybe need one even then)? Any authority figure telling me I don't need a lawyer is the equivalent of a neon flashing sign saying "don't say another word until you've spoken with a lawyer."

  73. Tailing your car? by Wahakalaka · · Score: 1

    What I don't really see is how this is fundamentally different from having a cop tail your car... they don't need a warrant for that. This is just more cost effective. Likewise where you drive your car to seems like public information anyways. Why would the government even care about his every day (mundane) life anyway? It's not like they're going to extrapolate his gas station schedule and try to sell him an Exxon card...

    --
    The truth is somewhere in the middle.
    1. Re:Tailing your car? by gethoht · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much the exact argument that the police made in the 9th district case making it legal to put a tracking device on your car without a warrant.

      --
      All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and n
    2. Re:Tailing your car? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      ..its different because a cop following you doesnt typically lead to the question "Can we have our cop back now, please?"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Tailing your car? by Wahakalaka · · Score: 1

      I can't find anything logically wrong with the argument... I mean the police need a way to determine probable cause so they can get a warrant to actually invade someone's privacy. If they're not allowed to know anything you do or say, how could they ever justify getting a warrant? There has to be a range of activity that the police can do freely in order for investigation to function at all.

      --
      The truth is somewhere in the middle.
    4. Re:Tailing your car? by Wahakalaka · · Score: 1

      Then you say, "Ok, here you go, is there anything I can help with or clarify? By the way the Thai place I'm always at on Fridays has really good spring rolls?" I dunno, I've been watching old Hitchcock movies... citizens and police used to cooperate... it seems better that way.

      --
      The truth is somewhere in the middle.
    5. Re:Tailing your car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A police car can't tail you onto private property, these do. A Police car dosen't have to trespass onto your property (your car/home) to tail you, to place (use?) these devices they do. To tail you the police don't have to steal your property (electricity), with the newer devices they do. If you find the device the police don't have to threaten you if you don't "return" it, with these they do. I really wish someone would challenge them on this crap, if the judge has ANY sense they'll either find that its your property if you find it (and the placement requirements would be rather extreme), or their COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. I personally hope for the latter, but I'm one of those psychotic people who believes we still have rights in this country.

    6. Re:Tailing your car? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      With out a warrant the FBI committed trespass in this case and given the particulars they may well be guilty of stalking. From TFA it is now more common to place the device inside the engine compartment where it is connected to the car's power system. That adds vandalism as well as breaking and entering (unless they're highly ambidextrous and can place/hook it up without opening the hood).

      Either way, perform the reverse, follow a government official around or place a tracking device on their vehicle and see what charges you are brought up on.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    7. Re:Tailing your car? by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      "Sure, can I have a receipt for that?"

  74. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Machtyn · · Score: 1

    What about reactive radio technology? That is, you can track a radio receiver by it's reactions to incoming radio waves. Obviously, the receiver monitoring the reaction would need to be in close range, but perhaps these things are all over the place.

    Have governments gone through this trouble or am I just pulling from science fiction? I do remember learning something about this in one of my electronics classes.

  75. Return to Sender by AVryhof · · Score: 1

    Stick it in a USPS Flat Rate box and mail it back to FBI HQ, and when they come looking for you for sending an undisclosed electronic device that could be a bomb to them, ask "why would you leave a bomb on my car?"

  76. Some fun things to do with it... by meerling · · Score: 1

    I personally would like to take one apart and see whats in it. I also wonder if that battery pack could be repurposed. But on to the fun stuff.

    Call in the bomb squad, after all you found a suspicious device attached to your car. Don't forget to call the TV News stations and Newspapers so it won't just get swept under the rug. Let's see the FBI (or whoever) wriggle under the gaze of the media like.

    Make use of the US Postal systems new mailing boxs. If it fits, it ships. If you mail it back to the FBI offices without a return address, they'll probably panic and think it's a bomb. Which will be triply funny when they finally figure out it's just one of their own trackers being returned. And if anybody asks you, just innocently reply, "What's wrong? I just returned to owner, I didn't even ask them to pay for the postage.".

    Attach it to something else. This is where the real fun begins. I would normally suggest a wilderness animal, but that thing was so huge, you'd need to stick it on a deer or bear, and if you can pull that off, you and Steve Irwin were probably drinking buddies. On the other hand, some more urban possibilities that can be fun are as follows. The town drunks car (or any really drunk guy at the bar) since they probably need to be tracked. The vehicle of a politician, especially if you want activity of a criminal nature to be uncovered. Try the lawyers car if you want to hear about a big lawsuit being launched by David, Roseburm, and Smeltz. (Ever notice the odd combo names they have for lawyer firms these days?) If you really want to turn things around in an ironic fashion, stick it on a police car, or if possible, a car belonging to the FBI themselves. (Fred, I just don't see him, but the tracker says we're right on top of him.) If you want them to have a cross country chase to recover it, get a whole lot of helium balloons and launch that sucker. (Damn Fred, that kid must have Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or maybe one of them Shield flying cars.) And since I can't let this one category get too large, stick it on a car in the local demolition derby.

    Go offroading and have it accidentally fall off and get run over. Several times if possible. And if anyone asks, just tell them "Tracking device, what tracking device? Dunno, maybe something happened when I was driving through Mr Tollmanns field yesterday, maybe you should try looking there. Of course, as I wasn't informed of any tracking devices being on my car I can't really say what might have happened to something I don't know about..."

    Take it to your local paranoid conspiracy nut. I have no idea what he would do about it or to it, but it's bound to be fun to watch.

    Try to claim it as salvage. I'm not really sure how to do that, but it could be fun.\

    Turn it in to lost and found. Don't care who's, just somebodies. Oh, and if it could possibly embarrass the jerk sent to pick it up in some way, even better.

    Tossing it on an overhead line like an old pair of tennis shoes. Yeah, you can get in trouble for that one, but just imagine watching them try to retrieve it.

    Take it to your local airport, preferably through the security check if you have the balls to try, and hide it somewhere on the other side. That way they have to go through the hassle of airport security to retrieve it. I know FBI has some special dispensation, but it's still a pain in the backside for them too, especially if they are then going to be wandering around (possibly with the locator) trying to find a hidden and mysterious device. That'll make the freaking 6 O'clock news. (Today the airport was closed for 3 hours as FBI officials scoured to terminal for and undisclosed reason. Witnesses say they left carrying a mysterious package of unknown origin. Repeated requests for information from the FBI office have received no reply as of yet.)
    (Do you think the FBI would get themselves into hot water by falsely claiming a bomb threat, or embarrass themselves by admitting to recovering and unwarranted and wayward tracking devic

  77. if you find such a thing.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Informative

    Step 1 : remove it and right away give it to your lawyer. There is one thing that pisses off FBI guys because they cant do crap to you... give their gear to a lawyer.

    In the USA, if you dont instantly take steps to protect yourself you will be screwed by the cops. Innocent or not, it does not matter to the police.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  78. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by pthreadunixman · · Score: 1

    I'd argue that it violates the being "secure in one's persons" part.

  79. Call the bomb squad (Boomf!) by FreakerSFX · · Score: 1

    Just drop it somewhere out of your car on the freeway at 55mph...must've come loose on its own. Maybe drag one of the pieces a bit first so it looks like one, then the other dropped off.

    OR call the bomb squad and report a suspicious device on your car. BOOM. Tell the FBI to arrest the bomb squad. They love blowing up shit.

    --
    This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
  80. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Your TomTom may not be a tracker but your cell phone is.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  81. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    The hardware can actually be quite cheap, the connection service plans cost more than most cell-phone data plans, and I'm sure it's a great deal more expensive if you need it to operate outside of cell tower coverage areas.

  82. Sending cash to your family makes you a terrorist? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    If the authorities knew which restaurants he liked to frequent with his girlfriend and that he'd recently finished one job and taken up another, I would have imagined they knew that it was family that he was sending the money to. As they know his employer they know his business interests and so they'll know whether his business flying is legitimate or not. Sounds like they'd already worked out it was legitimate.

    So your claim is that if somebody sends money to their family and travels on business, then they are a potential terrorist if family and business are in the Middle East? That's quite close to claiming "all people from the Middle East are potential terrorists".

  83. Mod Parent Up by ATairov · · Score: 1

    This. If he really wanted to cause trouble for the FBI while remaining blameless, he could easily have claimed he thought it was a bomb. Then the bomb squad would come in, and quite possibly destroy it.
    End result, FBI loses face, he gets to have tracker destroyed.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that the car would be collateral damage, I guess?

  84. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    That depends on whether entering that private property briefly constitutes trespassing. As I'm not a lawyer, that's a bit more complicated than they're familiar with.

    If they're attaching something to the outside of the car and happen across evidence that was not expected and not in plain sight, then the lawyers will argue endlessly about it and the law enforcement will probably wish they had gotten a warrant. (If they did expect to find evidence there and were using planting the GPS as a ruse for poking around, they'll definitely wish they'd gotten a warrant. If it's in plain sight, you're unprotected.)

  85. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by stdarg · · Score: 1

    I wonder why they needed real time updates instead of just putting a passive receiver on, having it record, and picking it up later.

  86. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically my cell phone with the government back doors I'm 100% certain manufacturers are required to install. Why do they even need to install these things on your car? Just track the cell phone. You don't even have to worry about it being discovered or recovering it afterwards.

  87. Technically Speaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically speaking, at least in most of the country, you have to have "No Trespassing" signs posted to make their entry (and by extension placement) onto your property illegal (without verbal warning). If that is the case they would definitely be breaking the law if they placed it at your home, unless they placed it at work/store/movies (most likely not posted). However, even if they do manage to place the device in an unposted area, every time the device tracked you onto a posted "No Trespassing" area would be an instance of trespassing.

    Notes
    -I've seen "no trespassing" stickers for cars, I wonder if that would qualify their activates as trespassing no mater where they attached the device.
    -Only an Un-American idiot can be blind to the fact that this device violates the 4th Amendment. Our founders believed in an extremely limited government, the use of these devices indicate the government believes the exact opposite. That these devices are even in question in the legal system shows how far we've fallen.

  88. Estimate it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll estimate that government acts on my behalf, and according to my own moral and social principles, on about 5-10% of what government does. And that's a conservative estimate. Therefore, there is no logical way I could ever claim that "I am the government", since 90-95% of what government does is contrary to what I believe in.

    So let's call a spade a spade here, rather than spouting propaganda. The only people who can truly say "I am the government" are the people who support 100% of what government does. If that number is only 50%, than your relationship with government is half ally, half enemy. After all, government isn't going to cut you any slack for disagreeing with them -- so why on earth would you give them the benefit of the doubt? When that number is closer to 0%, government is much more of an enemy than an ally.

    It must be so easy to say "you are the government" when your beliefs are right in line with most everything government does.

  89. Overwhelm by skrimp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's all call the FBI and ask if this thingamadgig or that thingamabob on our autos is the FBI's device.

  90. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

    Well the issue is what happens if you lose the vehicle? You can look at your tracker to determine where the vehicle is. Oh wait the tracker is on the vehicle you just lost. So now you lost your suspect AND the tracker.

    Much cheaper to use a device that essentially "keeps tabs" on the location of the vehicle at all times. With some fuzzy logic you could even have it only notify you if the vehicle goes somewhere outside it's normal routine.

    You have to think an organization like the FBI isn't tracking one vehicle. They likely are tracking tens of thousands of vehicles. Lot of manpower (and chances to alert the suspect) to continually going to thousands of vehicles and downloading their locations.

    For less critical applications (like determine where your teenage son took the car last night) an "offline tracker" is viable.

  91. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    That depends on whether entering that private property briefly constitutes trespassing.

    The typical excuse that you didn’t realise it was private property until the homeowner caught you out in his field doesn’t work, I don’t think. I’d expect that meddling with someone’s car, parked in their driveway on what is obviously private property, would qualify as trespassing. But I’m not a lawyer either...

    If they're attaching something to the outside of the car and happen across evidence that was not expected and not in plain sight

    It goes without saying that it wasn’t in plain sight. However, what will really happen is this:

    Police, knowing full well that they were conducting an illegal search and cannot use that evidence, will say nothing, leave, trump up some justification to get a search warrant (some K9 officer was walking his dog past your house and it hit, better investigate...) and get some judge to rubber-stamp it for them, come back, and “find” the baggie again. Since you won’t even know that the unlawful search occurred (assuming you hadn’t noticed them poking around), you’ll be screwed.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  92. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by anUnhandledException · · Score: 1

    That would work but the United States (and entire globe) has a LOT of area.

    If you are tracking a relatively few (thousands) number of objects in a large area (millions of square miles).

    Essentially it comes down to the "density" of the tracked. More tracked objects in a fixed area the more it makes sense to use fixed station tracking.

    The less tracked objects in an area the more it makes sense for each object to simply know where it is and "phone home".

    Fixed station tracking (reactive tracker) makes more sense in something like inventory tracking in a warehouse. You may have millions of objects you want to track within a small area.

  93. Simple solution by Anaerin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Hello, Police? Yes, my mechanic has found what appears to be a pipe bomb attached to the underside of my car. Could you please send some units, and bomb disposal, here immediately, I am concerned for my life."

    It's a long black pipe, sealed at both ends, with an antenna wire hanging out of it, and magnets to secure it in place. While it may be a GPS tracker, it could just as likely been a pipe bomb with a remote trigger. Best let the authorities blow that sucker up. And if the FBI come by asking for their tracker back, you can have them arrested for instigating an act of terror on American soil by planting their "pipe-bomb" on your car.

    And then the legal system disappears up it's own fundamental orifice.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice. Make the monster fight itself, so to speak.

  94. I'm torn... by russotto · · Score: 1

    If I found one on my car I don't know if I'd disassemble it just for the heck of it, drop it on a road and run it over, or stick it on someone else's car.

    My most evil thought would be to cause it to fall off my car in one of the New York/New Jersey tunnels. "FBI tracker bomb scare shuts down Lincoln Tunnel for hours"....

  95. Land of the free? Yea, sure by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    If this history developed in China or Venezuela, here will be many comments about the dictatorships of China and Venezuela's Chávez. Where in the hell is the public outrage about this!!?? For shit like this is that I never have set foot in the USA and instead go to vacation and shopping to Japan. If I wanted to be mistreated or harassed by security forces, the mexican police and army already fit the bill, thank you very much.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    1. Re:Land of the free? Yea, sure by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      which gave me idea for the best procedure with the bug - go to venezuela and sell your bugged car. Then, if FBI turns up to collect their device, wish them good luck.

  96. Reality Check: by anyGould · · Score: 1

    Is the amount of time spent sitting in a cell, the money lost in lawyers fees, and the hassle of going to court really worth it? If I am blameless, and the authorities are abusing their power, then emphatically YES. Someone has to keep them honest.

    Can you afford to not get paid for the duration of that time sitting in jail? (And quite possibly lose your job completely if it drags on)? Will you lose your house? Can your family afford to get by without your income (and also spending the lawyer fees)?

    If you can, I salute you. In my case, I have people who depend on me, and making "a point" doesn't keep a roof over their head.

  97. popcorn setting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so give it 3 minutes in the microwave, then smile innocently when you hand it back.

  98. I don't believe most of this by us7892 · · Score: 1

    Take it with a grain of salt. A lot of this is bullshit. From both sides I would say.

  99. Use a helium balloon instead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need navigation, so it's better to just use a big helium balloon.

  100. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    "your possessions are being neither searched nor seized."

    No, the government is just putting a tracking device on your car so that they can track you for whatever reasons they see fit. Move along, folks. Nothing interesting to see here!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  101. Incredible. by neiras · · Score: 1

    I find it pretty funny that people freak out about this stuff, but happily purchase vehicles with 'black boxes' like OnStar in them.

    The government's need for this kind of James Bond nonsense is decreasing. Turns out people are dumb enough to:

      o Post their relationships on Facebook and other such sites
      o Publicly broadcast their most mundane thoughts
      o Carry phones and drive vehicles that track and report their location, speed, and direction of travel at every moment
      o Make unsecured, unencrypted VOIP calls
      o Use Skype, which has long been suspected of having a back door
      o Accept biometric identity cards
      o Trust unsigned software
      o Publicly tag their friends in photos (a secret national face-recognition project probably exists) ...and then expect that governments won't use all this stuff for their own nefarious purposes.

    Your willingness to participate in the worldwide circle-jerk that is Facebook is doing more to erode citizens' rights than anything else.

    It's not just about privacy, it's about control and power. By giving away all of this information about ourselves, we are giving governments and multi-billion-dollar corporations the leverage they need to multiply the ways in which they move, divide, and exploit us. This is happening now, and you are probably guilty of helping it along.

    Convenience, peer pressure and disdain for people who actually care about citizenship are apparently the best way to bootstrap this mess. Throw in a dash of "I'll never be able to change it, it's all too big for me" and the chains are in place.

    You are responsible only for yourself. Make better decisions. Be willing to put up with some inconvenience to stick to your principles.

  102. I don't think it's just the FBI... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    One of the maintenance men at this student housing complex I worked at when an undergrad found this weird waterproof clamshell box with a large magnet attached to it.

    He handed it over to me (I was the residential director/unpaid IT lackey), and inside was a large NiMH battery pack wired to a little GPS receiver. It didn't seem to be working any longer, and plugging it into a USB socket got me nothing. Inside was a unlabelled SIM card, just a white card with the serial number on it.

    I ended up tracking down the company that made the transmitter. They had some shitty amateurish website, and said they provided service to, among others, local law enforcement. I emailed them from my work email, and they never did reply. Nobody ever came to get the box, either. The local LEO was a bunch of high-school educated morons anyway, they probably figured they would be in deep shit if ever caught.

  103. should have sold it to gizmodo by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    He he

  104. Crisis, or Opportunity? by Logrusweaver · · Score: 1

    These GPS units getting secretly planted sounds like a business opportunity to me. Take an unused garage with a hydraulic floor lift, and turn it into a room that can block all external signals. Install equipment to detect an signals that may be coming from car. Locate device (if present). Inform client, and allow them to take it from there. Profit. Watch the 3-letter agencies get their panties in a twist over that!

    1. Re:Crisis, or Opportunity? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Chances are, people paranoid enough to pay money to find out if the spooks were spying on them would also suspect that the spooks probably had spook spying devices that your equipment couldn’t find...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  105. Warrantless is the keyword here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think everyone here has to remind themselves that the problem isn't with law enforcement tracking people/objects via GPS... it's the warrantless part of this that is a problem. There is just too much potential for abuse.

  106. Sell it on EBAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time sell it on EBAY.

  107. Send it to the Spy Museum by mbone · · Score: 1

    Wrap it in aluminum foil and mail it (or, better, FedEx it), to the International Spy Museum

    International Spy Museum
    Place page
    800 F Street Northwest
    Washington D.C., District of Columbia 20001
    (202) 393-7798

  108. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so..... about that GPS function in your cell phone. Yes, the one with the software switch to enable and disable. Yes, that nice smart phone the cell company auto updates for you...

    just think about it for a while.

    then look up "This is not the droid you're looking for..." on this page http://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-18/dc-18-speakers.html

  109. What, no tickets for speeding by Grendol · · Score: 1

    I just figure that this sort of thing would bring up some people's need for speed in an expensive way.

  110. Solution: ride a bicyle instead of driving by rcb1974 · · Score: 1

    Most bikes don't have batteries to power the GPS receiver+transmitter. I doubt they could hide an antenna on your bicycle where you wouldn't see it.

    Oh yeah, don't use a cell phone that is registered in your name. You can also freeload off open wireless networks and use a VoIP app for your voice calls.

    I wonder how long it will be before U.S. Citizens are all required to get RFID tags inserted into their bodies. That will prolly happen after terrorists successfully detonate a nuke inside a major U.S. city.

  111. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    I didn't say there was no problem with it, I said it doesn't run afoul of 4th Amendment.

  112. Sickening. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    I wonder if these cross-dressing Nazi fucks are honest with themselves about who they really work for (hint: it sure as shit isn't the American people).

  113. Think Helium Balloons by re_organeyes · · Score: 0

    Which would have been the perfect place to put it. Not your every day run of the mill helium balloon mind you, but something more along the lines of a weather balloon.

    Up, Up and Away!

  114. Return it to your local Federal building... by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    in a cardboard box simply marked "Please Return to FBI". Wait and watch from a distance as they call the bomb squad and blow up their own tracker as a potential bomb.

  115. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Someone doing that in my neck of the woods would be greeted by a shotgun-toting homeowner and held for trespassing until the Sheriff showed up.

    Lemme guess: Idaho, Montana, Montana or New Hampshire? :p

  116. Re:O Canada by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    You must be kidding.

    Did you see those G20 videos from Toronto?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EmGTaYbAvw&feature=related

    There is no freedom.

    -FL

  117. In England, it's CCTVs by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this recent story from England. . .

    http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-man-destroyed-cctv-camera-spying-on-his-home-1.758045?referrerPath=news/1.84783

    A man who objected to a CCTV camera keeping watch on his bedroom window from the house opposite appeared before a judge - for stealing the camera and throwing it in a river. [...] The 35-year-old pleaded guilty at Carlisle Crown Court to a charge of burglary and the theft of the £1,500-worth of surveillance equipment.

    Though, it does sound like a private issue and the judge was lenient, it's certainly a telling direction we're sliding in. Typically, they try out these sorts of mild cases on us where it's always possible to rationalize the dissolution of human value and human rights. But then it isn't long before they're installing frickin' full-body scanners and arresting people for feeding the homeless. Little bit by little bit, the world becomes unrecognizable from the one we left behind...

    -FL

  118. Leave a note for the FBI: by Pinback · · Score: 1

    Hey guys, if you need to put a device on my car, could you also put a little gas in the tank? This thing doesn't get good mileage as it is.

    And make sure to bolt the thing on, cause I tend to hit speed bumps at 45 or so.

  119. Charge them for storage / transport by Terrasque · · Score: 1

    Charge the FBI for storage and transport of their property. Some per-hour charge AND per-mile charge.
    I'm sure they have detailed logs of how long and far you've stored/transported it.

    And if they complain, just tell them they should have worked out the contract with you BEFORE they planted it.

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  120. Re:Example of why California has strict gun contro by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    ...in some states with really strong castle doctrine (such as Texas) you are completely within the law to shoot first and ask questions later. As far as you were concerned they could have been planting a car bomb. I am curious exactly what would happen then.

    Before or after the funeral following your violent death in the hail of police/FBI gunfire that would immediately erupt at your first shot?

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  121. Should have thrown it over the White House fence by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    He should have thrown it over the White House fence and watched as both White House security forces as well as the FBI forces that have been tracking him spring out from all their hiding places -- and gotten it all on camera.
    "Was that a bomb? On the ground, now, hands where I can see them!"
    "What? Just returning Federal property to its owner!"

  122. Should have pulled a simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have attached it to a bear or a large bird and attach a solar powered cd player with benny hill music on a loop.

  123. Bomb by jamesh · · Score: 1

    If I found something like that on my car, I'd be parking the car somewhere really inconvenient and then calling the police about the ticking device on my car. Having them clear a x block radius around a major metropolitan area should get a bit of attention, and maybe I'd at least get a formal apology, or failing that, the fun of watching different government departments yelling at each other.

  124. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. and the other news is you don't need a GPS, as it's pretty difficult to get lost if you never leave your mom's basement.

  125. Sell the car to a diplomat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about selling the Car with everything included to a diplomat and parking it up inside the Russian Embassy parking lot?

  126. If I find one on my car... by Xylene2301 · · Score: 1

    ...I'm going to attach it to a stray dog. Let the chips fall where they may.

  127. Re:Your TomTom is a GPS receiver not a GPS tracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is assuming that the satellite systems that deliver coordinates to the "receiver" are not able to be used in a similar fashion to cell tower triangulation.

  128. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The student should have put it on an interstate FedEx truck. I love the comment that the FBI says the kid was boring. Welcome to Amerika folks.

  129. anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey American friends over the ocean Anon Coward here! Listen, listen! Fear is very bad ... don't fear from your fraiends and your neighbours! Whats next? Giving info about your families to the FBI and CIA in the name of your "freedom"? WE ALL know that liberty and freedom are words long forgotten in you land. Maybe the french you make fun of all the time should take back the Statue of Liberty they gave you almost a century ago ... the only thing actualy representing freedom in your country. At least we learned something from the the past great wars ... but you did't and now all of you are suffering from the fading empire syndrome we already experienced in the past - it begins from within. Don't fear ... stand up for your rights ... ooops what rights?

  130. Self-defense by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    I'm tempted to rewire the OBD-II connector in my car and anything else someone could just clip a tracking device in to. Maybe reverse the polarity or install an inverter and transformer to put out a few hundred AC volts. Doesn't help with the battery powered ones but a great trick against them using my gas, alternator and battery for their "security".

    Fortunately for me though I'm white enough I don't have to worry about being suspected of a "bad guy" without doing anything.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  131. ACLU by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

    Mail it to the ACLU. I may not have a lawyer on retainer, but every July 4 I send money to these guys to deal with this stuff for me, and I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige.

  132. I can see it now... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    "Well shit. I guess we'd better go get it before he puts it on eBay..."

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  133. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    'Don't worry, you're boring.'

    Is it wrong that I'd actually be a little upset if the FBI told me that?

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  134. The linked to Wired article says his lawyers R.. by Purpleslog · · Score: 1

    The linked to Wired article says his lawyers are from CAIR (which is a Muslim Brotherhood front in the USA). So...there is some smoke after all.

  135. What about diplomats? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    Since they are tailing a private citizen, the FBI seems encouraged to prosecute someone for destruction of federal gov't property should they destroy said tracking device. Now, there would HAVE to be some sort of law that would support this particular opinion, right? So if the FBI were tailing a * foreigner* of interest, say a diplomat or employee of, are they going to go knocking on their door and charge them with destruction of said similar property? I don't think so. So, is there a different law for citizens and foreigners in this situation or does it just depend on who you are?